Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size

[kevin mcmonagle]

Paul Novitski wrote:

>>Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience...
>>800x600:  2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen 
resolution (window width not >>mentioned). ...


These visitors probably wouldnt notice the difference between an 800 and 
1000 wide layout.
In school the teacher has to teach for the dumbest kids in the class and 
that ruins it for everyone else.


-kevin mcmonagle





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size

[Paul Novitski]

Earlier I was suggesting that, instead of stats telling us who to 
target, they really tell us who to exclude.


A fellow poster wrote:

my blog 800x600 accounts for less than 2.5% of the traffic


That poster appeared to be advocating for leniency, but let's take 
this example of screen resolution stats and turn them around.  Let's 
say his stats apply to your website audience as well.


800x600:  2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen 
resolution (window width not mentioned).


Let's say you design your site to look good at 1024 but crappy at 800.

Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience.

Is this what you want?  Ask yourself not how many people you want to 
have a good experience on your site but rather how many people you 
want to have a crappy experience.


What's your expected site traffic?

100 visitors a day?  So two to three people every day will have a 
crappy experience on your site.


1,000 visitors a day?  About 25 people every day will have a crappy 
experience on your site.


10,000 visitors a day?  About 250 people every day will have a crappy 
experience on your site.


Why would anyone want this?

Why do web designers even think this way?

For the most part, I think, they don't.  They read the stats the 
other way around: they think, oh, great!  97.5% of my users will have 
a good experience!  And they stop thinking there.  Instead of trying 
to solve the problem they're relieved that the problem can be 
expressed as such a small number.


Instead of thinking, "How can I make this work for everyone?" they're 
thinking, "Can I make this work for most?"  "What's the cost of 
expediency?"  "Can I afford to piss off a few people in order satisfy a lot?"


So they don't actually perform the thought-experiments that lead to 
innovation and new design.


This, I believe, is where you come in.

Regards,

Paul
__

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size

[Brian Cummiskey]

There was a huge topic on digg about this (that i started :D ) after 
yahoo released their new interface.  Lot's of interesting comments in 
that thread.


http://digg.com/programming/Is_it_Time_to_Abandon_800x600_

link to blog post (as it has changed since the digg):
http://www.skeymedia.com/programming/xhtml-and-css/is-it-time-to-abandon-800x600/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size

[Nick Cowie]

If you look around the web today you will see the general consensus is
1024x768px.

However, I would have a look at you stats to see what is the most
appropriate for your site. For example my blog 800x600 accounts for less
than 2.5% of the traffic, for my work site it is over 17%. If I was
redesigning my work site it would be a 800x600 baseline.

You also need to make sure the site is usable in mobile browsers. Surveys
shows over 10% of mobile phone users have browsed web site on their phone.


--
Nick Cowie
http://nickcowie.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size

[Paul Novitski]

At 5/31/2007 08:31 PM, Tim Offenstein wrote:
Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a 
baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?



Ideally, I believe the baseline should be no assumption of screen 
size.  Look at the spectrum of user agents: screen readers, Braille 
readers, handhelds, PCs, Macs, etc.  Which populations of users will 
you choose to deny access to your sites?  Design your sites so that 
they can be read on any of these devices and you'll be at the top of 
your field.


Sure, read the stats, but don't misinterpret them.  They won't really 
show you who to target.  All they'll show you is how many people you 
can exclude by building fancy stairs and no ramps.


Even if you could predict the screen size of a visual user agent, you 
still wouldn't know how large the user will size their browser 
window.  Window size is more significant than screen resolution.  A 
lot of PC users (including myself) maximize their windows by default, 
but that's by no means universal.  For some interesting stats analysis see:


Actual Browser Sizes by Thomas Baekdal
http://baekdal.com/reports/Actual-Browser-Sizes/

Even if you could predict screen size and window width, you still 
wouldn't know how large the user has sized their text.  How easy is 
it to enlarge text so that it spills out of your column widths, 
overlaps with other text or disappears off-screen, and becomes unreadable?


With ingenuity you can design a page that works well with a wide 
variety of window widths and text sizes.  Consider sizing page width 
in ems and max-width at 100% to let the page expand up to but not 
exceeding window width.  Consider floating columns side-by-side so 
that they stack vertically when the window is too narrow for a 
multi-column layout.


There's much, much more, but that's a start.  I strongly recommend 
you join the CSS-D listserve and read their wiki:

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/

Regards,

Paul
__

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size

[Lea de Groot]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote:
> Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline 
> when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?

I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation 
doesn't actually break at 800x, although I ignore it being a little 
crowded (I usually also check 600x, but I only fix really bad breakage)

warmly,
Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems
Brisbane, Australia


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Jermayn Parker]

Ok, I cannot find all of them but hear are a few just we just deal or
have dealt with:

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/index.cfm 
http://wa.gov.au 
http://www.nrma.com.au (splash screen)
http://www.maa.nsw.gov.au 

I am sure there woul dbe more as well



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:51:20 am >>>
Hi Jermayn,

Can you send me those examples and I may be able to make the case here
:)

Cheers,

Craig 


-
Craig Thomler
Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services
External Relations | Child Support Agency
P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898
W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Jermayn Parker
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:46
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
Subject: RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few
others which they used as examples...



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am >>>
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites)
as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.

Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website
traffic.

If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether
you still need to cater for 800x600.

Cheers,

Craig

-
Craig Thomler
Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services
External
Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W
csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size

Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?

Thanks in advance.

-Tim
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
  Tim Offenstein  ***  College of Applied Health Sciences  ***
(217) 244-2700
CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist  ***
www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***



**
IMPORTANT

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient
only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material.
Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended
recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you
have
received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer
of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all
copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***



**

The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound
transmission. 


**




The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 


*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
**

RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Thomler, Craig]

Hi Jermayn,

Can you send me those examples and I may be able to make the case here
:)

Cheers,

Craig 


-
Craig Thomler
Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services
External Relations | Child Support Agency
P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898
W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jermayn Parker
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:46
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few
others which they used as examples...



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am >>>
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.

Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website
traffic.

If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether
you still need to cater for 800x600.

Cheers,

Craig

-
Craig Thomler
Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External
Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W
csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size

Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?

Thanks in advance.

-Tim
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
  Tim Offenstein  ***  College of Applied Health Sciences  ***
(217) 244-2700
CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist  ***
www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***



**
IMPORTANT

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient
only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material.
Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended
recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have
received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer
of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all
copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***



**

The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound
transmission. 


**




The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 


*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size

[Cem Meric]

1024x768 would be my choice.



 
--
Cem Meric | http://www.kalkadoon.net/
Kalkadoon Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Offenstein
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 1:31 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size

Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline 
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?

Thanks in advance.

-Tim
-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
  Tim Offenstein  ***  College of Applied Health Sciences  *** 
(217) 244-2700
CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist  *** 
www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Jermayn Parker]

Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few
others which they used as examples...



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am >>>
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites)
as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.

Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website
traffic.

If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether
you still need to cater for 800x600.

Cheers,

Craig

-
Craig Thomler
Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services
External Relations | Child Support Agency
P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898
W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size

Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?

Thanks in advance.

-Tim
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
  Tim Offenstein  ***  College of Applied Health Sciences  ***
(217) 244-2700
CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist  ***
www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***


**
IMPORTANT

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient
only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material.
Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended
recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have
received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer
of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all
copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***


**

The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound
transmission. 

**



The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Thomler, Craig]

I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.

Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website
traffic.

If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether
you still need to cater for 800x600.

Cheers,

Craig

-
Craig Thomler
Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services
External Relations | Child Support Agency
P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898
W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size

Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?

Thanks in advance.

-Tim
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
  Tim Offenstein  ***  College of Applied Health Sciences  ***
(217) 244-2700
CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist  ***
www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


**
IMPORTANT

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and 
may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any unauthorised 
use of this information by other than the intended recipient is prohibited and 
may result in severe penalties. If you have received this email in error please 
notify the Privacy Contact Officer of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 
6272 8346 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any 
attachments.
*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Recommended screen size

[Tim Offenstein]

Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline 
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?


Thanks in advance.

-Tim
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
 Tim Offenstein  ***  College of Applied Health Sciences  *** 
(217) 244-2700
   CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist  *** 
www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Organising Infinity: A Web Content Management symposium, Brisbane - Saturday June 2, 2007

[Matt Bailey]

Hello All,
 
Posting the following on behalf of Sylvia Edwards, Assistant Dean Teaching &
Learning, Faculty of Information Technology here at Queensland University of
Technology. A number of the papers, posters and presentations being shown at
the symposium discuss accessibility, usability and web standards within the
context of Web Content Management at universities and other large
organisations.
 
Apologies for late notice, but for those in Brisbane (or who might be in
Brisbane on Saturday!) if you're interested, would be great to see you
there.
 
Best Regards,
Matt
 
 
QUT is hosting the 2nd annual web content symposium Organising Infinity: Web
Content Management into the Future on Saturday June 2nd, 2007. The symposium
is to be held at the QUT's Gardens Point Campus in the Owen J Wordsworth
room. The Keynote speakers for this years event include John Allsopp, a
world renowned software developer in the area of content management, and
Susan Rigney, the Manager of the Queensland Archives Digital Government
Unit. John is well known as an educator and presenter in the area of content
management having had 15 years of experience in working with and developing
for the web and also created the term Web 2.0. is the second Keynote
Speaker. Sue will present on digital preservation challenges in the 21st
century.

The symposium brings together current ideas in the area on information
management and enables networking opportunities with professionals in the
field of web content management. 

The Organising Infinity website can be found at www.infinity.fit.qut.edu.au
  which gives program details and
starting times. Please note: Registrations are still open and can be taken
at the door on the day of the event.

For further information please contact Sylvia Edwards on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or (+61 7) 3138 2759. 

 
=
Matthew Bailey
Web Systems Developer
QUT Web Team
ITS Client Quality Services
Phone: (07) 3138 9307 (x89307)
 
http://www.its.qut.edu.au/webteam/ 
CRICOS No: 00213J 
=
 
 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Mobiles and standards

[Dejan Kozina]

You may find a lot of real-world info here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/

It might not be to everyone's taste, as the group is often critical of 
the W3C and its mobile efforts, perceived as choosing  theoretical 
constructs over what real handsets are out there in the wild...


Katrina wrote:
W3C standards (HTML4 or XHTML 1.0) or other (XHTML-Basic, XHTML-MP, WML, 
HDML) ?
HTML4 and XHTML1.0 are safe only for the newest handsets with enough 
power to run Safari or Opera. XHTML-Basic is a W3C standard few use - 
see next. XHTML-MP is XHTML-Basic with some extension coming from the 
browser makers (Netscape extensions anyone :-)?) and is the de facto 
"safe" standard for new handsets. HDML has died a quiet death sometime 
in the previous century; don't bother. WML is the fallback standard 
every handset (bar those based on i-mode) more or less supports if 
nothing else works, and the only one you can rely on for scripting 
support (via WMLScript). I-mode handsets require CHTML, which is a 
heavily tweaked son of HTML 3.2 and is supposed to converge toward 
XHTML-MP (nobody seems much in a hurry, anyway).


Can mobile devices process CSS 2.1 or less when served as 
media="handheld"? 
You just can't rely on it. Some do, some do not and some make a mess of 
it. Mobile IE has a longstanding tradition of applying both the screen 
stylesheets and the handheld ones.


Do mobile devices that handle XHTML need a particular mime type (eg. 
text/html, text/xml, application/xhtml + xml, application/xml ?

This comes straight from the Wireless FAQ (http://www.thewirelessfaq.com/):
Plain WML documents text/vnd.wap.wml.wml
Wireless Bitmap Images  image/vnd.wap.wbmp  .wbmp
Compiled WML documents  application/vnd.wap.wmlc.wmlc
WMLScripts  text/vnd.wap.wmlscript  .wmls
Compiled WML Scriptsapplication/vnd.wap.wmlscriptc  .wmlsc
XHTML Basic application/xhtml+xml   .xhtml
XHTML-MPapplication/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml   .xhtml
and yes, mobile browser can be picky about it.

NB. I am very tempted to side with the W3C XHTML 1.0 Strict and serve 
that up to everybody regardless of type of device (although admitting to 
device dependence within the CSS using mediatypes). But, in so doing, do 
I then snub a large percentage of mobile devices?
Yes, definitely. You'd be leaving out: 1. old handsets; 2. cheap and 
less powerful handsets without the steam to run a desktop-derived 
browser; 3. Nokia users who choose wrong between a heavy 'proper' 
browser and the lighter 'WML' one (some handsets have more than one 
browser)...



If mime type is important for mobile devices and it is different from 
text/html, does content negotiation assist in solving this problem?
WURFL has been around for some time now (http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ 
and http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/faq.php)


For a starter I'd suggest you take a look at this: 
http://www.passani.it/gap/

Least I can say, it's well written (W3C, take note)...

djn

--
-
Dejan Kozina
Dolina 346 (TS) - I-34018 Italy
tel./fax: +39 040 228 436 - cell.: +39 348 7355 225 skype: dejankozina
http://www.kozina.com/  - e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] safari hack for overflow-x/y

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On May 31, 2007, at 10:04 PM, kevin mcmonagle wrote:


So i want safari to see
#wrapper
{overflow:auto;}

And I want all other browsers to see
#wrapper
{overflow-y:auto;}

Safari hacks seem to be semi-permanent because when they are found  
they are fixed in the lastest version or build of webkit  and  the  
new version of safari is coming out soon.


#wrapper {
	overflow:auto; /* for Safari, older versions of Firefox, Opera,  
other browsers that don'ts support the css 3 syntax */
	overflow-y:auto; /* Firefox 2.0+, IE 5.5+, Safari 3.0-Webkit- 
Konqueror4.0 */

overflow-x:hidden; /* depending on your set up...*/
}

You need to keep them in that order, what comes later in ruleblock  
overrides what comes earlier.


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] safari hack for overflow-x/y

[kevin mcmonagle]

Terrence Wood wrote:


I'm curious as to why you need a hack for safari as it's a reasonably 
compliant browser. What are you trying to work around?


Hi Terrence,
In this case its to compliant for my design-which the client has all 
ready approved. I didn't foresee this issue and cant change the layout now.


The problem is that overflow-x/y is not supported by safari.
I think this is because its not in the css2 spec, however it works in
most versions of ie and firefox and is in css3. 


So i want safari to see
#wrapper
{overflow:auto;}

And I want all other browsers to see
#wrapper
{overflow-y:auto;}

Safari hacks seem to be semi-permanent because when they are found they 
are fixed in the lastest version or build of webkit  and  the new 
version of safari is coming out soon.


Im not sure how to handle this

-kevin









***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] dl v table for form layout

[Blake]

Keep it up and you'll get your page size back up to nested table
levels ;-)


I was expecting a response like that. As I said, it is over the top,
but it is an idea of how far things can go if you try too hard to
pursue semantics. Sometimes the goal post is a little too far away,
and we can only get close.

--
Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] dl v table for form layout

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 31 May 2007, at 05:28:57, Blake wrote:


In a way I could almost take Katrina's thinking a little further wrap
each fieldset in an  tag as part of an unordered list of
fieldsets, and insert an additional fieldset into each exisiting li.
Like so...


Keep it up and you'll get your page size back up to nested table  
levels ;-)


Cheers,

Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] safari hack for overflow-x/y

[Terrence Wood]

On 31/05/2007, at 8:49 AM, kevin mcmonagle wrote:
Are there any safari hacks that validate and will be somewhat  
permanent?


I'm curious as to why you need a hack for safari as it's a reasonably  
compliant browser. What are you trying to work around?



kind regards
Terrence Wood.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Mobiles and standards

[Nick Cowie]

Hi Katrina

I have not done enough research on this, but:

If I creating a site that I expected mobile browsers to visit (ie every site
I create from now) I would use XHTML 1.0 transitional DTD, mime type of
text/html and restrict my XHTML to the XHTML-MP subset and my CSS to the
WCSS subset

If I was building a mobile only site (and I have not done that yet), I would
have to be  convinced  of the advantages of moving to a XHTML-MP dtd and
associated mime type. In other words XHTML 1.0 transitional works with most
browsers, computer or mobile based.

I have done no research of redirecting mobile users to a different URL,
.Apparently the WP-PDA plugin http://imthi.com/wp-pda  does this and works
with the major mobile browsers, so time to play with it.


Nick




--
Nick Cowie
http://nickcowie.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Mobiles and standards

[Stuart Foulstone]

Hi,

You may find the following dotmobi tools helpful:

Free online mobile-readiness report,
http://ready.mobi/launch.jsp?locale=en_EN

Free online mobile emulator,
http://emulator.mtld.mobi/emulator.php

The W3C tests that these are based on is here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/

On Thu, May 31, 2007 6:50 am, Katrina wrote:
>
> Gday,
>
> What mark-up is best used for mobile devices? And why?
>
> W3C standards (HTML4 or XHTML 1.0) or other (XHTML-Basic, XHTML-MP, WML,
> HDML) ?
>
> Do the 'other' count as standards?
>
> Can mobile devices process CSS 2.1 or less when served as
> media="handheld"? (I am coming across some references to a specialised
> CSS for mobiles, which suggest that they can't process standard CSS).
>
> Do mobile devices that handle XHTML need a particular mime type (eg.
> text/html, text/xml, application/xhtml + xml, application/xml ?
>
> NB. I am very tempted to side with the W3C XHTML 1.0 Strict and serve
> that up to everybody regardless of type of device (although admitting to
> device dependence within the CSS using mediatypes). But, in so doing, do
> I then snub a large percentage of mobile devices?
>
> If mime type is important for mobile devices and it is different from
> text/html, does content negotiation assist in solving this problem?
>
> Any or all answers are appreciated :)
>
> Thanks,
> Kat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
Stuart Foulstone.
http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk
BigEasy Web Design
69 Flockton Court
Rockingham Street
Sheffield
S1 4EB

Tel. 07751 413451


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Mobiles and standards

[Katrina]

Nick Cowie wrote:

Katrina

I would serve XHTML and stick to XHTML-Basic or XHTML-MP subset of 
features.


Gday Nick,

Thank you for your response :


Which accompanying mime type would you choose for XHTML-Basic?

text/xml

application/xhtml + xml

application/xml


Note: XHTML-MP has it's own mime-type
application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml

If you pick XHTML-MP and its associated mime type, then it would be a 
special mobile site, and wouldn't you also need to use content 
negotiation to ensure user-agents that couldn't handle that mime type be 
redirected?



Because not all elements are available in XHTML-Basic or XHTML-MP for
example button. So if you build a form use input type="submit" not button
type="submit" otherwise most mobile users will not be able to submit the
form. And only use the WCSS (Wireless CSS) standards you should get most
modern phones.


Would it be smart to make your whole site like this anyway, so you serve 
the same content to everyone?


If not, how would you then determine whether or not incoming traffic was 
mobile and thus to be redirected to a subdomain that served up required 
content?


Kat


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***