Re: [WSG] Site check
Usability - Poor One off the reasons is viewing your web gallery annoyed me. I had to click through 3 pages to view the gallery and each time the flash too a while to load. - There is to much flash on the site that does not need to be there. - Colors are poor I could point out alo of things but everyone else has said what i was going to say. The site really needs to reflect on what it is you do, and if i was a potential client i would not be influenced to purchase your services based on your website. James On Nov 17, 2007 7:35 AM, John Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fear for their welfare. Best, ~dL -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ Me too. Personally I like seeing h1 tags have only text content in them, and to at least have text content in them. Hey, are we in a timewarp? I have an issue that a lot of the content is inaccurate (eg. Ajax isn't a programming language) and lots of the rest is hard to use, or feels unfinished, from the Web button that when clicked, does nothing but float and return, via the 'web gallery wheel of doom' to the Work links' flash of unstyled content (FOUC) which is very avoidable. Kenny, you've got some fairly big issues with the site. I suggest reading a good book, maybe something like 'Designing with Web Standards', or alternatively 'Foucault's Pendulum'. If you want I can guide you through fixing some of the more obvious ones off-list, stuff like the empty (and useless) span/spans in the nav. Although XHTML 1.1 valid, a cursory glance at webxact would show your site fails some of the basic accessibility standards and quality checks. John *** 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] ***
[WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] IE float/background - I am stumped
I am working on some new templates and am having a hard time figuring out what
is going on. I all browsers it works as it should but in IE6 it is not. From
the look sof it, the background image is going over top of the floating divs.
If I take out the background from:
#content {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 20px 0 20px;
position: relative;
background: url(../images/back-content.gif);
}
It will work fine. I have never seen where a background image goes over top of
the text.
Any one have any suggestions on how to fix this?
Thanks
James
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] IE float/background - I am stumped
Sorry I forgot to add the link.
http://joekiosk.com/whs/inside.html
View this in any other browser it works. But look in IE6 and you will see what
I am talking about.
Thanks
James
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Likely, James A.
Sent: Sat 11/17/2007 10:57 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] IE float/background - I am stumped
I am working on some new templates and am having a hard time figuring out what
is going on. I all browsers it works as it should but in IE6 it is not. From
the look sof it, the background image is going over top of the floating divs.
If I take out the background from:
#content {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 20px 0 20px;
position: relative;
background: url(../images/back-content.gif);
}
It will work fine. I have never seen where a background image goes over top of
the text.
Any one have any suggestions on how to fix this?
Thanks
James
***
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] IE float/background - I am stumped
Hi James
I guess removing position:relative for #content will help.
Another option is to set position:relative for your floats. May be you
will need to play a bit with z-index after that.
it would be great if you could upload this code to the internet for us
to see the problem.
hth
On 11/17/07, Likely, James A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working on some new templates and am having a hard time figuring out
what is going on. I all browsers it works as it should but in IE6 it is not.
From the look sof it, the background image is going over top of the floating
divs.
If I take out the background from:
#content {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 20px 0 20px;
position: relative;
background: url(../images/back-content.gif);
}
It will work fine. I have never seen where a background image goes over top
of the text.
Any one have any suggestions on how to fix this?
Thanks
James
***
List Guidelines:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
--
С уважением,
Юрий akella Артюх
http://cssing.org.ua
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
- The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the em element. - Missing title attribute from your anchor's - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or name. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. - Class and ID names are not semantic. id=left would make no sense if you moved it to the right. - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the navigation to the right. I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some natural flow and order. There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. James On Nov 17, 2007 4:03 PM, Rahul Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. *** 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] ***
[WSG] Weird feature in Opera
Thanks for the help regarding JavaScript all...very useful indeed. I have a poser for you, one that my simple monkey brain is finding hard to comprehend. On my site (www.spongeproject.co.uk ) I have a background image set on the body and repeated. IE6, IE7, FF and Safari all behave themselves. Opera displays the image as intended, but also repeats 50px or so of the same image again, about half way up the page. So the question is: is this a school boy mistake I'm making or is there something else going on? Thanks in advance. -- Rob Mason t/a Sponge Project www.spongeproject.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ James Jeffery wrote: - Missing title attribute from your anchor's Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see an issue here. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. Why not? Who says he *should* use HTML? Sounds a bit blindly dogmatic to me here... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Weird feature in Opera
Rob Mason wrote: (www.spongeproject.co.uk ) Opera displays the image as intended, but also repeats 50px or so of the same image again, about half way up the page. I have no idea what's going on. On a local copy I gave the image a roundtrip through photoshop without making /any/ changes to it, and then saved it again, and it worked just fine in Opera. Maybe the image itself was corrupted in some way, and Opera solved the problem in its own - not so pleasant - way. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
James Jeffery wrote: - The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the em element. - Missing title attribute from your anchor's - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or name. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. - Class and ID names are not semantic. id=left would make no sense if you moved it to the right. - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the navigation to the right. I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some natural flow and order. There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. James On Nov 17, 2007 4:03 PM, Rahul Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. *** 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] *** The following statement was from above I only partially agree with. Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. While there is no real reason to use XHTML if you are not using any XML related code . If you do a little research on HTML you would see that the W3C has only within the past year or so announced they were even going to consider extending HTML beyond 4.01. Even so HTML 5 will not be a standard for several years based on the speed of the W3C in the past. XHTML is here now to stay and offers a far greater amount of expandability in the future towards web applications then HTML can ever consider comparing to especially with all the WEB 2.0 hype out here. That announcement was only after Microsoft blatantly stated the Internet Explorer Browser would never support the mime type of application-xml and therefore would only interpret XHTML pages as a text/html. It was at that time also that the W3C appointed the head engineer to the committee to expand on HTML in the first place. I may not post as often as some or even have the knowledge of many of the members on this list however, I believe if Microsoft would have stood behind XHTML with their browsers like Firefox and Safari did HTML would certainly have been a dying markup language. It would be nice if the standards were all equally supported among the browsers but they are not. It would also be nice if there was a way to force web standards compliance on every website on the web old or new but that will never happen. The best society can hope for is if businesses get educated and require it of their web designers and programmers it may one day become an actual standard. I do not think that will happen in my lifetime personally but we can all dream I guess. As it stands now there seems to be too many people out there that think the standards are not nearly as important as if a website looks pretty to the eye. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Kevin Lennon n:Lennon;Kevin org:Lake Area Webs adr:;;227 Fire Tower Road;Milford;PA;18337;United States of America email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Web Design Developer tel;home:570-296-3865
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see an issue here. The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly and accurately describe a link and for a website thats based around accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. He has an abbreviation in his link: 'FAQ' which should be wrapped in abbr/abbr and he should use the title attribute here to add more clarity. Just because we can understand it perfectly dont assume everyone can. Why not? Who says he *should* use HTML? Sounds a bit blindly dogmatic to me here... XHTML was going to become a replacement for HTML which is the reason why everyone jumped on the XHTML wagon. Its a misconception that XHTML has greater benefits then HTML, apart from the fact it forces the developer to follow strict XML syntax rules. Any good developer can use HTML correctly. The way i see it is if you have no use for XHTML and your only using it because you 'believe' its better then there is no need to use it. Each to there own i guess but when i see a developer using HTML and the markup is perfect i will give him credit. When i see someone misusing elements in an XHTML document; they get no credit. James On Nov 17, 2007 9:18 PM, Kevin Lennon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Jeffery wrote: - The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the em element. - Missing title attribute from your anchor's - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or name. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. - Class and ID names are not semantic. id=left would make no sense if you moved it to the right. - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the navigation to the right. I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some natural flow and order. There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. James On Nov 17, 2007 4:03 PM, Rahul Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. Apologies to members of css-discuss, who will receive this email twice. *** 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] *** The following statement was from above I only partially agree with. Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. While there is no real reason to use XHTML if you are not using any XML related code . If you do a little research on HTML you would see that the W3C has only within the past year or so announced they were even going to consider extending HTML beyond 4.01. Even so HTML 5 will not be a standard for several years based on the speed of the W3C in the past. XHTML is here now to stay and offers a far greater amount of expandability in the future towards web applications then HTML can ever consider comparing to especially with all the WEB 2.0 hype out here. That announcement was only after Microsoft blatantly stated the Internet Explorer Browser would never support the mime type of application-xml and therefore would only interpret XHTML pages as a text/html. It was at that time also that the W3C appointed the head engineer to the committee to expand on HTML in the first place. I may not post as often as some or even have the knowledge of many of the members on this list however, I
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
James Jeffery wrote: Not every anchor needs extra advisory information, so I don't see an issue here. The title attribute is optional, but a title can help to clearly and accurately describe a link and for a website thats based around accessibility he should be using the title attribute where needed. But his links don't need it in this case. He has an abbreviation in his link: 'FAQ' which should be wrapped in abbr/abbr and he should use the title attribute here to add more clarity. Just because we can understand it perfectly dont assume everyone can. Adding an ABBR is different from saying missing title attribute on anchors. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
On 18-Nov-07, at 1:18 AM, James Jeffery wrote: - The first thing that struck me was the blatent missues of the em element. grinI like misusing me some ems! Seriously, though, yes. I am using a technique that I saw on Stu Nicholls site, CSS Play [1], which uses ems. Using a div, or a span tag seems to not work as well -- would another element work? - Missing title attribute from your anchor's I definitely will add in titles for some of the links. I suppose things like 'Contact' are self-explanatory, while others, like FAQ do require further elaboration. - No indication as to who or what your site is about. At least a logo or name. Hmmm. I suppose I could be more explicit about this. - Why use XHTML? If you are not using anything XML related you should be using HTML. HTML is not dead and just because you use XHTML it does not mean your site is making good use of Web Standards. If this was do they would not be working towards HTML5. It is not so much a case of preferring one over the other, but of using the one that seemed more logical. This article [1], while old, seems to have most of my reasons. However, I have barely read anything on this issue, so I would welcome a clarification. - Class and ID names are not semantic. id=left would make no sense if you moved it to the right. While in a multi-author, frequently updated site, semantic class names are useful, on a small site such as mine, I think that they are not really a case for concern. - Why do you have your text blocks all over the place? I think they would look better if they were all left aligned and keep the navigation to the right. Definitely a point that I will consider. I'm playing around with the site, having a little fun. I thought that it looked nicer, but I will definitely try a strictly left-aligned version. I like the idea, the font goes well with the simplisit design. Try making the navigation stand out a bit more and give the page some natural flow and order. I will definitely work on this some more. There is probably more issues but i only had a quick glance. James Thanks a lot, for taking the time to look through the site, Regards, - Rahul. [1] http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/oct2003/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
On 18-Nov-07, at 5:06 AM, James Jeffery wrote: He has an abbreviation in his link: 'FAQ' which should be wrapped in abbr/abbr and he should use the title attribute here to add more clarity. Thanks for catching this one James. I did forget to add an abbreviation for this. I have updated the page. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
Ah shoot, mixed up my footnotes. I need some tea. Apologies to all for increasing your inbox count. The Ragged Float technique used by Stu Nicholls on CSS Play is located here: http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/flow.html The WSG article on using xHTML versus using HTML is located here: http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/oct2003/ Sorry! - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] AccessResearch // Page Check
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: Hi, http://rahulgonsalves.com/research/site/ I'm throwing together a quick site to try and fund my travel to an accessibility conference. I haven't had too much time to check it, or think it through, but I would appreciate a page check, and general suggestions/comments. Also, I don't have access to Internet Explorer; does it behave /reasonably well/ in that browser? This is the first semi-fluid width site that I'm working on, so a criticism of the methods that I have used will be very useful. I would also appreciate a link to a good max-width emulator for the various IE-editions that don't support it. Many thanks, - Rahul. You always do good work. And there is the opportunity, with this site, to take a passive rather than aggressive stance. Either way, I wish you well... Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well. --Mahatma Gandhi Best, ~dL -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
