Re: [WSG] valid video in (x)html?
My experience tells that Videos and anmimated things should be made in Flash as streaming is the melody to make this the best way. http://www.vivrecotesud.fr/ script type=text/javascript var so = new SWFObject(swf/visit.swf, objflash, 352, 242, 6, #3f); /script Ohh i didnt introduce myself... Im Michael and im a web designer since 1996, trying to learn the best way to do different things and I am very comfortable with handcoding my strict XHTML and CSS fom some years now. I also do SEO (search engine optimization) both for static, dynamic and Full Flash websites with great success... The best Michael Marghanita da Cruz wrote: Designer wrote: I have had a request from a client to include a video on a website. I know nothing about this, except for a simple embedding from youtube. Sadly, the page doesn't validate if I do that. You might also like to check out what is happening with Video in HTML5 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#video Has anyone any experience of producing a standard (accessible?) video into a web page? I've googled, but not found anything useful. I've done it with Flash by using Bert Stern's method: object data=sitegraphics/creditsv2.swf width=566 height=389 type=application/x-shockwave-flash param name=movie value=sitegraphics/creditsv2.swf / param name=quality value=high / param name=bgcolor value=#fff / a href=http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0; img src=sitegraphics/credits.jpg alt=Credits graphic, for those without flash / /a /object But video seems to be more problematic? I'd be really grateful for any help here. Many thanks, Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Michael Persson front-end developer seo *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
Joseph Taylor wrote: Great information and clarification everyone. If anyone hasn't taken an underlying message away from the conversation so far, it is to use HTML 4.01 Strict for you web documents when possible... I wonder where you're getting that message from, to be honest... 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/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare
Hi Thom, finally someone who addressed my original question ;-) We'd tested a few sites, build over the last 18...24 months, and I'm not sure about how much IE-only styles there are. I guess the doctype is mainly XHTML Transitional if at all. I hope once IE8 is out of beta we'll have more joy... Cheers, Jens -Original Message- My own experience was that IE8 was rendering surprisingly well. I use conditional comments to fix IE issues, however they where targeting IE lte 7 so IE8 wasn't getting any fixes. But it didn't need to. That's with strict XHTML doctype. Haven't tried any other. -Thom The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Quirks mode is the best mode for the old bugger known as IE6, IMO, Care to clarify why, exactly? I listed a few reasons down this page some time ago... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_16.html ...and nothing seems to have changed since then. 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] IE8 beta's a nightmare
Jens-Uwe Korff wrote: Did anyone do some more testing with IE8? Yes, and I've concluded here... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_32.html Do we know any better release date than mid year? The later the better, as the IE-team got plenty left to fix if they want IE8 to end up as a serious replacement for earlier versions. 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] IE8 beta's a nightmare
If there isn't any doctype you won't have to worry. IE8 will use the old render engines for that. -- From: Jens-Uwe Korff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:07 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] IE8 beta's a nightmare Hi Thom, finally someone who addressed my original question ;-) We'd tested a few sites, build over the last 18...24 months, and I'm not sure about how much IE-only styles there are. I guess the doctype is mainly XHTML Transitional if at all. I hope once IE8 is out of beta we'll have more joy... Cheers, Jens -Original Message- My own experience was that IE8 was rendering surprisingly well. I use conditional comments to fix IE issues, however they where targeting IE lte 7 so IE8 wasn't getting any fixes. But it didn't need to. That's with strict XHTML doctype. Haven't tried any other. -Thom The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** 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] valid video in (x)html?
And if JavaScript is turned off? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:37 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] valid video in (x)html? My experience tells that Videos and anmimated things should be made in Flash as streaming is the melody to make this the best way. http://www.vivrecotesud.fr/ script type=text/javascript var so = new SWFObject(swf/visit.swf, objflash, 352, 242, 6, #3f); /script Ohh i didnt introduce myself... Im Michael and im a web designer since 1996, trying to learn the best way to do different things and I am very comfortable with handcoding my strict XHTML and CSS fom some years now. I also do SEO (search engine optimization) both for static, dynamic and Full Flash websites with great success... The best Michael *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] valid video in (x)html?
Dear Michael, Im not ure about the solution with no JavaScript but i consider that alistapart.com or 456bereastreet has clear some solutions. I read about some Satay solution but im not sure that was related to this question.. I believe flash need to be published with javascript as it is also creating a SEO solutions which is very important when one has a full flash webite for example... Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And if JavaScript is turned off? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:37 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] valid video in (x)html? My experience tells that Videos and anmimated things should be made in Flash as streaming is the melody to make this the best way. http://www.vivrecotesud.fr/ script type=text/javascript var so = new SWFObject(swf/visit.swf, objflash, 352, 242, 6, #3f); /script Ohh i didnt introduce myself... Im Michael and im a web designer since 1996, trying to learn the best way to do different things and I am very comfortable with handcoding my strict XHTML and CSS fom some years now. I also do SEO (search engine optimization) both for static, dynamic and Full Flash websites with great success... The best Michael *** 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] Website Accessability Tools
I use the firefox plug in, only one i have used, just run it on the page you want testing. James Gordon On 30 Apr 2008, at 11:10, Gaspar wrote: Hello, iam looking for a software to check accessibility but in pages were it needs to be logon. Thanks, Gaspar 2008/4/17 dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED]: marvin, here are some tools i use for accessibility and link checking. http://www.tawdis.net -- there is an offline accessibility checker here http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,6974-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html -- online and offline link checker xenu sleuth http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/adesigner/download -- offline or online accessibility checker i have seen an offline html validator, but i can't remember where it is. hth, dwain On 4/16/08, Marvin Hunkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. does any one know of any good accessible off line software accessability tools, for checking broken links, that the right colour is for the element on the page, like on my site, for the headings, you have a red colour,a nd a good offline vallidator, if not connected to the internet. if any one can help, let me know and e-mail me privately off list. cheers marvin. -- Check out my home page at http://startrekcafe.stevesdomain.net/ Check out my Jaws Australia Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/JawsOz/ -- Check out my home page at http://startrekcafe.stevesdomain.net/ Check out my Jaws Australia Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/JawsOz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- dwain alford The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com *** 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] Website Accessability Tools
Hello, iam looking for a software to check accessibility but in pages were it needs to be logon. Thanks, Gaspar 2008/4/17 dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED]: marvin, here are some tools i use for accessibility and link checking. http://www.tawdis.net -- there is an offline accessibility checker here http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,6974-order,1-page,1-c,alldownloads/description.html -- online and offline link checker xenu sleuth http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/adesigner/download -- offline or online accessibility checker i have seen an offline html validator, but i can't remember where it is. hth, dwain On 4/16/08, Marvin Hunkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. does any one know of any good accessible off line software accessability tools, for checking broken links, that the right colour is for the element on the page, like on my site, for the headings, you have a red colour,a nd a good offline vallidator, if not connected to the internet. if any one can help, let me know and e-mail me privately off list. cheers marvin. -- Check out my home page at http://startrekcafe.stevesdomain.net/ Check out my Jaws Australia Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/JawsOz/ -- Check out my home page at http://startrekcafe.stevesdomain.net/ Check out my Jaws Australia Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/JawsOz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- dwain alford The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] YouTube API
Morning all, Not really used the API much, but im digging into it. I was thinking, would it be worth setting up a .php library (and maybe a .js), object-orientated obviously. For example, someone wanting to get a list of video's from a users account can do something like: $yt-usr-list = new userUploads(VIDEO_ID); $yt-usr-list-getList(25, DESC); Which would list a list of 25 videos, with names and links in descending order. I'm open to comments on this. I feel it could benefit developers and nobody has yet done it. The library could also include functions that are not included in the YouTube API, which would require alot of hard work! I have set up the blog, so if anyone wants to post a comment off-list, get involved or check on planning development: www.ytphplib.blogspot.com . Throw em' at me. (something like this may already exists, i couldn't find anything) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] YouTube API
VIDEO_ID should be USER_ID My bad ... just woke up with my little idea :P On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM, James Jeffery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Morning all, Not really used the API much, but im digging into it. I was thinking, would it be worth setting up a .php library (and maybe a .js), object-orientated obviously. For example, someone wanting to get a list of video's from a users account can do something like: $yt-usr-list = new userUploads(VIDEO_ID); $yt-usr-list-getList(25, DESC); Which would list a list of 25 videos, with names and links in descending order. I'm open to comments on this. I feel it could benefit developers and nobody has yet done it. The library could also include functions that are not included in the YouTube API, which would require alot of hard work! I have set up the blog, so if anyone wants to post a comment off-list, get involved or check on planning development: www.ytphplib.blogspot.com . Throw em' at me. (something like this may already exists, i couldn't find anything) *** 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] JS Image Slider
Yeah i understand that, i agree totally. One member said create a scrolling block with CSS for users that have JS disabled. I said that wouldn't be ideal. I only want to serve up large quanitites of images to users that have JS enabled. If i server up large quantities when JS isn't enabled then that means users who also have CSS disabled would get a large list of images. Could cause problems. I would rather serve up 3 images in the block and use JS (and DOM) to add more images and provide the scroll feature. If JS is disabled, only 3 'recent upload' images get displayed. But saying that there could be the case when a user has JS enabled and not CSS, which would still display the long list of images. On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Joseph Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An example? Text-only browsers. No visual styles! However, a list of images is exactly what you're serving to the visitor, right? Ugly, yes. Semantically correct? Quite. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that plenty of text-only users frequently encounter lists of images and wouldn't be thrown off by it. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Freedman wrote: James Jeffery provided the following information on 30/04/2008 12:27 AM: that will mean that users without CSS will get a bunch of images in a list You have users that block CSS?? I have never come across that. Can you give an instance as to where and why you would cater for these visitors? Thanks. Andrew *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider
On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:17 AM, James Jeffery wrote: could be the case when a user has JS enabled and not CSS I'm having a hard time picturing the circumstances that would prompt a user to choose this option - surely, if such a case does indeed exist, it must rare as ... (pick your cliche). Maximising accessibility is a worthy goal, but surely there comes a point where the benefit to one audience segment is outweighed by the harm to another segment when a feature is disabled. If I were you I wouldn't let your concern for this case hold you back from what looks to me like a very elegant solution - one that I'm fairly sure I'm going to find myself imitating sooner than later, so thanks in advance! Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One argument against the use of transitional doctypes is that they're now more than eight years old which makes them about half as old as the Web itself. Do you want to base your site on what was status quo half a Web lifetime ago? Uh, aren't the transitional doctypes pretty much, er, well, exactly, as old as their corresponding strict doctypes? :-) True enough! I said that was a potential argument; I didn't say it was a *good* argument. =) In all seriousness, it sounds like the OP's boss is unconvinced by rational arguments, so why not try some irrational ones? -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JS Image Slider
Hi Andrew Dont worry im not considering those rare users :P On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:17 AM, James Jeffery wrote: could be the case when a user has JS enabled and not CSS I'm having a hard time picturing the circumstances that would prompt a user to choose this option - surely, if such a case does indeed exist, it must rare as ... (pick your cliche). Maximising accessibility is a worthy goal, but surely there comes a point where the benefit to one audience segment is outweighed by the harm to another segment when a feature is disabled. If I were you I wouldn't let your concern for this case hold you back from what looks to me like a very elegant solution - one that I'm fairly sure I'm going to find myself imitating sooner than later, so thanks in advance! Andrew *** 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] transitional vs. strict
Patrick, To clarify the below statement: It's really aimed at people who are newer to this stuff and who may be confused/ignorant about doctypes and/or just using whatever doctype Dreamweaver defaults to or whatever, after reading through both Thierry and Russ's example links and thinking about everyone on this list who may be using XHTML served as text/html simply because its newer combined with my own learning over the years and my statement is based on: Lowest common denominator - HTML MimeType issues (IE and application-xml) Both of these points can be dug into further and turned into another HTML vs XHTML conversationbut lets not. So to re-state my previous statement in its new publicized version: If you're new to doctypes and want to play it safe, or are learning css etc, stick with HTML 4.01 Strict while the work is completed on (X)HTML5. Sure, you can use XHTML as it exists in any of its flavors if you wish, but if you aren't aware of little issues involvedwhy? Please, again I'm not trying to start another HTML vs. XHTML thread I swear. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Joseph Taylor wrote: Great information and clarification everyone. If anyone hasn't taken an underlying message away from the conversation so far, it is to use HTML 4.01 Strict for you web documents when possible... I wonder where you're getting that message from, to be honest... P *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:886-301-8045 tel;home:609-886-9660 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote: stick with HTML 4.01 Strict while the work is completed on (X)HTML5 IMHO (and given the depth and breadth of the replies to my original post I'm feeling very humble right now, as well as extremely grateful to you all) - I do think that given the current state of the art this is the best approach, at least for me. But, indeed, let's not get into XHTML vs. HTML - I understand and respect the XHTML proponents' viewpoint, but in the end isn't it a choice based on personal taste? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
Andrew, Of course its based on taste. Personally I prefer the stricter coding rules of XHTML, but I've found that WYSIWYG editors for the CMSs I produce for clients are far happier in a plain ol' HTML environment. Its probably the editor I usebut none are perfect! My own site is XHTML 1.0 Strict. All the commercial work I do is in HTML 4.01 Strict. I haven't done a site with a transitional doctype since 2005 when I had first learned about the doctypes and the role they play in the rendering of your documents by browsers. In the end, any of the doctypes, strict or transitional, will allow a user to view the information on a page. No one has been able to prove hands-down the best way to go one way or the other. IMO HTML 4.01 is now a closed book. Its safe It is what it is and its clear that eventually HTML5 will step in. I feel the XHTML has a more haphazard future in the fact that there are a couple branches running - perhaps someone could quickly clarify the status/future of: XHTML 1.0 XHTML 1.1 XHTML 2 XHTML5 Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Maben wrote: On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote: stick with HTML 4.01 Strict while the work is completed on (X)HTML5 IMHO (and given the depth and breadth of the replies to my original post I'm feeling very humble right now, as well as extremely grateful to you all) - I do think that given the current state of the art this is the best approach, at least for me. But, indeed, let's not get into XHTML vs. HTML - I understand and respect the XHTML proponents' viewpoint, but in the end isn't it a choice based on personal taste? Andrew *** 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] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;fax:886-301-8045 tel;home:609-886-9660 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
To throw water into hot oil. Choosing transitional or strict will, in Gecko browser, determine whether your browser activates almost-standards-mode or standards-mode respectively [1]. [1] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ -- Ca Phun Ung Web: http://yelotofu.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Best way to hide form legends?
Hi,
I've got a search box and login area that I want to use a fieldset and
legend on for accessibility but I don't want to show the legend to normal
users. Now I can easily hide it with display: none; but I understand this is
hidden from certain screenreaders as well, which well render the benefit of
it being there pointless as they are the type of user I am implementing it
for.
I have tried:
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left:0px;
top:-500px;
width:1px;
height:1px;
overflow:hidden;
}
And:
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left: -999em;
width: 990em;
}
But it just sits there, am I missing something obvious and has anyone had
any joy with something similar?
Thanks very much
Simon
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Best way to hide form legends?
Hy simon, Legends a very nasty to style and position you should wrap the legend text in a span (or some other inline! element) to be able to position it. -- cheers Milan *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Best way to hide form legends?
Tried display: none;?
Regards,
Svip
2008/4/30 Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I've got a search box and login area that I want to use a fieldset and
legend on for accessibility but I don't want to show the legend to normal
users. Now I can easily hide it with display: none; but I understand this is
hidden from certain screenreaders as well, which well render the benefit of
it being there pointless as they are the type of user I am implementing it
for.
I have tried:
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left:0px;
top:-500px;
width:1px;
height:1px;
overflow:hidden;
}
And:
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left: -999em;
width: 990em;
}
But it just sits there, am I missing something obvious and has anyone had
any joy with something similar?
Thanks very much
Simon
***
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] Best way to hide form legends?
I can't believe I didn't try that. Works a treat, thanks! Simon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lord Armitage Sent: 30 April 2008 20:46 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Best way to hide form legends? Hy simon, Legends a very nasty to style and position you should wrap the legend text in a span (or some other inline! element) to be able to position it. -- cheers Milan *** 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] Best way to hide form legends?
Well then, only tell him to use the hidden part for specific media,
such as projection or whatever. Don't screenreaders obey that?
Regards,
Svip
2008/4/30 Dan Brickley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Svip wrote:
Tried display: none;?
Now I can easily hide it with display: none; but
Apparently so...
Regards,
Svip
2008/4/30 Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I've got a search box and login area that I want to use a fieldset and
legend on for accessibility but I don't want to show the legend to
normal
users. Now I can easily hide it with display: none; but I understand
this is
hidden from certain screenreaders as well, which well render the
benefit of
it being there pointless as they are the type of user I am implementing
it
for.
I have tried:
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left:0px;
top:-500px;
width:1px;
height:1px;
overflow:hidden;
}
And:
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left: -999em;
width: 990em;
}
But it just sits there, am I missing something obvious and has anyone
had
any joy with something similar?
Thanks very much
Simon
***
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] Best way to hide form legends?
I've got a search box and login area that I want to use a fieldset and legend on for accessibility but I don't want to show the legend to normal users. I'm sorry but what is a normal user? Dennis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Best way to hide form legends?
By that I meant someone who sees and interacts with the website in the most common way. Seeing the page, viewing it with CSS images on, using a mouse etc. The user most people design their sites for. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Lapcewich Sent: 30 April 2008 22:02 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Best way to hide form legends? I've got a search box and login area that I want to use a fieldset and legend on for accessibility but I don't want to show the legend to normal users. I'm sorry but what is a normal user? Dennis *** 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] [OT] Posting [was:Best way to hide form legends?]
By that I meant someone who sees [...] -Original Message- I've got a search box [...] A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Best way to hide form legends?
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left: -999em;
width: 990em;
}
For that method you're missing the overflow rule. Try this:
.hidden {
position: absolute;
left: -5000px;
width: 4000px;
overflow: hidden;
}
cheers,
Ben
--
--- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] Best way to hide form legends?
I figured that was what you meant. At the same time, it can be a dangerous assumption. For example, by the time an individual starts kicking at 40 years old, changes to the eyes occur. It's called presbyopia. It's a normal course of aging that literally affects 100 percent of people at some time in their lives as they age. Add into the mix that populations in general are aging, online populations include people of all ages and more and more older folks. So for all intents and purposes, addressing the needs of normal users includes accessibility as a normal course of doing business for site owners and those who manage those web sites. The real problem is convincing the site owners that accessibility is good business and does provide tangible and intangible benefits. I guess it all boils down to whether you want to be dragged kicking in screaming into reality (and possibly pay the costs for such short-sightedness) or accept life for what it is and address accessibility for what we all will experience to some degree. I choose the latter, regardless of the fact it's required by law for me. Dennis By that I meant someone who sees and interacts with the website in the most common way. Seeing the page, viewing it with CSS images on, using a mouse etc. The user most people design their sites for. I've got a search box and login area that I want to use a fieldset and legend on for accessibility but I don't want to show the legend to normal users. I'm sorry but what is a normal user? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] HTML 4.01 MAP element prevents links from displaying using a screen reader
Hi, I recently come across a problem in Firefox with screen readers (Jaws and Window Eyes) when using the HTML 4.01 MAP element to group links, and thought it would be of interest to others on the list who may be using it as well. It also affects Braillenote's Keyweb. The technique is suggested in WCAG 1.0 and the recent WCAG 2.0 Candidate Recommendation. www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#group-bypass www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20041119/#linkgroups Websites using the map element seem to be affected when a screen reader virtualises the page in Firefox. When user testing in Firefox 2 with Jaws 9, all the navigation links were missing from the virtual buffer. However, turning the virtual cursor off, the user could tab between all the links (including the missing ones). The same page viewed in IE using a screen reader displayed all links. If you would like to try it out there is a test page at: www.e-bility.com/braillespace/bwp/test.php After deleting the map element from the markup all the links were visible (audible/feelable) with Firefox/Jaws and Braillenote's Keyweb. www.e-bility.com/braillespace/bwp/ I'd be interested to know if anyone else has feedback on this issue. I've reported it to Bugzilla and Bruce Maguire has posted a message on the JAWS Beta forum, whose members suggested the map element may be the problem. GW Micro are in the loop as well. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=431615 Firefox is becoming increasingly popular and people are now starting to use it with screen readers. The Keyweb browser (although very basic and under-developed) is also used by a lot of people because it is installed on Braillenote. If it is a software problem, then for the time being it seems best to avoid the MAP element and use a list, div, headings (visible or positioned off-screen) to help people understand link relationships and find or skip over navigation groups quickly. Cheers, Sandra. -- Sandra Vassallo e-Bility Inclusive IT w: www.inclusiveit.com.au w: www.e-bility.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
