Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
Our contract that is signed by the client informs them of what versions we program for. We also ask what browser the vlient is using - i.e 5 is very very old and we never support it. On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:46:54 +1000, chris | chrisbuttery.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I'm relatively new to this group this is my first post. So here goes. I just had an issue where i developed a prototype site for a client that worked perfectly across several browsers (IE7, Firefox, Opera, Safari Netscape). The client sent me a screen shot of the site taken from their browser ( IE5...which i don't have ) that basically displayed a mangled site. I was able to fix the site through a series of screen shots supplied from the client, but it's obviously not a professional way of doing things. My question to you guys is how do you develop test your websites to ensure they are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? Thanks Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
As a web designer, you should test your website in both current and older browser versions (within reason!) - and get your friends to look at it on their systems as well. This will help you see if there are colour inconsistencies as well as coding ones. Unless you are designing for an intranet and know exactly which browser and version your client is using, you need to test it with as many different configurations as you can. In this particular case, I would probably advise the client to update their web browser to the latest version. If they had a previous website and you are able to view the statistics for it, you can let your client know that x% of visitors are using browsers x, y and z. Chances are, very few are still using IE5. Jason On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:46 PM, chris | chrisbuttery.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I'm relatively new to this group this is my first post. So here goes. I just had an issue where i developed a prototype site for a client that worked perfectly across several browsers (IE7, Firefox, Opera, Safari Netscape). The client sent me a screen shot of the site taken from their browser ( IE5...which i don't have ) that basically displayed a mangled site. I was able to fix the site through a series of screen shots supplied from the client, but it's obviously not a professional way of doing things. My question to you guys is how do you develop test your websites to ensure they are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? Thanks Chris *** 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] Older Browsers
Hi Chris, In some cases customers are locked into to using a particular browser because of the Standard Operating Environment within their company. If this isn't the case, you should try and convince your customer to upgrade to a newer browser. Other than that, if you have access to a computer running XP, you can install multiple versions of IE. You can get the (free) package from this website: http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE It has worked pretty well for me as a testing platform. I use it installed on my Mac, via Parallels. Cheers, Nick 8bits Media On 8 May 2008, at 15:58, Adam Martin wrote: I just had an issue where i developed a prototype site for a client that worked perfectly across several browsers (IE7, Firefox, Opera, Safari Netscape). The client sent me a screen shot of the site taken from their browser ( IE5...which i don't have ) that basically displayed a mangled site. I was able to fix the site through a series of screen shots supplied from the client, but it's obviously not a professional way of doing things. *** 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] Older Browsers
Hi everyone, My first post also... Have a look at http://browsershots.org/ It's not perfect as it generates only static pics but there are a lot of browsers covered... chris | chrisbuttery.com wrote: Hi All, I'm relatively new to this group this is my first post. So here goes. My question to you guys is how do you develop test your websites to ensure they are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
On 08-May-08, at 11:16 AM, chris | chrisbuttery.com wrote: Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? Yes, and now you can too [1]! Multiple IEs allows you to run copies of various versions of IE, going all the way back to IE3. I have noticed that conditional comments do _not_ work correctly though. There is a fix for that, and a discussion on conditional comments at Position is Everything [2]. Chris Wilson (Microsoft) believes that using Virtual PC is the best way of running multiple copies of IE [3], though how convenient that is is debatable. Best, - Rahul. [1] http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE [2] http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/multiIE.html [3] http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/02/01/522281.aspx *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
Hi Chris The best thing to do is to download Multiple Ie and install it on your machine. Quite small actually but really good to test. http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE Fuji On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM, chris | chrisbuttery.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I'm relatively new to this group this is my first post. So here goes. I just had an issue where i developed a prototype site for a client that worked perfectly across several browsers (IE7, Firefox, Opera, Safari Netscape). The client sent me a screen shot of the site taken from their browser ( IE5...which i don't have ) that basically displayed a mangled site. I was able to fix the site through a series of screen shots supplied from the client, but it's obviously not a professional way of doing things. My question to you guys is how do you develop test your websites to ensure they are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? Thanks Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
Dear Chris, The only way is to develop the website for the most use browsers, IE6, and also respect the new softwares like FF and Safari browsers. IE5 dont support a lot of CSS at all and its not wort trying to fic the problem. You are not god but tell the client to get a deascent browser in order to view internet in a better way Michael chris | chrisbuttery.com wrote: Hi All, I'm relatively new to this group this is my first post. So here goes. I just had an issue where i developed a prototype site for a client that worked perfectly across several browsers (IE7, Firefox, Opera, Safari Netscape). The client sent me a screen shot of the site taken from their browser ( IE5...which i don't have ) that basically displayed a mangled site. I was able to fix the site through a series of screen shots supplied from the client, but it's obviously not a professional way of doing things. My question to you guys is how do you develop test your websites to ensure they are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? Thanks Chris *** 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] [OT] Full flash websites
Michael Persson wrote: I find it bad to have to rebuild my computer to have the opportunity to have a deascent set of standard browsers. Does my clients have the same setup?? Ummm, aren't you building sites for your client's customers to use? It's the internet you have to match browsers with, to make sure everything works. And you don't have to rebuild your computer - that's the point. It installs as an application and then you build the base installation you want (e.g XP SP2) and clone it to give you platforms to test all sorts and versions of browsers. I dont mean to be bad but having the most normal installation is for me the target and to have a smilar setup as a standard website visitor is my goal.. Well, if there was such a thing, I don't think we'd need web standards. The reason most of us are here is because there isn't a standard installation and we have to be able to cope with anything. I think that IE6, FF, Safari and my colleagues MAC FF and Safari should cover my most visitors installations... But which versions of FF and Safari, and which version of OSX? Is the mac Intel or PPC? Is the PC running Vista? Will Aero make a difference to base IE look and feel? i'd suggest that you need to think about these things. Of course i check the websites in IE7 also but i buld everything in IE6 and goe from there wihout hacks and cheats... That's great for your IE audience but I really think you need to look a little wider. Your call, though. cheers mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
My question to you guys is how do you develop test your websites to ensure they are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? Personally I wouldn't support IE5 for a full design, it's just too old - for many reasons they should upgrade. About the most I'd do for IE5 would be to exclude it from the current design and perhaps send it a cut down stylesheet with some basic font and colour settings. To test IE I run Virtual PC with IE6/7 - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EFdisplaylang=en I'm not wild about the multiple IE system as early experiences with it suggested they were inconsistent versus the real thing. -- --- 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] Older Browsers
Hi All, Thanks so much for all the feedback. This is fantastic. I really appreciate it. Thanks again Chris Ben Buchanan wrote: My question to you guys is how do you develop test your websites to ensure they are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have older browsers handy to test them with? Personally I wouldn't support IE5 for a full design, it's just too old - for many reasons they should upgrade. About the most I'd do for IE5 would be to exclude it from the current design and perhaps send it a cut down stylesheet with some basic font and colour settings. To test IE I run Virtual PC with IE6/7 - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EFdisplaylang=en http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EFdisplaylang=en I'm not wild about the multiple IE system as early experiences with it suggested they were inconsistent versus the real thing. -- --- 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
I tend to use a good old unordered list for such things Bob. - Original Message - From: Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:03 AM Subject: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links I have run into a problem with having two adjacent links at the top of a page. The WAI validator complains: 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3] What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting any characters in there? I don't emwant/em any characters in there! I have tried using: div id=sitelink p [a href=sitemap.htmlSite Map/a] [a href=../../core/noticeboard.htmlHome/a] /p /div and that validates WAI, but I hate the appearance of it. I could set the (non a:) text colour to be the same as the background, but that's a fiddle I want to avoid. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bob *** 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] The Problem of adjacent links
I have run into a problem with having two adjacent links at the top of a page. The WAI validator complains: 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3] What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting any characters in there? I don't emwant/em any characters in there! I have tried using: div id=sitelink p [a href=sitemap.htmlSite Map/a] [a href=../../core/noticeboard.htmlHome/a] /p /div and that validates WAI, but I hate the appearance of it. I could set the (non a:) text colour to be the same as the background, but that's a fiddle I want to avoid. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3] What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting any characters in there? I don't emwant/em any characters in there! Do not add non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces or not) between adjacent links unless the semantics of the document naturally would include such characters. From the WCAG Samurai corrections to WCAG1: http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html So basically, don't worry about using anything between links. http://www.thewatchmakerproject.com/journal/455/wcag-samurai-question -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
Hello Chris, also u cant use this too: http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage. It IETester and this program have 4 versions of IE (5.5, 6, 7 and 8 beta 1). I use the Multiple IE too, but a have some unexpected problems when i try to view some site in IE 5.5 version !!! Enjoy !!! Regards, Léo Siqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
I haven't used the Tredosoft version of multiple IEs,but I did use an earlier incarnation of the same approach in 2005, withIE4, IE5.0 and 5.5 among the browsers I tested. The results were notencouraging. This approach is much more lightweight than having to first downloadmultiple virtual machines and then run them simultaneously, but at the endof the day it is still based on hacks. The problems I found were not just with conditional comments, versionnumbers and cookies (problems which apparently have been solved --http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/multiIE.html), but alsowith JavaScript. If I remember rightly the discussions from that time, the allegedly standalone versions of the browsers stillmanaged to use the JavaScript engine of your main installed browser. When I tested my site on a machine with only IE5.5. installed, I foundthat I got different results from what I saw in my standaloneparallel-installed version of IE5.5. In the end I decided that the whole side-by-side testing process was fundamentally unreliable. If you read some of the comments on Tredosoft's own page(http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE), it appears there are still problemswith the side-by-side approach -- unexpected browser crashes etc etc. So my recommendation is don't take the seeming short-cut. The virtual machine approach will be better in the long run. And when developing, I would say that if you can, use a progressiveenhancement approach - start with solid html that will work in any browser,then add CSS, and JavaScript (and AJAX and Flash etc etc) that will deliver a superior experience tothe newer browsers that support them, but will degrade gracefully (i.e.without throwing a ton of error messages) for the old browsers. If your client doesn't like the idea of the site looking and behavingdifferently in different browsers (the likely consequence ofprogressive enhancement), then I would say start by developing yourCSS for the latest, most standard-compliant browsers, then second, useconditional comments to target specific corrective style sheets at theold, dead browsers. I know that in such a situation, some other people might prefer CSSfilters or hacks for dealing with such inconsistencies betweenbrowsers. But using browser-specific override style sheets at leastmeans that your main style sheets can be kept relatively clean, focused and freeof crud. -- Alan Cocks User Interface Designer LinkMe Pty Ltd *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
IE5 ? Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5? My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that old hardware ?? Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to try to develop modern websites in our web 2.0 world for those useless browsers. It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam engines instead of jet ones. Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would create: Click this button to download Firefox. Regards, -- Krystian - Sunlust Freelance on the side: Sunlust Designs - http://sunlust.net Full time Website Designer at SME System Solutions Ltd *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
Hi Bob,
I have run into a problem with having two adjacent
links at the top of a page.
You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden
character. Example:
div id=sitelink
p
[a href=sitemap.htmlSite Map/a
span | /span
a href=../../core/noticeboard.htmlHome/a]
/p
/div
The span would be style with:
div#sitelink span {
position : absolute;
left : -9000px;
}
Cheers.
Mike Cherim
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
On 08-May-08, at 2:33 PM, Designer wrote: The WAI validator complains [...] Do you have to build a WAI-validating site? If you don't have to, I would suggest ignoring that guideline, as it doesn't necessarily enhance accessibility for visitors. I would suggest using :focus to provide visual cues - most modern screen readers are able to differentiate between adjacent links without difficulty. You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden character. [...] @Mike: Adding extra characters just increases the auditory clutter that screenreader-users have to experience. While your method is a good one if WAI-valid is necessary, I must respectfully disagree with it on accessibility grounds :-). Best, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
libraries, government organizations, military, and other large organizations have locked down computers that don't allow installation of fire fox. They also have purpose built web applications that only run in IE6 that are critical for their day to day jobs. That is a major reason for the large ie6 userbase still. This is also why microsoft keeps saying they can't break stuff by upgrading to full standards support. This is why ie8 is causing issues and has the option of rendering a page in the older manner. So, if you are building a web site for your portfolio and don't need to worry about those organizations, feel free to add your firefox only link. If, on the other hand, you are building a site with a mass audience, IE6 is still on the horizon. ted Krystian - Sunlust wrote: IE5 ? Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5? My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that old hardware ?? Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to try to develop modern websites in our web 2.0 world for those useless browsers. It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam engines instead of jet ones. Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would create: Click this button to download Firefox. Regards, *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
From a usability/accessibility point a view. The most common separator used in such circumstances (and therefore that most expected by screen-reader users) is the vertical bar. i.e. IF you add extra characters for accessibility, use the ones they are familiar with (usability). Addition: apparently the vertical bar character was preferred by screen-reader users because, whilst it is quite wordy, there is virtually no other use for it, so very little opportunity for confusion. On Thu, May 8, 2008 2:32 pm, Rahul Gonsalves wrote: On 08-May-08, at 2:33 PM, Designer wrote: The WAI validator complains [...] Do you have to build a WAI-validating site? If you don't have to, I would suggest ignoring that guideline, as it doesn't necessarily enhance accessibility for visitors. I would suggest using :focus to provide visual cues - most modern screen readers are able to differentiate between adjacent links without difficulty. You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden character. [...] @Mike: Adding extra characters just increases the auditory clutter that screenreader-users have to experience. While your method is a good one if WAI-valid is necessary, I must respectfully disagree with it on accessibility grounds :-). Best, - Rahul. *** 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] Older Browsers
Krystian - Sunlust wrote: IE5 ? Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5? My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that old hardware ?? Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to try to develop modern websites in our web 2.0 world for those useless browsers. It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam engines instead of jet ones. Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would create: Click this button to download Firefox. Regards, I had a customer recently whom I had prepared a rough demo page for, it worked for ie6,7, Opera and FF but when I got some feedback they weren't happy in the slightest because I'd sent them a mess. Anyway, we checked the server logs and it turned out they were using an unpatched IE5 on an unpatched windows 98! (which of course was perfectly reasonable, just uncommon). We convinced them to upgrade their IT equipment but it was an eye opener. It never pays to assume that everyone is/should be bang up to date just because you are sick of working around IE bugs (we all are). Assumption is the mother of all ups. If you don't write CSS for those very old browsers eg. IE5.x (which I must admit I don't) I find it best to hide the CSS from those browsers altogether using conditional comments and the media attribute when linking to CSS. Using the same approach you can add a note to say why the site looks the way it does. re. 'some strong campaign': http://www.savethedevelopers.org/ -Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Images
I have a quick question and would like your thoughts. I am working with a team of coders that code images like: img src=/images/18-digestive-diseases-2col.jpg alt=Digestive Diseases border=0 height=150 width=388 / My question is, do you need the border, height, and width or should that be done in the style sheet or is it needed? img src=/images/18-digestive-diseases-2col.jpg alt=Digestive Diseases / Thoughts? Thanks James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Images
Hi James, By specifying the dimensions in the markup, you're helping the browser to know what space is taken up while it is fetching the files. This means the page doesn't jog up and down as images are loaded. Cheers, Tony -Original Message- From: Likely, James A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:22:27 To:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Images I have a quick question and would like your thoughts. I am working with a team of coders that code images like: img src=/images/18-digestive-diseases-2col.jpg alt=Digestive Diseases border=0 height=150 width=388 / My question is, do you need the border, height, and width or should that be done in the style sheet or is it needed? img src=/images/18-digestive-diseases-2col.jpg alt=Digestive Diseases / Thoughts? Thanks James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Images
Hi James, do you need the border, height, and width or should that be done in the style sheet or is it needed? Exactly what Tony said regarding width and height, they're beneficial. Lose the border attribute, though. That should be done in the style sheet as you suspected. Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Older Browsers
I don't think it is worth the time an effort to support old browsers like IE 5. There aren't enough users who are surfing the web using such old equipment to be worth the development time and expense. There is always another browser to test. I think we need to focus on the major ways people access the web not the handful of people with IE 1.0 Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Robert O'Rourke wrote: Krystian - Sunlust wrote: IE5 ? Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5? My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that old hardware ?? Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to try to develop modern websites in our web 2.0 world for those useless browsers. It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam engines instead of jet ones. Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would create: Click this button to download Firefox. Regards, I had a customer recently whom I had prepared a rough demo page for, it worked for ie6,7, Opera and FF but when I got some feedback they weren't happy in the slightest because I'd sent them a mess. Anyway, we checked the server logs and it turned out they were using an unpatched IE5 on an unpatched windows 98! (which of course was perfectly reasonable, just uncommon). We convinced them to upgrade their IT equipment but it was an eye opener. It never pays to assume that everyone is/should be bang up to date just because you are sick of working around IE bugs (we all are). Assumption is the mother of all ups. If you don't write CSS for those very old browsers eg. IE5.x (which I must admit I don't) I find it best to hide the CSS from those browsers altogether using conditional comments and the media attribute when linking to CSS. Using the same approach you can add a note to say why the site looks the way it does. re. 'some strong campaign': http://www.savethedevelopers.org/ -Rob *** 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] The Problem of adjacent links
What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting any characters in there? I don't emwant/em any characters in there! You could put the two links into a list. That would separate them into two disctinct elements without requiring punctuation. I'm not 100% sure of the usability aspect of having such a short nav list thought - anyone have any thoughts on that? Also, just another vote here to follow WCAG Samurai over raw WCAG 1. The Samurai know their stuff and the Errata really capture the best practice that emerged while working with WCAG 1 (many notes in WCAG 1 need clarification or are no longer correct in their original form). -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] Images
Personally I would place the border in the CSS (although unless the image is a link, it's surely unncessary), but the height and width in the HTML. My reasoning is that these will (or at least may) vary for each image, and I can't see the benefit of giving every image its own id just so that you can move the dimensions into a style sheet. If the images are all the same size, then maybe. Elizabeth Spiegel Web editing 0409 986 158 GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001 www.spiegelweb.com.au From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Likely, James A. Sent: Friday, 9 May 2008 7:22 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Images I have a quick question and would like your thoughts. I am working with a team of coders that code images like: img src=/images/18-digestive-diseases-2col.jpg alt=Digestive Diseases border=0 height=150 width=388 / My question is, do you need the border, height, and width or should that be done in the style sheet or is it needed? img src=/images/18-digestive-diseases-2col.jpg alt=Digestive Diseases / Thoughts? 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] :: CSS Code Formatting ::
On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:19:24 +0530, Amrinder wrote: I was reading this article on Smashing Magazine which shows how to increase code readability, http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/02/improving-code-readability-with-css- styleguides/ but I have listened to Andy Clarke over Lynda.com saying that one should save the white space as it increases the file size. Ted Drake replied: Reduce the number of css files used Link to them in the top of the page, no inline styles Gzip and reduce the whitespace when going to production. ~~~ A job for a server-side script. See: http://www.coolphptools.com/dynamic_css Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:52:38 +0100 (BST), Stuart Foulstone wrote: From a usability/accessibility point a view. The most common separator used in such circumstances (and therefore that most expected by screen-reader users) is the vertical bar. How about a border? http://htmlfixit.com/tutes/tutorial_CSS_Generated_Faux_Pipe_Delimited_Unordered_List.php Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
