RE: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
what about mobile browsing? the iphone is having quite the impact on mobile computing and designing to 800x600 is going to mean you're likely making information inaccessible and un-usable designing to a screen size is like designing to one browser my advice - 1. profile your users and know who they are, what they want, what they need, what their online behaviour 2. turn profile information into functional and non-functional (design) requirements 3. design to meet those needs 4. validate design solutions with those users 5. re-assess needs on a regular basis m From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Babushkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 3:39 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens? I would say Absolutely, absoutely and absolutely! My reasoning for this is simple: what about the rest of those users who don't browse the internet with the browser in full screen? As a matter of fact I'm doing it right now, so thank god GMail scales gracefully, or I probably wouldn't use it! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management Technology does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception or interference. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
Nick, you have subscribed to the Web Standards Group discussion list. If you don't want to receive the mailings, follow the link at the bottom of the email marked 'Unsubscribe' to unsubscribe. Jason 2008/6/10 Web Marketing Experts - Nick Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please remove me from this email chat. warm *regards*, NICK BELL - WEB MARKETING EXPERTS *INTELLIGENT **WEBMARKETING ** * www.webmarketingexperts.com.au PH +61 3 9667 0150 FAX +61 3 9667 0134 MOB +61 420 244 738 * * *Getting your site on Google 1st page can turn a hobby into a million-dollar business. *CNN Money -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Anton Babushkin *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:39 PM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens? I would say Absolutely, absoutely and absolutely! My reasoning for this is simple: what about the rest of those users who *don't browse the internet with the browser in full screen*? As a matter of fact I'm doing it right now, so thank god GMail scales gracefully, or I probably wouldn't use it! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 14/05/2008 4:44 PM Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 14/05/2008 4:44 PM *** 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] Structuring CSS
Interesting to hear. I will do a formal test on our network sometime when I get the chance and report on my findings as well. Out of curiosity, it wasn't an actual physical stop watch was it? Its far less error prone to use something like the Net tab of Firebug or an external plugin like Charles which can show you how fast segments are downloading etc. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Peter Ottery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anton wrote... - In regards to I'm guessing this sort of structuring comes at a cost because a number of requests need to be made to the server. this is generally untrue. In principle this is exactly how download accelerators work. They split a large file into smaller segments and sent multiple requests. Since the browser environment is completely multi-threaded it should actually boost performance. (Note: I am not 100% certain if this is the fact, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise either). - If its a small site, with not much traffic I think you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference. For large news sites that get smashed with traffic, I've sat there with a stopwatch and timed the difference (over different speed connections from dialup to broadband) between separate css files, and all in 1. And just having 1 file is definitely faster. in some cases it would bring the initial [1] load time [2] from something like 6 seconds down to 3 or 4. and then bringing all the css into the head of the page rather than a linked file chopped another second off. as i said - only applicable if extreme performance/optimisation is an issue - but it *does* make a difference. [1] - with an empty cache [2] - the time taken for the page text to appear, the page might continue loading for 10 or so seconds after this so loading in pics etc. mileage varies pete *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
For Mobile Browsing you generally take different approaches altogether, especially for WebKit powered phones (the iPhone and the to come GPhone). This is generally because you will be providing completely different navigational structures and really narrowing down on the most important features. Google has Mobile alternatives and that is really where developers should be heading when making web pages for Mobile Browsing. Im also wondering how is designing to 800x600 going to make information inaccessible and un-usable? GMail is designed for 800x600 + and is superbly usable. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what about mobile browsing? the iphone is having quite the impact on mobile computing and designing to 800x600 is going to mean you're likely making information inaccessible and un-usable designing to a screen size is like designing to one browser my advice - 1. profile your users and know who they are, what they want, what they need, what their online behaviour 2. turn profile information into functional and non-functional (design) requirements 3. design to meet those needs 4. validate design solutions with those users 5. re-assess needs on a regular basis m -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Babushkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 June 2008 3:39 PM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens? I would say Absolutely, absoutely and absolutely! My reasoning for this is simple: what about the rest of those users who *don't browse the internet with the browser in full screen*? As a matter of fact I'm doing it right now, so thank god GMail scales gracefully, or I probably wouldn't use it! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management Technology does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception or interference. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Help setting current menu state on level2 menus
Thanks Thierry - I'm looking into that too! Just not clear if it will handle more than one level of menu items, waiting to hear back from them. Cheers susie On 10/6/08 2:55 PM, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:45 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Help setting current menu state on level2 menus Hi there I've been using the 456bereastreet.com method ( http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200503/setting_the_current_menu_state_ with_css/) to set the current menu state using css. Which is really great when there is only one level of menu items ... But I'm now trying to use it with 2 levels of menus, that incorporate background images for bullets and different colour schemes for the 2nd level ... (sigh - blame the graphic designer!) It works fine on the first level - see http://crunchie.tedi.uq.edu.au/trials/UCTLC/contacts.html But when the link has sub-menu items under it, all of those get the same treatment! Because the styles are applied to the list item. Can anyone think of a way to do this that would not affect the sub-menu? I've tried applying the id to the 'a' tag but that did nothing! See http://crunchie.tedi.uq.edu.au/trials/UCTLC/stLucia.html I did have a script that did this, but it didn't include background images, or separate colours/styles for the sub-menu items. And my javascript skills do not extend that far I'm afraid! Any thoughts would be great. I have spent too much time on this already, and need to know if I'm just trying to do something that will never be possible, and so should start again! In case you want to automate the process using a script: http://divahtml.com/products/divaGPS/current_menu_location.php There is a free version for DW users *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Please remove me from the WSG emails [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-- If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Structuring CSS
re - Out of curiosity, it wasn't an actual physical stop watch was it? of course not - it was an abacus! ;-) nah in all seriousness, it was before the time of firebug, and around the time of the birth of this mailing list. yes it was literally a stopwatch - which was enough for me at the time. i timed a bunch of different page structure scenarios a bunch of times and used averages. it was enough to get some basic findings and tweak the project. in this age of broadband the amount of time yr saving gets less significant as an overall %, but its still nice to look after the country folk ;-) pete *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Structuring CSS
There really needs to be a consistent method of sturucturing CSS personally. If i cram everything onto one file I feel like the structure of the website is not really effective and editing becomes a task. Most the time I will break up the CSS file into a few sections as standard and use Yahoo!'s reset stylesheet to reset elements. I am not a fan of framworks and like to invent my own naming conventions. CSS Structure - - Reset.css (Yahoo!) - Layout.css (positioning, margins, padding etc.) - Style.css (colours, borders, backgrounds etc.) - Typography (fonts) - Base.css (used to @import everything) I would like to break it up further but I do respect users on slower Internet connections. In all the CSS files you are usually repeating selectors which is generating uneeded code, but on the other hand I have found it useful and easier to edit. It's really good for bug hunting because when you need to find a bug thats messing up the layout, you can focus on a single file (most the time) and narrow down the scope until the bug is eliminated. I like the idea of a server-side stylesheet joiner. I am going to look into that. Keep the replies coming. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Structuring CSS
James, It depends on the site size and the structure. If you have a huge CSS file for navigation it is of course good to separate it from other styles. I always make form.css for contact pages and form pages, but in general i keep style.css for the rest ad my sites are not so huge, something up to 100 pages.. Michael James Jeffery wrote: There really needs to be a consistent method of sturucturing CSS personally. If i cram everything onto one file I feel like the structure of the website is not really effective and editing becomes a task. Most the time I will break up the CSS file into a few sections as standard and use Yahoo!'s reset stylesheet to reset elements. I am not a fan of framworks and like to invent my own naming conventions. CSS Structure - - Reset.css (Yahoo!) - Layout.css (positioning, margins, padding etc.) - Style.css (colours, borders, backgrounds etc.) - Typography (fonts) - Base.css (used to @import everything) I would like to break it up further but I do respect users on slower Internet connections. In all the CSS files you are usually repeating selectors which is generating uneeded code, but on the other hand I have found it useful and easier to edit. It's really good for bug hunting because when you need to find a bug thats messing up the layout, you can focus on a single file (most the time) and narrow down the scope until the bug is eliminated. I like the idea of a server-side stylesheet joiner. I am going to look into that. Keep the replies coming. *** 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] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed: Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? Never should have been designing for either one. To design for any particular resolution means you're designing against all the others. An 800x600 page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp, about 12% in size measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size measured in inches or mm. Some of the resolutions you should NOT design for (not an exhaustive list): 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080. Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have nothing more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is what print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages designed for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them. Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the environment figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to design for the medium and the people who use it. http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels http://cssliquid.com/ -- Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
Felix, I think the term design for is perhaps a little bit inconsistent in terms of interpretation. Perhaps in this context it was also very badly misinterpreted. When I was referring to design for I was more referring to Accommodate for which in essence is what fluid layouts are all about. To me Accommodate for simply means: - the breaking point at which the page loses its utter most usability, so for example in GMail the usability drastically reduces under a resolution below 800x600 So re-iterate, the page should be as usable as possible; meaning all elements (apart from the content area) should be too large and not too small under resolutions up to 800x600. But in all its essence of what you say - absolutely correct. Web pages should be able to scale gracefully under very small (800x600) to very large (1920x1080) resolutions. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed: Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? Never should have been designing for either one. To design for any particular resolution means you're designing against all the others. An 800x600 page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp, about 12% in size measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size measured in inches or mm. Some of the resolutions you should NOT design for (not an exhaustive list): 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080. Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have nothing more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is what print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages designed for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them. Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the environment figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to design for the medium and the people who use it. http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels http://cssliquid.com/ -- Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
I agree with Felix, you have build for your users not for screen resolutions be it 1280x800, 800x480, 392x320, 240x320 (in the top 20 resolutions visiting my work website) and the number of pixels per inch is no longer in the 70 to 100 pixel range, but 70 to 250+ pixel range. So your trusty 280 pixel wide image is 4 inches wide on some screens but just over an inch wide on others. I have no great answers because the devices visiting a website are so varied today, but you need to think about before you design. Nick *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Marking up multiple form inputs
Chris, Please can you provide more information about the form. I would be hesitant in agreeing with a solution that seems to omit the labels for the second form controls. Darren 2008/6/10 Chris Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Would the following layout be best marked up using a table: Column Header Column Header [label tag] [input tag] [input tag] [label tag] [input tag] [input tag] [label tag] [input tag] [input tag] Cheers solutions for a digital world Exchange Server 2007 Built-in Protection, Anywhere Access, Operational Efficiency BLUEARC WILL HELP YOU MAKE THE MOVE. FIND OUT HOW level 1, 11 albany street st leonards nsw 2065 p: 02 9467 2500 d: 02 9467 25 f: 02 9431 5999 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: www.bluearcgroup.com ARE YOU READY FOR NEXT GENERATION WEB TECHNOLOGY? Leading the way in Web Content Management, IgnitionSuite Version 3.0 prepares you for the future of the web. To learn more call 9467 2500 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Privileged - Private Confidential This email and files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you receive this email and you are not the addressee, or you have received this email in error, please disregard the contents of the email, delete the email and notify the author immediately. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail *** 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] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
An alternative could be to develop with relative sizes for all measurements, allowing the interface to be scaled to any screen resolution. Examples can be seen at http://www.linkedin.com and http://www.sky.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Help setting current menu state on level2 menus
On 10 Jun 2008, at 05:55, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Testing with regular browser-option well beyond what normal users will expose your work to, will save you from having to deal with user-introduced problems later on. On a related note (testing in IE win), I try and remember when doing my IE/Win testing to test both in 'regular' mode (default text sizes) and accessibility 'brute test' mode (ignore font sizes on page, set text to largest). This involves quite a bit of irksome preference- switching back and forth on a regular basis. I was wondering if anyone had developed a script or something to automate these changes to settings with a single click? -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
Darren West wrote: An alternative could be to develop with relative sizes for all measurements, allowing the interface to be scaled to any screen resolution. Examples can be seen at http://www.linkedin.com and http://www.sky.com Dysfunctional examples, but they clearly show what many mean by relative sizes - font-size dependent layouts, without looking into the potential problems created by such a framed approach. 1: wanting or having a need for larger text, doesn't mean one has or want a larger screen and/or browser-window. 2: having a larger screen and/or browser-window, doesn't mean one wants or need larger text. Thus, relative sizes means a/the layout only works well within a certain window-size on a certain screen-resolution with a certain font-size, and can not adapt well to the end-user's environment and needs if they deviate from the designer's frame. Sounds designer-friendly enough since they get to keep the designed proportions, but is not what I would call user-friendly. Page zoom in Opera, Firefox 3 and Safari 3 allow layouts to adjust to the end-user's environment and needs - unless the designer has declared relative sizes and/or other width-barriers. Since this user-friendly zoom-feature seems to be on its way in - after having been found only in Opera for years, it would be better if designers tried to make sure it could actually work as intended instead of designing for certain relative or absolute sized frames. Since all browsers can also resize fonts (one way or another) independent of page zoom, relative sizes risk creating even more problems when both font resizing and page zoom are used. The latest mobile browsers also incorporates page zoom and font resizing in various forms in order to enhance the experience, so the more freedom we give those browsers to perform their job the easier it'll be for the end-user. Optimizing our designs for an average window-size is an ok approach IMO, as long as we don't lock them in so they fail too badly outside that average window. Personally I optimize for a range of 600 - 1200 in width, and am now working on extending the don't fail too badly range to 200 - 2400 in width by giving the browsers more freedom to determine proportions. I also get to keep _my_ design-proportions, since I design for the way browsers treat my layouts and make as much out of the many variables introduced by browsers and their various options as I possibly can. I use 3800 wide screens/browser-windows and mobile browser emulators to test on, and although there may be quite a few problems getting older browsers perfectly in line, I see no real problems in getting the new ones to play ball. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] animated gif not animating...
HI, I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an animated loading gif animation. Sometimes In IE the animated gif is not animating. Anybody knows why? Thanks a ton in advance.. Thanking you Naveen Bhaskar *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] animated gif not animating...
I've seen this happen before on loading images. Never bothered about it much as it was an IE specific problem. Jonathan On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI, I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an animated loading gif animation. Sometimes In IE the animated gif is not animating. Anybody knows why? Thanks a ton in advance.. Thanking you Naveen Bhaskar *** 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[2]: [WSG] animated gif not animating...
Hi, Jonathan http://www.west-wind.com/WebLog/posts/1227.aspx hope that helps! WBR, Kirill I've seen this happen before on loading images. Never bothered about it much as it was an IE specific problem. Jonathan On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI, I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an animated loading gif animation. Sometimes In IE the animated gif is not animating. Anybody knows why? Thanks a ton in advance.. Thanking you Naveen Bhaskar *** 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] *** -- С уважением, k mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? Screen Resolution
Hey, I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link (below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while. As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started trying to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the replies and get the opinion of everyone. IceKat. PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm Michael Persson wrote: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] animated gif not animating...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI, I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an animated loading gif animation. Sometimes In IE the animated gif is not animating. Anybody knows why? Thanks a ton in advance.. Thanking you *Naveen Bhaskar * Can you provide a link to the page or a demo Naveen? To get this working most scripts I've seen insert the image into the HTML immediately after the page loads but hide it, either off-screen or using style=display:none;. Then when the script displays the image it is already loaded and animating. I guess in IE it can't buffer an animated gif while the rest of your script runs. -Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
theres no clean solution that i'm aware of...but this is a common issue, so i'm certain there is plenty of tips and tricks out there to help you get around the problem you are faced with. http://24ways.org/2007/supersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6 the above link provides some /interesting/ info, i don't claim to know a lot about this topic in particular however this page essentially summarized what i already knew...so maybe it will help. Good luck! 2008/6/10 Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] transparency, png IE6?? Screen Resolution
There is a way to produce portable network graphics (png's) so that they render correctly across all browsers without the need to employ complicated hacks and ie filter-based solutionshttp://www.w3.org/TR/PNG-DataRep.html#DR.Alpha-channelor heavy javascript files, such as the twin helixhttp://www.thewebsqueeze.com/forum/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twinhelix.com%2Fcss%2Fiepngfix%2Fapproach or the supersleighthttp://www.thewebsqueeze.com/forum/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2F24ways.org%2F2007%2Fsupersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6 . Most times when a png is exported it is done so as a png32, which provides lossless compression and allows for more complex settings. All the goodies we love when designing a site. However, within Fireworks you can also export png's as a png8, which provides a palette based colour model (like gif's) and which many believe only offers a 1 bit transparency option. However, if we play with some of the settings we are able to offer similar semi-transparency colors as a png32. So if you use the export wizard and set it to export as png8 with indexed transparency, you will see the palette colours have been flattened and you are offered one, single transparent colour. However, if you change these settings to alpha transparency, you will notice a few small chunks cut out of the some of the palette colours. These are the new semi-transparent colours. The only downside is that complicated fade effects on images are not seen on IE5.5 6, but it still is a transparent image. This works for IE5.5 and above (I haven't tested lower than that), FF, Safari and Opera, so it's a winner all round. Also, the generated image files are smaller, which will increase delivery time, and , more importantly, there is no need to implement hacks, javascript files or any other third party coding, making the total delivery package smaller and therefore increasing the speed of your site. Hope the above helps you all. I am planning on writing an article on the web design forum I moderate ( www.webforumz.com) around this, once complete I shall let you know so you can bookmark it for future reference. Stew 2008/6/10 IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hey, I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link (below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while. As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started trying to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the replies and get the opinion of everyone. IceKat. PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm Michael Persson wrote: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] transparency, png IE6?? Screen Resolution
I need a function of a link that one KNOWS is working... Michael IceKat wrote: Hey, I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link (below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while. As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started trying to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the replies and get the opinion of everyone. IceKat. PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm Michael Persson wrote: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] transparency, png IE6 ??
Hi there Michael, Had the same problem a while back and, while I can't give you the exact line of code that makes it work, the paragraph on this page seems to display properly in IE6 (as well as all other major browsers): http://www.meccompany.com.au/aboutUs.php I think it has something to do whether the element is floated or not Andrew McGrath wrote: theres no clean solution that i'm aware of...but this is a common issue, so i'm certain there is plenty of tips and tricks out there to help you get around the problem you are faced with. http://24ways.org/2007/supersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6 the above link provides some /interesting/ info, i don't claim to know a lot about this topic in particular however this page essentially summarized what i already knew...so maybe it will help. Good luck! 2008/6/10 Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Fagan Fagan Design fagandesign.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
On 2008/06/10 12:20 (GMT+0200) Gunlaug Sørtun apparently typed:
...
Since all browsers can also resize fonts (one way or another)
independent of page zoom, relative sizes risk creating even more
problems when both font resizing and page zoom are used.
The latest mobile browsers also incorporates page zoom and font resizing
in various forms in order to enhance the experience, so the more freedom
we give those browsers to perform their job the easier it'll be for the
end-user.
...
Resize as generally applied within web design discussions doesn't seem to
have have a good clear meaning. It seems to me that in most cases it is
assumed equivalent to using a text sizer or text zoom function in the browser
or built into the page with alternate stylesheets or script, tools designed
for use as defense mechanisms to be used against the designer's wish for text
some arbitrarily smaller size than whatever the user's default is (body
{font-size: 76%}), or some arbitrary size that disregards user wishes or
needs (px text sizes).
OTOH, the possibility to resize at the base level, in the browser's default
settings, gets ignored, or assumed to be something that users almost
universally leave unchanged.
As to the former we should remember that defense mechanisms, including page
zoom, are exactly what they are. When the design respectfully and competently
embraces the idea that the viewport is fluid and that not everyone uses
800x600 or 1024x768 or any particular other screen resolution default text
size, then the need to defend and the ugly consequences of defense are avoided.
Get your work to work across a reasonable range of text size to em width
viewport ratios and the need to defend is reduced; possibly, and ideally, to
zero.
--
Where were you when I laid the earth's
foudation?Matthew 7:12 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? Screen Resolution
I use this: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/ On Jun 10, 2008, at 15:52, Michael Persson wrote: I need a function of a link that one KNOWS is working... Michael IceKat wrote: Hey, I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link (below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while. As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started trying to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the replies and get the opinion of everyone. IceKat. PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm Michael Persson wrote: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Margin Trapping
The navigation list on the following http://working.bushidodeep.com/
spring_2008/template.html only stays at top when the following rule
is in place:
div#container{width: 100%; border: 1px solid transparent;}
is this due to margin trapping, or some conjured anomaly with my floats?
Chris
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??
I've used superslieight to great success. You see a moment of grey border as the page loads in IE6 but after that it renders fine. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew McGrath Sent: 10 June 2008 13:37 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ?? theres no clean solution that i'm aware of...but this is a common issue, so i'm certain there is plenty of tips and tricks out there to help you get around the problem you are faced with. http://24ways.org/2007/supersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6 the above link provides some /interesting/ info, i don't claim to know a lot about this topic in particular however this page essentially summarized what i already knew...so maybe it will help. Good luck! 2008/6/10 Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] transparency, png IE6?? Screen Resolution
Here you are Michael: http://www.meccompany.com.au/aboutUs.php Don't ask me how but it works Quoting Michael Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I need a function of a link that one KNOWS is working... Michael IceKat wrote: Hey, I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link (below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while. As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started trying to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the replies and get the opinion of everyone. IceKat. PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm Michael Persson wrote: HI people, I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 properly. I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried some tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution. There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the transparency working but only in one of the images i need them to appear. Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency crap to make work ? I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon... Michael in Athens *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Marking up multiple form inputs
Use fieldset, legend, label, input and CSS. Make sure each input has a label. I would suggest checking your form with the WAVE toolbar for accessibility (http://wave.webaim.org/) M From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Ray Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:22 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Marking up multiple form inputs Tables shouldn't be used for layouts, use style sheets instead, but they should be used for information which lends itself well to a table. If you are trying to display data in an organised format, which requires columns and rows, then use a table. Jason On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Chris Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Would the following layout be best marked up using a table: Column Header Column Header [label tag] [input tag] [input tag] [label tag] [input tag] [input tag] [label tag] [input tag] [input tag] Cheers http://www.bluearcgroup.com/ solutions for a digital world Exchange Server 2007 Built-in Protection, Anywhere Access, Operational Efficiency BLUEARC WILL HELP YOU MAKE THE MOVE. FIND OUT HOW http://www.bluearcgroup.com/content.asp?z=6c=104p=494f=2 level 1, 11 albany street st leonards nsw 2065 p: 02 9467 2500 d: 02 9467 25 f: 02 9431 5999 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] w: www.bluearcgroup.com http://www.bluearcgroup.com/ ARE YOU READY FOR NEXT GENERATION WEB TECHNOLOGY? Leading the way in Web Content Management, IgnitionSuite Version 3.0 prepares you for the future of the web. To learn more call 9467 2500 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] formation%20-%20IgnitionSuite%20Version%203.0 Privileged - Private Confidential This email and files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you receive this email and you are not the addressee, or you have received this email in error, please disregard the contents of the email, delete the email and notify the author immediately. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail *** 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] *** image001.gif
Re: [WSG] Reset CSS
The reset.css (in the form you mention) first came about from css developers who set the same defaults again and again as they made sites. They obviously realized they repeated themselves and eventually created a separate stylesheet to handle that. I did this myself (I chose the name global.css). I'd end up with a css structure like: /CSS/ - - reset.css (set universal defaults) - screen.css (set screen defaults) - mypage.css (page specific styles) - print.css (set print defaults) - handheld.css (small screen defaults) As far as using frameworks, its a great idea that has far to go still so use sparingly. I prefer the http://960.gs framework. Low on bloat. Again use sparingly. 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] Miles Menegon wrote: Hello all, Wondering what your thoughts are on whether to use a 'reset' framework for CSS. I've noticed that quite a few people on the list use it to try to overcome default browser behaviour / user-defined browser preferences. I understand the benefit of trying to level the playing field in terms of cross-browser rendering, but shouldn't we be giving users at least some control over how they like to view the web? And by using a 'reset' framework, aren't we just compensating for poor standards compliance on behalf of IE? How does a reset framework compare with an IE-only stylesheet, for instance? Thoughts... M *** 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] Marking up multiple form inputs
Try ATRC Web Accessibility Checker (http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/) you can select multiple standard of accessbility: - BITV 1.0 level 2 (Germany standard) - Section 508 (US standard) - Stanca act (Italy standard) - WCAG 1.0 (A, AA, AAA) - WCAG 2.0 (L1, L2, L3) and they have some examples for the failed problem. :) Webagogo (http://www.webagogo.be; website analysis) needs all of those criteria to be valid..(just kind of a game..)..but useful for disable people.. for the data/form presentation, I agree to use fieldset, legend, label, input, accesskey, tabindex, table summary, caption, with the help of CSS.. On 6/11/08, Miles Menegon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use fieldset, legend, label, input and CSS. Make sure each input has a label. I would suggest checking your form with the WAVE toolbar for accessibility (http://wave.webaim.org/) M -- ** -- Regards, Dani Iswara http://daniiswara.net/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Reset CSS
Wondering what your thoughts are on whether to use a 'reset' framework for CSS I wouldn't label it a framework since it's effectively just a single, simple style sheet. For me it's benefits are * one initial place to reset margins, paddings (saves me from doing this over and over again for individual elements) * re-usability across projects as a component in my framework * using a tried-and-tested piece of code (since I rely on Eric Meyer's version) I don't see the user control aspect that much. Users usually control view port and font sizes, some might have custom style sheets and those can manipulate styles as they see fit. I think a reset style sheet compensates for different browser defaults rather than for poor standards compliance. Look at Safari and Opera, two very compliant browsers, and compare their defaults on margin and padding. It's like trying to build a house on wooden poles which you've sourced from all over the world, the first thing you'd do is make sure they're all the same length by adding and cutting as necessary. IE-only style sheets have their rightful place. I had projects where I even had an IE6-only stylesheet because I needed so many fixes for that browser (see the recent png thread). IE-only files are yet one more component in my framework. Cheers, Jens 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] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:28:18 +1000, IceKat wrote: Hi, I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. FWIW - I work at a computer training lab, teaching computer skills to a very wide age group. A significant number of students switch the nominally 1280 x 960 19 display to 800 x 600. Just my 41 cents. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
