Re: [WSG] label:hover - more harm than good?!
tee wrote: Thanks Rob, and David. If the label and the checkbox or select have matching 'for' and 'id' attributes they should be getting focus when clicked. As far as the value label:hover goes I tend not to make labels change colour on hover as they may be misinterpreted as links. If you want people to know that they can click on the label text use 'cursor: pointer;'. It communicates that something can be clicked, and if it doesn't change colour it should communicate that it won't take you away from the current page. Good point! I didn't give it a good thought about hover suggets that it's a link. tee No worries. It's always tempting and I sometimes use :hover on the inputs themselves but it's part of the whole don't make me think way of doing things. If you think something may cause a website visitor to pause and think what was that about? then you need to pull the styling back a bit. -Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
Brett Patterson wrote: [...] Now I realize where most of my problems have stemmed from. Note that nearly all such designer bugs will be caught if you follow WCAG2 recommendations and resize text in a browser to at least 200% of browser default. (Default is 16px on 96dpi screen resolution in nearly all browsers, so 200% will be 32px on that resolution. Numbers grow with higher screen resolutions, but browser do not yet agree on how to deal with / adjust for rising screen resolution.) - If you can't resize text in the browser, then it's probably IE and the font-size unit is the wrong choice. Time to re-think design. - If design/layout breaks in unacceptable ways when subjected to font resizing stress, then the design/layout is at fault. Time to re-think design. Nothing you can do to prevent end-users from stress-testing your creations - because they want to or because they have to, so it is always best to test beyond breaking-point across browser-land before release. In the end you as designer/developer, consciously or unconsciously, decide how much your creation(s) should be able to take before it becomes unacceptable. FWIW: I didn't stress you layout on first load in any browser, but it showed serious shortcomings anyway. Later when I did put it under stress by applying regular browser-options to it... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_37.html ...it revealed its weaknesses. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Brett Patterson wrote: [...] Now I realize where most of my problems have stemmed from. Note that nearly all such designer bugs will be caught if you follow WCAG2 recommendations and resize text in a browser to at least 200% of browser default. (Default is 16px on 96dpi screen resolution in nearly all browsers, so 200% will be 32px on that resolution. IS 200% one time font size increasement or two? My practise for a good layout is two times increasement, and I try to accommodate one decrement, but sometimes with certain design layout, especially with floated elements that either one or both have background image(s) that the underneath div block has different background color, it's just too much work to take good care and I let it goes without guilt :) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Failed A Job :(
Yikes! I know that feeling all too well! It's like learning to fly on your way down feeling. The worst part is giving up. It is a nightmare... On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM, James Jeffery jamesjeffery@googlemail.com wrote: Indeed. My only problem is I have lost future work from the guy that feeds me these jobs because I failed it, he isn't even understanding my situation and he's a front-end developer aswell. I mean 10 hours to do a whole lot of bug fixing and a near rewite is stupid. Also there was no SV so when I edited stuff, they overwrite it and it was an absolute nightmare. As you said. Lesson learned :p On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Krystian - Sunlust sunl...@gmail.comwrote: I remember when through GAF I got a on-page SEO job for a website, I was stupid enough to accept it without first looking at the code, it came out that it's a table based design with images in the markup used for layouts etc. I've done as much as I could, but it was a nightmare. Like Simon posted, it's a good lesson. Regards, -- Krystian - Sunlust Affordable Web Services in Eastbourne: http://eastbournewebdesign.net Mobile UK (Orange): 07528 036 337 Call for more information or email me. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Lionel C. Bethancourt Have Brain Will Travel Phone: 55 11 2949-4518 E-mail: 2lcbe...@gmail.com you often find your destiny on the path you take to avoid it. If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
tee wrote: IS 200% one time font size increasement or two? 200% is twice the default size, and the number of steps to get there varies from browser to browsers. Again: _default_ isn't whatever size you have declared in/for your document, but the browsers' own defaults. This default font size is what you see on your screen(s) when you do not declare font-size at all in your documents. Then, make the letters in the text twice as tall in the browser itself, without zooming the page as a whole. That is 200% font resizing - the kind that actually works for end-users. My practise for a good layout is two times increasement, and I try to accommodate one decrement, but sometimes with certain design layout, especially with floated elements that either one or both have background image(s) that the underneath div block has different background color, it's just too much work to take good care and I let it goes without guilt :) Guilt would be misplaced no matter what, and shouldn't be an issue. No matter what you do you're in good (or good) company :-) It is however your creation that gets broken if it can't take a reasonable amount of the stress it risks getting exposed to when end-users use their browsers as designed, so you can't complain about it being broken either. That foreground and background get somewhat detached here and there is quite normal, and in some cases unavoidable with today's browsers and standards when background-images are used. Resizing of background-images to go with containers is only implemented on an experimental level in one or maybe two browsers - have only seen/tested it in Opera. We have only the tool-set that is available in browsers at any given time to play with, and when that tool-set isn't sufficient we either have to scale back our, or our clients', ambitions and use somewhat safe solutions, or we have to accept that our designs break. Minimizing the problems caused by breakage at the user-end is an important part of web design IMO, and trying now certainly makes it easier to pick up and make use of new design tools as they become available to us. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
On 2009/02/04 09:19 (GMT-0500) Brett Patterson composed: Okay, one quick question. You say 200% is twice the default size, but in browsers like Firefox 3, there is only the (shortcut) Ctrl++ to zoom in, and I cannot find the percentage of that zoom, so is 200% font size increasement one or two clicks? Firefox is a Gecko browser with a minimalistic feature set. Another Gecko browser, SeaMonkey, with a more extensive native feature set, lets you choose directly the % you want. It has selectable presets in its view menu. Among them, the third is 200%, which might lead one to believe it would take 3 successive shortcuts to reach 200% in FF. However, http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/1d6410485164 shows that's what it used to be, and what it was changed to (6). A quick look shows current FF3 appears to take 6 steps to reach 200%. Try FF2 or SM release if you wish fewer steps to get there. -- Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up. Ephesians 4:29 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: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
Brett Patterson wrote: Okay, one quick question. You say 200% is twice the default size, but in browsers like Firefox 3, there is only the (shortcut) Ctrl++ to zoom in, and I cannot find the percentage of that zoom, so is 200% font size increasement one or two clicks? Much more than that, I'm afraid. Side-by-side comparison and measuring on various OSes (96dpi res. all to avoid any misunderstandings) reveals the following: - Firefox (3.0.5 3.1b2) seems to increment in 10% mouse-wheel steps for both 'text zoom' and 'whole page zoom'. That means 10 steps (or clicks) from default to 200% of default for both zoom variants. - IE8rc1 increments its 'whole page zoom' in 5% mouse-wheel steps, with the usual +/- 2steps a' 25% for 'font resizing'. The latter only allows for 150% of default. - Opera (all versions) increments its 'whole page zoom' in 10% mouse-wheel steps. - Konqueror seems to increment in 10% mouse-wheel steps for both 'text zoom' and 'whole page zoom'. -- Note that 200% resizing means each letter take up 4 times the space compared to on default size, regardless of zoom variant. Simple square calculation. So, calculating in a one or two clicks range while designing, doesn't count for much. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
Not quite right im afraid. Patrick Lauke sent an email about this in December that highlighted the Firefox zoom config as shown below: -- Quote -- toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues, and this will show the various zoom factors at each step. In my case (which should be the default) these are: .3, .5, .67, .8, .9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.33, 1.5, 1.7, 2, 2.4, 3 So, nominally 200% (which, according to the Understanding... bit for that SC, means 200%, that is, up to twice the width and height - so really a 400% increase in total area) is actually 6 steps, if you want to go purely by numbers. -- End Quote -- David Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Side-by-side comparison and measuring on various OSes (96dpi res. all to avoid any misunderstandings) reveals the following: - Firefox (3.0.5 3.1b2) seems to increment in 10% mouse-wheel steps for both 'text zoom' and 'whole page zoom'. That means 10 steps (or clicks) from default to 200% of default for both zoom variants. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
Okay, one quick question. You say 200% is twice the default size, but in browsers like Firefox 3, there is only the (shortcut) Ctrl++ to zoom in, and I cannot find the percentage of that zoom, so is 200% font size increasement one or two clicks? -- Brett P. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun gunla...@c2i.net wrote: tee wrote: IS 200% one time font size increasement or two? 200% is twice the default size, and the number of steps to get there varies from browser to browsers. Again: _default_ isn't whatever size you have declared in/for your document, but the browsers' own defaults. This default font size is what you see on your screen(s) when you do not declare font-size at all in your documents. Then, make the letters in the text twice as tall in the browser itself, without zooming the page as a whole. That is 200% font resizing - the kind that actually works for end-users. My practise for a good layout is two times increasement, and I try to accommodate one decrement, but sometimes with certain design layout, especially with floated elements that either one or both have background image(s) that the underneath div block has different background color, it's just too much work to take good care and I let it goes without guilt :) Guilt would be misplaced no matter what, and shouldn't be an issue. No matter what you do you're in good (or good) company :-) It is however your creation that gets broken if it can't take a reasonable amount of the stress it risks getting exposed to when end-users use their browsers as designed, so you can't complain about it being broken either. That foreground and background get somewhat detached here and there is quite normal, and in some cases unavoidable with today's browsers and standards when background-images are used. Resizing of background-images to go with containers is only implemented on an experimental level in one or maybe two browsers - have only seen/tested it in Opera. We have only the tool-set that is available in browsers at any given time to play with, and when that tool-set isn't sufficient we either have to scale back our, or our clients', ambitions and use somewhat safe solutions, or we have to accept that our designs break. Minimizing the problems caused by breakage at the user-end is an important part of web design IMO, and trying now certainly makes it easier to pick up and make use of new design tools as they become available to us. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
David Dixon wrote: Not quite right im afraid. Patrick Lauke sent an email about this in December that highlighted the Firefox zoom config as shown below: -- Quote -- toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues, and this will show the various zoom factors at each step. In my case (which should be the default) these are: .3, .5, .67, .8, .9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.33, 1.5, 1.7, 2, 2.4, 3 So, nominally 200% (which, according to the Understanding... bit for that SC, means 200%, that is, up to twice the width and height - so really a 400% increase in total area) is actually 6 steps, if you want to go purely by numbers. -- End Quote -- David Ok, but then 200% 'whole page zoom' in Opera and IE8rc1 is _much more_ than 200%, because when I overlay Firefox (3.0.5 3.1b2) with 'text only zoom' on any of these two (Opera and IE) at that 200% 'whole page zoom', I need 10 mouse-wheel steps up from default (100%) to reach the text-size and line-height they're at (at 200%), as shown below. Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Side-by-side comparison and measuring on various OSes (96dpi res. all to avoid any misunderstandings) reveals the following: - Firefox (3.0.5 3.1b2) seems to increment in 10% mouse-wheel steps for both 'text zoom' and 'whole page zoom'. That means 10 steps (or clicks) from default to 200% of default for both zoom variants. Both Opera and IE8rc1 have 'whole page zoom' selectors showing 200% as a value - seen in the lower-right corner of their chrome, and I can't imagine that these two (competing) browsers agree that 200% means exactly the same and that this same value is then *not* really 200%. I also cross-checked using the same screens (96dpi res.), OSes (win2K, XP, Vista, Ubuntu) and mouse/keyboard (connected via Synergy), and can't find the cause for my errors. Rounding-errors caused by trying to hit the same number of screen pixels at the same resizing levels via different calculation algorithms, become insignificantly small at 200% resizing level. Maybe someone can do a control check, measure the actual sizes on screen for zoom values and mouse-wheel resizing steps for 'text resizing' vs 'full page zoom' set at shown values, and let us know the results. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Maybe someone can do a control check, measure the actual sizes on screen for zoom values and mouse-wheel resizing steps for 'text resizing' vs 'full page zoom' set at shown values, and let us know the results. Just to make sure we're resizing the same way: notice that I refer to mouse-wheel steps everywhere, and not 'view drop-down options' or keyboard 'ctrl + +'. These non-mouse resizing options have 6 steps from 100% to 200% in Firefox - as Patrick Lauke presented it, for both 'full page zoom' and 'text only zoom'. Guess that accounts for my error :-) regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 03:37:19 -0800, tee wrote: IS 200% one time font size increasement or two? While FF 3 does not tell you, Firebug will show you the calculated font-size in pixels after re-sizing. In the CSS panel, choose Options Show computed style. Hope this helps. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Opera Targeting?!
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 03:37:19 -0800, tee wrote: IS 200% one time font size increasement or two? While FF 3 does not tell you, Firebug will show you the calculated font-size in pixels after re-sizing. In the CSS panel, choose Options Show computed style. Hope this helps. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Starting with HTML and CSS
This is a great resource that I am sending my students to http://www.opera.com/company/education/curriculum/ Linda -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Starting with HTML and CSS Gday WSGers! I am lucky enough to be a tutor for a web course at the local uni, and I love to point students towards Starting with HTML + CSS http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss However, it uses absolute positioning. I would like to use a *huge* favour. Anyone want to write a simple blog post on how to take the HTML file already present in the link and convert it a 2-column design with a footer (most likely using floats OR even display:table!!)) That'd be excellent :) Sort of a Starting with HTML + CSS the sequel :) Many many thanks Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
