RE: [WSG] Strange Table Border Rendering in everything BUT FF and IE
Hi,
What Chris wrote will take care of the border issue. I would suggest using a
structure other than a table though for guestbook entries. You could use a
definition list (other people on this list may disagree and have a more
semantic structure you could use).
For example, the CSS:
dl.guestBook
{
font-size: 75%;
border-top: 1px solid #9CA027;
border-bottom: none;
border-right: none;
border-left: none;
margin-bottom: 20px;
padding-top: 15px;
}
dl.netherlands
{
background: url('nl.jpg') 0 15px no-repeat;
}
dl.australia
{
background: url('au.jpg') 0 15px no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dt, dl.guestBook dd
{
text-align: left;
border: none;
padding: 0 0 0 15px;
margin: 0 0 10px 64px;
}
dl.guestBook dt
{
font-size: 1.4em;
font-weight: bold;
color: #2695c0;
}
dl.guestBook dd.loc_date,
dl.guestBook dd.rating
{
color: #9CA027;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars5
{
background: url('5.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars4
{
background: url('4.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars3
{
background: url('3.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars2
{
background: url('2.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars1
{
background: url('1.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.rating span
{
display: none;
}
And the HTML:
dl class=guestBook netherlands
dtSusanne de Letter/dt
dd class=loc_dateNetherlands / September 23, 2009/dd
dd class=rating stars5Experience: span5 stars/span/dd
dd class=commentJust want to send a quick email that I had a lovely stay
in the resort. Nice food, nice people and great diving. Even if you are a
single lady traveller like me it's a great place to stay.br /
br /
Hope it stopped raining? That the dogs are ok and that you didn't have any
exciting night dives with angry pearl fishers anymore.br /
br /
Say hi to Jo Jo and who knows maybe you see me back one daybr /
br /
Thanks Susanne de Letterbr /
Amsterdam the Netherlands/dd
/dl
That's not perfect, but I can only imagine it is easier to view in a text
browser than the table version.
Best regards,
Kepler Gelotte
Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
www.neighborwebmaster.com
phone/fax: (732) 302-0904
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
RE: [WSG] Strange Table Border Rendering in everything BUT FF and IE
Kepler -
Hey, thanks for taking so much effort for all that you've written below.
Yes, it's true, I'd like to make these entries more semantically structured
(I hadn't thought of a def list option) but I was under a nighmarish
deadline on this module of the project so just initially opted for a table
layout.
One MAJOR problem with using background images for the flag buttons is the
fact that each entry could carry any one of 200+ flags. That's a WHOLE LOT
of background declarations! No matter what type of more semantic structure I
end up using for this I'm afraid I'll have to use image tags for the flag.
Anyone else have any suggestion of what a preferred semantical structure
should be for a guestbook?
Cole
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Kepler Gelotte
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 2:24 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Strange Table Border Rendering in everything BUT FF and
IE
Hi,
What Chris wrote will take care of the border issue. I would suggest using a
structure other than a table though for guestbook entries. You could use a
definition list (other people on this list may disagree and have a more
semantic structure you could use).
For example, the CSS:
dl.guestBook
{
font-size: 75%;
border-top: 1px solid #9CA027;
border-bottom: none;
border-right: none;
border-left: none;
margin-bottom: 20px;
padding-top: 15px;
}
dl.netherlands
{
background: url('nl.jpg') 0 15px no-repeat;
}
dl.australia
{
background: url('au.jpg') 0 15px no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dt, dl.guestBook dd
{
text-align: left;
border: none;
padding: 0 0 0 15px;
margin: 0 0 10px 64px;
}
dl.guestBook dt
{
font-size: 1.4em;
font-weight: bold;
color: #2695c0;
}
dl.guestBook dd.loc_date,
dl.guestBook dd.rating
{
color: #9CA027;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars5
{
background: url('5.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars4
{
background: url('4.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars3
{
background: url('3.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars2
{
background: url('2.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.stars1
{
background: url('1.jpg') 7em 0 no-repeat;
}
dl.guestBook dd.rating span
{
display: none;
}
And the HTML:
dl class=guestBook netherlands
dtSusanne de Letter/dt
dd class=loc_dateNetherlands / September 23, 2009/dd
dd class=rating stars5Experience: span5 stars/span/dd
dd class=commentJust want to send a quick email that I had a lovely stay
in the resort. Nice food, nice people and great diving. Even if you are a
single lady traveller like me it's a great place to stay.br /
br /
Hope it stopped raining? That the dogs are ok and that you didn't have any
exciting night dives with angry pearl fishers anymore.br /
br /
Say hi to Jo Jo and who knows maybe you see me back one daybr /
br /
Thanks Susanne de Letterbr /
Amsterdam the Netherlands/dd
/dl
That's not perfect, but I can only imagine it is easier to view in a text
browser than the table version.
Best regards,
Kepler Gelotte
Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
www.neighborwebmaster.com
phone/fax: (732) 302-0904
***
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] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear
Thanks to all who replied. However, no-one said don't do this because . .
.
??
- Original Message -
From: designer
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:45 PM
Can anyone tell me what is wrong (apart from not being semantic) about
using:
q{
clear : both;
display : none;
}
In conjunction with:
qfor clearing!/q
in the body of the mark-up. (it makes it a bit more helpful for screen
readers, I presume?)
Anything? Any better ideas around? I did google this, but only found
variations on using br/, which seems messy, somehow.
All suggestions gratefully considered.
Thanks,
Bob
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear
designer wrote: Thanks to all who replied. However, no-one said don't do this because . . . ?? ...the element is styled to not exist, so it can't do anything... ?? regards Georg *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] [Spam] :The wisdom? of using q to clear
2009/9/27 designer desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk Thanks to all who replied. However, no-one said don't do this because . . . ?? OK, well, since you're kind of asking... ;) Don't do that because it's horrendously non-semantic and you should be making your pages semantically correct. You are basically adding fake content to your page just to support a specific design requirement at a specific point in time, etc... Since you're actually adding content, you could potentially end up with some users seeing for clearing when they view your page. For example some mobile phones I've used revealed content that was hidden by CSS. Also Google will pick up all the extraneous for clearing text and read it along with your real content. If you want to put something into your markup just for clearing purposes I can't really see the point in using q - it's not a quote by any stretch of the imagination. If you can make it work with a br / tag stick to that, I think. If you need text just use a neutral tag and a space, eg. div class=brute-force-clearnbsp;/div which is at least better than actual text. Better to avoid it entirely though, using one of the alternative fixes mentioned earlier. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Strange Table Border Rendering in everything BUT FF and IE
Cole Kuryakin wrote: [...] One MAJOR problem with using background images for the flag buttons is the fact that each entry could carry any one of 200+ flags. That's a WHOLE LOT of background declarations! No matter what type of more semantic structure I end up using for this I'm afraid I'll have to use image tags for the flag. Anyone else have any suggestion of what a preferred semantical structure should be for a guestbook? Nope. A table doesn't seem far-fetched - it looks like tabular data to me... On the subject of the flags, you could make one tall (or wide) image containing all the flags, and simply change the background-position property for each entry's CSS selector. This would likely save you coding a whole bunch of IMG tags - and images... Search for css background image sprites for more about this technique. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Accessibility of iFrames?
I have a content management system that uses frames for layout (not my choice). We need to improve the accessibility of the site. Short of ditching the CMS (not going to happen any time soon), or getting the vendor to write better code (also not likely to happen), how can we improve the accessibility? Would iframes help at all? Are they any better, from an accessibility point of view, than old fashioned frames? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility of iFrames?
On 2009/09/28 14:06 (GMT+1000) nedlud composed: Would iframes help at all? Are they any better, from an accessibility point of view, than old fashioned frames? Most iframes on current sites are terrible. They're typically used for ads, and a minimal HTML size is set or defaulted to that depends on CSS to enlarge to a useful size. When a user disallows site styles in order to obtain adequately sized text without overlapping or hidden content, the iframe shrinks down to so small a size that typically only 2-3 words from a line of text is visible, and maybe 2-3 rows, while its content generally needs to be as much as 5 times or more that size to actually be useful. On the bright side, the ads usually aren't missed. Non-ad iframes generally suffer similar limitations for users unless the site stylists are aware and take care. -- The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation. 2nd U.S. President, John Adams 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 ***
