RE: [WSG] [Spam] :changing font sizes from within a page.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me what is the current best practice for letting users change the font-size (e.g., by clicking on three 'a's of different sizes to make different css files be used) on the web site. Is it still a good idea, or do we go for the approach of using the browser to do it? Any and all helpful suggestions gratefully appreciated. Comes down to the 'give a man a fish/teach a man to fish' principle for me. If you explain to the user how to use their browser settings to change the text size then they can use that on any site. If you use the 3 A's it only holds up for your site (and breaks if cookies/JavaScript are turned off) James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] [Spam] :changing font sizes from within a page.
Comes down to the 'give a man a fish/teach a man to fish' principle for me. If you explain to the user how to use their browser settings to change the text size then they can use that on any site. Good in theory -- would you point out a few example sites that have done a good job of explaining this to non- technical end users? Roger Johansson wrote a great article about it that references some good places and links to the place I stole the fish analogy from: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200709/scrap_text_resize_widgets_a nd_teach_people_how_to_resize_text/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Background image not visible in ie
The guys over at unit interactive also have a help script to help fix the issues with transparent PNG images in IE6. http://labs.unitinteractive.com/unitpngfix.php I highly recommend this script very handy and concise. The one problem I have noticed with it is that it doesn't respect background position on background images - everything goes to (0,0) . If this is ok, it is a great solution and can of course be applied via a conditional comment meaning no superfluous code for 'decent' browsers. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Background image not visible in ie
The only place I ran into a problem with the background position was using sprites for the menu on this site: http://thebrokenfamilyband.com I needed to use pixels for left and top values so didn't try 'center', maybe it would work. In the end I just used a conditional comment stylesheet to deliver IE6 a text only menu instead. The beauty of the script was not needing to set the filter on numerous elements as it searches for all PNGs and fixes them, but as mentioned it does require JavaScript as a small disadvantage. If you only want 1 or 2 PNGs then the filter is probably lighter. J From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Brett Patterson Sent: 29 April 2009 18:00 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background image not visible in ie Have you used the CSS: background-position: center center; ? -- Brett P. On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Ben Dodson b...@bendodson.com wrote: It does of course require JavaScript which isn't strictly necessary as you can get the same effect with just CSS (especially for the purposes of the example given initially). With regards to background image positioning, I'm fairly sure there is no way to stop it going to position (0,0) as that's how the Microsoft Filter works. Ben --- e: b...@bendodson.com w: http://bendodson.com/ Feeling social? Connect with me on various social networks at http://social.bendodson.com/ - You might also want to follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bendodson On 29 Apr 2009, at 13:46, James Leslie wrote: The guys over at unit interactive also have a help script to help fix the issues with transparent PNG images in IE6. http://labs.unitinteractive.com/unitpngfix.php I highly recommend this script very handy and concise. The one problem I have noticed with it is that it doesn't respect background position on background images - everything goes to (0,0) . If this is ok, it is a great solution and can of course be applied via a conditional comment meaning no superfluous code for 'decent' browsers. James *** 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] IE8 compatibility mode
I was aware of the X-UA-Compatible thing, but have no intention of going down that route: I have no way of knowing whether my code is compatible with IE9 or not, so how can I decide which mode it should render in next year? (As you can all see, I'm not too sure whether it is compatible with IE8, and this page doesn't like previous versions much either.) - This was why I suggested using a value of IE=8 rather than edge, as discussed on ALA - http://www.alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype There are drawbacks as Georg mentioned but it seems the safest option to me. We are supplying all of our sites with an http header from the server of IE=8, if we want to change a particular site to a different rendering mode (to get into quirks mode for example) we add the meta tag which overrides the http header. Seems to be working a treat and avoids compatibility view entirely. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] IE8 compatibility mode
If in doubt, place this meta in page head... meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=edge / ...and the Compatibility view button will disappear in IE8. Using meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=8 / will also have the same effect (getting rid of the compatibility view button and forcing standards mode), but may be a bit more stable against future releases of IE. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Web dev or design certificates
Try CIW http://www.ciwcertified.com/ http://www.ciwcertified.com/ certification. Certified Internet Web Developer (and then whichever is your area of specialization). Mine is CIW Master Designer - you have to pass 3 exams to get it. - I took a course based on this curriculum about 3.5 years ago when I decided to get serious about web design. I too took (and passed) the CIW Master designer exams. I have to say that as a certificate it is a complete waste of time in the UK. I haven't found any employers who were aware of the certificate, and when I explained what it was (each exam is about 50 multiple choice questions), nobody was particularly fussed. I found that my portfolio and being able to talk about my work was much more important in gaining employment/respect. For me, taking the course (and exams) was useful in that it gave me full-time opportunities to work with other aspiring designers and the exams gave me confidence that I was taking in what I was being told, but it hasn't vaguely helped me in employment terms. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Acceptable autoplay of music
Thanks for all the responses. The majority seem to pretty much agree with my view that it would be better to have the user initiate the music. The player I'm planning on using does have very clear controls for playback and volume, so if the client does *insist* on auto-playback I will definitely bear in mind setting the initial volume lower. I often leave pages with autoplay straight away too *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] OT: AJAX
-Original Message- Sorry about the OT, but I'm bewildered by the choices! Can anyone suggest a good starting book to learn AJAX? I'm familar with javascript and PHP and want to investigate. Reply offlist if you find it preferable. I wouldn't think it is off-topic, especially if it is a good standards based, best practice book :-) I really recommend 'Bulletproof Ajax' by Jeremy Keith. It's not going to get you to advanced level but is a great starting point and he writes in a very easy to understand fashion. His 'DOM Scripting' book is very good too. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Browsers and Zooming
The latest versions of the 4 major browsers (IE, Opera, Safari and Firefox) all do zooming. It is *relatively* safe to assume that Firefox, Safari and Opera users will update their browsers on a regular basis as these browsers all have to be sought out and downloaded initially. However IE6 still hangs around and doesn't support page zooming, so I believe that you still have to check font resizing on layouts rather than assuming that all users can zoom. Font resizing is also available on all browsers so should be tested for anyway. That's my thought anyway. Are all browsers now using zooming to resize pages? I noticed FF2 wasn't using zooming but FF3 is and I know IE and Safari already do it. Any background information in this? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Multi level navigation!
Hi, It is not valid because the inner ul needs to be contained in a li item of the outer ul. The only valid thing inside a ul tag is a li. If you surround the inner ul with a li with a class/id attached then you should be able to fiddle with that specific li in your CSS to sort out paddings/margins as your require. Hope that helps :-) J -Original Message- Hi, Just wondering if any one can help me, i am trying to make a multi level CSS list on my website for navigation, it looks fine and works fine in all browsers, however it is now valid XHTML. The navigation can be seen here; http://jungle-systems.com/~mip/fmn/ I have tried adding a new class for the inner navigation, that makes it valid, however it displays with a gap at the top of the inner navigation on IE. Can anyone guide me in the right direction? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fuji kusaka Sent: 13 June 2008 05:23 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? Hi The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. This is simple just follow the instructions here http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html Fuji On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find that having email link actually is causing usability for users. When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so that it won't cause problem for above users? Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Fuji kusaka *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)?
I guess it depends on the clients you have. We have several sites getting over 100,000 hits a day, with around 5% of users not having JavaScript enabled. To prevent this number of people from contacting us is completely out of the question. My belief is that the internet is for users, and as web designers we should facilitate as many users as possible to be able to use our sites. That makes things better for both clients and visitors, rather than (but hopefully including) web standards. We would certainly lose business if I started to say that people without JavaScript were not using the web the way I wanted so we would exclude them. I'd argue against an image too on the basis of the increase in mobile browsers were users choose not to download images to reduce and width costs (like my set up). That's without even thinking about people with visual impairments. Maybe I'm just a standards freak, though ;-) J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a image that search engines cannot read... I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not using internet for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all kind of users. Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is based in the clients need and NOT on web standards. Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and not for the clients or visitors in general... There is a war and it will always be there until understanding from all parts are met. Michael James Leslie wrote: Why is this the best way? It means that anyone without JavaScript enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. I think mailto's and spam filters are the best way to go, as they are accessible for everyone. J *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility for HTML Email
I like the idea of a title tag being used i.e.- a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title=e-mail address - [EMAIL PROTECTED]first name last name/a I don't know what you would gain by this Any bots harvesting email addresses will just pick up on the address in the href. Unfortunately, I think the only accessible way to do this is to have the traditional form of email address being used and getting server side protection from spam. If you don't care about accessibility (though you wouldn't be on this list!), then use JavaScript to cut down on spam, but I am sure that bots will be able to read generated source pretty soon if they can't already. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
It is the best solution they can come up with that won't destroy everything that has been created in the past. Adding one line of code to each of your pages is a lot more cost effective and time saving then all of the hacks we currently have to do to get it to display properly in IE6 and IE7. --- But by this argument, you seem to think that we would no longer have to support IE6 or 7 and not have to spend the time putting hacks in. These browsers will still be around for a long time... Perhaps not so much IE7 but certainly IE6 due to older OS not being able to update. My development plan will stay the same aside from having another browser to check: Code site in Firefox Check in Opera, Safari, PLUS IE8 (standards mode) Hack IE7 fixes Hack IE6 fixes Or alternatively I let IE8 act like IE7 and don't bother using an updated engine as an updated engine. The only difference between now and then in the above plan is that I would check IE8 standards mode and hope that it renders the same as firefox, safari and other standards based browsers. I may be missing something, but I really don't see where the less work comes in for anyone who is coding to standards. For those who have been churning out badly coded sites that don't work properly in firefox/opera/etc and have always been coding for IE it is a blessing. It is not so much about 'not breaking the web', as not breaking the sites already breaking the web. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I think we will be able to 'ignore' IE7 way before IE6 due to Microsoft being able to (presumably) force upgrades of IE7 to IE8, but still being stuck with IE6 in the way we are now on older OS's. Though IE8 rendering like IE7 by default means we will have to fix for that And no doubt Microsoft can come up with something to throw a spanner in those works like finding that IE8 will only be available for Vista (this is a prediction not a fact!). For me the real shame with this whole thing is the designers/coders who have no interest in standards will probably never know about any of this, they will just code for IE8 as they code for IE7, so where is the real improvement? They still produce sub-standard sites using flawed code, that is rendered in a good browser masquerading as a flawed browser. It is only the small percentage of 'standardistas' who will tap into IE8's improved engine and we will largely be the only people to notice too, as most clients will merely visually see a website in a browser rather than the code underneath. --- When IE8 comes out, no, we won't be able to ignore IE7, and most likely not even IE6 yet. However, eventually, IE6 and IE7 will fade away, just like IE5 did. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] standards-compliant designers and shoddy work poor QA
Every user smart enough to know there are non IE browsers are smart enough to know sometimes you have to switch back to IE to make the website work. Now this is not true I got caught out this weekend discovering that I needed to use IE for a media program that I assumed was just not connecting for some reason. Maybe I should have known better, but it still took a 20 minute call after about 30 minutes of failed connection attempts for me to get to the root of the problem - that I was using firefox. I'm a fairly clued up full-time web designer, and as I said I probably should have known better, but there are plenty of people who wouldn't know out there. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Styling Submit buttons with JavaScript by making them anchors
Hi,
I'm trying to use some code so that submit buttons on a form are (using
JavaScript if available) removed and replaced with anchor tags that then
have event handlers added to them to submit a form if clicked. The
reason for this is that I have some tabs I want to style in a similar
way though some are anchors and some are inputs and it means I should be
able to style submit buttons in the same way as anchor tags whilst
managing to keep the text resizable (as opposed to using an image for
the submit button).
I have used this before on an implementation without problems but that
was finding the only submit button by ID rather than through a list of
inputs and my new code seems to have a problem now where only the first
input is changed and it doesn't seem to iterate to the second input).
A simplified version of the code is below (DOM checks etc removed)...
can anyone see what is wrong? I'd love to do it this way as it is nice
and unobtrusive and means I can style things whilst keeping them
accessible (hopefully). The same code is also online at
http://jamestesting.metafaq.com/clients/jamestesting/test.html
Many Thanks
James
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; lang=en
head
titleEntry: jamestest2 /title
script type=text/javascript
function changeInputs(){
// find all uls
var uls = document.getElementsByTagName(ul);
// break if no uls present
if (uls.length 1) return false;
// find uls with class = tabNav
for (var i=0; iuls.length; i++){
var current_ul = uls[i];
// break iteration of loop if not tabNav class
if (current_ul.className != tabNav) continue;
// find all inputs inside tabNav class ul
var inputs = current_ul.getElementsByTagName(input);
// break iteration if no inputs in ul
if (inputs.length1) continue;
for(var j=0; jinputs.length; j++){
var current_input = inputs[j];
var newa = document.createElement('a');
newa.setAttribute('href','#');
newa.appendChild(document.createTextNode(current_input.getAttribute('val
ue')));
current_input.parentNode.insertBefore(newa,current_input);
current_input.parentNode.removeChild(current_input);
}
}
return true;
}
/script
/head
body onload=changeInputs()
form action=# name=testform
ul class=tabNav
lia href=#Link 1/a/li
lia href=#Link 2/a/li
/ul
div class=contentbox
ul class=tabNav
liinput type=submit name=test1 value=test1 //li
liinput type=submit name=test2 value=test2 //li
/ul
div class=contentbox
pThis is some content/p
/div
/div
/form
/body
/html
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] Styling Submit buttons with JavaScript by making them anchors FIXED
I guess that you have to count down in your for-loop. You modify the
DOM while iterating over the nodes, so the model changes while you
are working at it. If you start with the last element, you don't
mess up the references.
for(var j=inputs.length-1; j=0; j--) { ... }
--
Thanks so much Martin, that works perfectly (and makes sense)
James
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] Styling Submit buttons with JavaScript by making them anchors
This might be a stupid question, but why can't you just style your form submit buttons to look like links using CSS? - Primarily because some browsers don't support styling of inputs very well, but also because I need to add a span in for styling the links/inputs as tabs. If I do this in a browser that doesn't support styling of inputs (Safari for example) then I end up with the span still displaying the left edge of the tab and then a normal submit button. I also don't want to use the Button tag due to its incorrect behaviour in IE (http://www.peterbe.com/plog/button-tag-in-IE) Whilst this method is relatively long winded, it delivers the result I want across our supported browsers effectively and degrades to an acceptable form in the absence of JavaScript (inputs displayed instead of tabs) Hope that makes some sense of my madness *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Simple question on forms
That is not really true. Form fields take focus from the order they are in the code. They can be positioned anywhere on the screen using CSS. Without intervention they will follow this order regardless of top, bottom, left or right on the screen. 'Lining them up' would (hopefully) be done with CSS but will not affect the document flow. James -- By default, forms fields take focus from the top-down and left to right. All you have to do, is line them up in the order you want them to have focus. -chuck *** 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] Simple question on forms
That is not really true. Form fields take focus from the order they are in the code. They can be positioned anywhere on the screen using CSS. Without intervention they will follow this order regardless of top, bottom, left or right on the screen. 'Lining them up' would (hopefully) be done with CSS but will not affect the document flow. James -- By default, forms fields take focus from the top-down and left to right. All you have to do, is line them up in the order you want them to have focus. -chuck *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Disabling Fonts in Font Stacks
Thanks everyone for your responses to this. I might give the stylish extension a try or just stick to removing them by hand in the web developer extension. The font declarations I was looking at have all been sized as percentages and ems rather than pixels, I was just interested in how different things might look with the different fonts. Most resizing I know would be fine with these sites, my concern was largely centred around some fixed pixel width sidebars with fairly long headings, but I suspect they'll be ok. Felix - thanks a lot for the advice and the link to the font page Interesting how different the font sizes are. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Iframe navigation accessibility question
Hi Folks, I have just inherited a bands website which places all of the navigation (both top and bottom links) in iframes. I don't 100% understand why the developer chose to do this unless it is emulating php includes in static html, anyway, it seems like a bad idea to me and is high on my list of things to sort out on the site. My question is: Is this as inaccessible as I fear it is? Will a screen reader be likely to have issues with it? I have to do a new version of the site around Easter next year when a new album comes out, I'm wondering whether I should spend the time fixing this version up in the meantime or whether it's issues are not as harmful as I fear. Thanks James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Firefox is a pushover
Hi Chris, That seems like an odd scenario to me, firefox is pretty tight compared to IE I thought, but I'll take your word for it :-) You could try using a plug-in such as HTML validator for Firefox that will put a little icon on the bottom right of your firefox browser to show you if a page is valid or not and it will show you errors too. It uses the HTML tidy software http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ Hope that helps James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Price Sent: 21 November 2007 15:54 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Firefox is a pushover I build websites on a Mac and have to check my websites on another machine in order to view them in IE. I experience the usual issues with IE applying css differently than Firefox but my biggest frustrations, lately, have come from errors in my html that Firefox has happily ignored but IE has faithfully shown up. Its traditional to knock IE6 for its non-compliance but its done a good job of validating my html lately. I would like to get my Firefox to toughen up and show up errors in the html without having to submit it to a validator? The problem usually comes from missing closing tags. Kind Regards -- Chris Price *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Iframe navigation accessibility question
Thanks Steve, and John for your thoughts on this. I'll speak to the client and make the suggestion. James From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Green Sent: 21 November 2007 15:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Iframe navigation accessibility question The accessibility issues relating to frames are often overstated, although they can cause difficulties with user agents that only support one window, such as Lynx. You can usually still use the site but it is not as convenient because you have to keep going back to the list of frames in order to access the navigation menus. We have done user testing on frame-based sites, and screen reader users had no problems. There's a bit more verbiage as the start and end of frames is announced, but the provision of frame titles can actually be helpful. The biggest problems with frame-based sites are more usability than accessibility issues e.g. bookmarking. Steve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Leslie Sent: 21 November 2007 14:32 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Iframe navigation accessibility question Hi Folks, I have just inherited a bands website which places all of the navigation (both top and bottom links) in iframes. I don't 100% understand why the developer chose to do this unless it is emulating php includes in static html, anyway, it seems like a bad idea to me and is high on my list of things to sort out on the site. My question is: Is this as inaccessible as I fear it is? Will a screen reader be likely to have issues with it? I have to do a new version of the site around Easter next year when a new album comes out, I'm wondering whether I should spend the time fixing this version up in the meantime or whether it's issues are not as harmful as I fear. Thanks James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Idiot's guide to JavaScript
Hi guys, Am comfortable with HTML/CSS and accessibility in general, but struggle with JavaScript. I'm not a developer by trade, am a business type (sales and marketing) so most oft he stuff is well over my head. I am looking for a really basic, plain English guide to JavaScript. Either on or offline will do. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance Rob --- Hi Rob, I'm just starting to get into JavaScript having spent the last couple of years also working primarily with HTML/CSS and accessibility. I'm finding Jeremy Keith's DOM Scripting very easy to read and understand, so would recommend it. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Less than and greater than in UTF-8 encoded HTML
How should I code less than and greater than signs in UTF-8 encoded HTML? less than = lt; greater than = gt; You might find this useful: http://leftlogic.com/lounge/articles/entity-lookup/ James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Rounded Courners .... Your Take
For fixed width boxes I use 3 images - 1 for the top, 1 for the middle and 1 for the bottom For totally fluid boxes I try to use tags inside the container (headings and paragraph tags can be useful here depending on content) and then add divs as appropriate James James Jeffery wrote: What methods do you find best when creating rounded corners and which methods are the most supported? I have been using span tags and absolute positioning. I have also recently started to use the sliding doors method because you can achive nice rounded boxes with some nice effects, even better if you use PNG's. Using the span method i did find a bug in IE 6, the 2 corner span's wouldn't sit flush with the bottom of the containing div, although it displayed fine in every other browser i tested it on and they could be resized fine. It was odd though, because IE 5.x display them perfect, was just IE 6. Lets have your beloved methods then guys. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] How many of us are public and how many private?
I work for a commercial agency making microsites and have done freelancing in the private sector too. I haven't to date worked in the Public sector and don't anticipate doing so. I think the private sector probably allows more creative freedom (taking into account company branding) and less red-tape/bureaucracy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Certifications / Exams / Accreditations / Qualifications
I was wondering If anyone could suggest any credible certifications, exams, qualifications etc. in: * Web Standards * Accessibility * SEO * Site Building / Design * etc. That would be worthwhile taking/having on my CV as well as being useful from a learning point of view. I have an old MCP+SB from a few years ago but it's all changed now :-) Hi, I noticed that you are based in the UK, and to be honest, there aren't really any certificates that count for anything here, aside from possibly a degree/masters in Computer Science or similar. I changed career about 4 years ago to web design after playing around with it for a couple of years as a hobby and was looking for courses as you describe. The only thing I really found was CIW (certified internet webmaster) courses, which I duly took. They were pretty basic and only covered stuff I could have got from half a £10 book. I then found that I had to explain what these 'qualifications' were at every job interview I had... No-one had heard of them. On a positive note, I guess they improved my confidence towards my work. From personal experience, I found that the UK market is pretty keen on accessibility and standards so I worked hard at trying to understand these areas and building up a decent portfolio. A portfolio is much more important than a CV nowadays. I am now involved in our recruitment process and tend to be much more interested in whether candidates read lists such as this one, read/write blogs, go to conferences, etc than if they have a degree or other certificate. The web moves so quickly that what is relevant now may be irrelevant in a years time (tabindex and accesskeys being 2 things that pop to the front of my mind as fairly recent examples of this phenomenon). Hope that helps James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Mocking up web interfaces
I also use Fireworks, primarily as I like the combination of vector and bitmap abilities during the mock-up stages. I too sketch a lot of ideas on paper first. Hi there, Just a quick one - what do people most commonly mock up web site designs in? (Photoshop?) Also, if possible, Linux and GPL or similar would be great!! Cheers, Doug *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Photo gallery markup semantics
2) Another method with a UL: ul lia href=img /a//li lia href=img /a//li /ul It's been pickin' my brain for days. The main reason I even considered a table is because the anchors leave an empty space between the images. I've set up a test page here: http://bws.jasonrobb.com/content/image-test.html What do you think is causing that extra space? How can I avoid/remove it? - Hi, I'd definitely go with a UL as you do essentially have a list of images here. To get rid of the space between the images doing this just replace the display:inline with float:left and it should all work perfectly. To format the rows nicely, you will probably want to apply a fixed width to the UL tag, which should give you control over how many images appear in each row. Hope that helps James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
On a related note, though not involving galleries, I find a lot of our clients want to have linked text along the lines of Click here for more details on product x. I have managed to fairly much insist that we always use the entire sentence as a link to show context, rather than just the click here that they tend to want being the only linked part. The main reason I have not been able to get rid of the click here part altogether though is due to an absence of a suitable alternative that incorporates other technologies... Does anyone have any suggestions for these circumstances? Thanks James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
