Re: [WSG] Expected behaviour of links to external websites
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Tom Ditmars zar...@zarggg.net wrote: On 12/29/2011 01:02 PM, coder wrote: I had an awful job getting her to understand what [a browser was], but eventually she explained : I use my e. This was subsequently clarified by the explanation that she meant the small blue thing at the bottom of the screen. Let me add that this lady sits in front of her PC, at work, using the internet 5 days a week, all day, and has done for 10 years that I know of. That is the failure of either her employer for failing to train her properly or herself for failing seeking the appropriate training to do her job. Web developers should not and cannot be expected to cater to users who use the [Web] 5 days a week ... for 10 years and refuse to learn to use it efficiently. I would dare to venture that the world has reached a point where knowing about things like tabs or right-clicking should be expected. The World Wide Web has existed for nearly 20 years. There are still many people that have not used the Internet. Or barely use it. Not everyone works in an office. Not everyone has been able to afford a home computer for 20 years, or 10, or even 5. Not everyone even likes to be in front of a computer. There are many who absolutely loathe using them. Everyone that uses the Internet is not you. It is not *us*. We are very different from most site visitors. They think nothing like us. I work with those people every day, in a variety of settings. I've been working in this field since '98 and I *still* meet people who are using the Internet for the very first time. My personal take is: design functionality based on your target demographic. If it's a saavy demographic, then work with that. If it's the general population, then about half of them can't use a computer, or just barely can, and work around that. Internet access and usage varies by country, province, state, economic and educational brackets, age, and so on. Every demographic will interact differently with a website. Users surprise us often in how they will approach a site. -- Janice Schwarz GeekArtist Web Solutions, LLC www.geekartist.com Phone: (214) 302-7575 Twitter: GeekArtist *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Expected behaviour of links to external websites
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:57 AM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Grant Bailey grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au If the link is to an external site then personally, I prefer the link to open in a new window automatically. Also, not all devices make it easy for users to open a link in a new window on request. Such devices are buggy and should be repaired, then. Don't degrade the web for everyone else because a few devices are buggy. To my knowledge, that's standard on mobile phones. It's not a bug. It's limit to what the technology can handle. And given the number of people using phones to surf the web now, that's an important consideration for standards. -- Janice Schwarz GeekArtist Web Solutions, LLC www.geekartist.com Phone: (214) 302-7575 Twitter: GeekArtist *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Expected behaviour of links to external websites
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:42 AM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Janice Schwarz jan...@geekartist.net On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:57 AM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: [devices that can't open new windows] Such devices are buggy and should be repaired, then. Don't degrade the web for everyone else because a few devices are buggy. To my knowledge, that's standard on mobile phones. It's not a bug. It's limit to what the technology can handle. And given the number of people using phones to surf the web now, that's an important consideration for standards. I'm pretty sure there is no such standard preventing mobile phones from opening new windows because my aging nokia e90 can do it (since one of the early upgrades - move to the link, left shoulder button, Open in New), Firefox on Android can - but it's been a while since I tried an iPhone and I can't remember if that does, but I'd be surprised if not. For all the difficulty of fixing iPhones, there's not usually that much glaringly broken on them. If there was, they'd not be as popular as they are. So I still think it's a bug if a browser can't open a new window and wonder what phones you've being using. Or can someone say what mobile phone standard prevents new windows on links? I have witnessed this on 2 Droids 1 iPhone . This has been the behavior for both versions of the Droid, and the iPhone I used. Admittedly, I only used the iPhone 10 days before I sent it back to get a Droid instead, so I may be mis-remembering. It's been a few years since I used a Blackberry or Palm, so I don't recall if there was a limit on those. When the OS informs you that you are exceeding the maximum number of *allowed* windows, that seems more of a limitation than a bug. If you open enough windows on a desktop or laptop, eventually it crashes too. There is no unlimited number of windows that can be run on any system, and a phone has far fewer resources than a desktop or laptop. Hope that informs, -- Janice Schwarz GeekArtist Web Solutions, LLC www.geekartist.com Phone: (214) 302-7575 Twitter: GeekArtist Facebook *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] IE9's Browser Mode Controls - Reliable?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Cole Kuryakin c...@koisis.com wrote: Hello All - I've been testing a new version of a legacy project against IE 7, 8 and 9 using IE9's Browser Mode Controls. This way of switching browser modes (between 7, 8 and 9) is quite convenient but... is it a true representation of how the project will render in these three browsers? If not, I'd love to get some suggestions on the LEAST INVASIVE way to test different modern flavors of IE. Use to do the VM routine before my C drive crashed and had to re-do all my software. Now that all my apps are cleanly installed and working perfectly, I'd rather not have to add software that I only use on occasion. Any guidance greatly appreciated. I've been using those browser mode settings in IE for a while, even in a corporate setting. They seem to be fairly accurate. I think that, generally speaking, it is better than using browsershots or browsercam, since those just give screenshots and can't test functionality. I use those for testing things I don't have access to (like Mac-specific or IE6 specific issues...even then, those are only so helpful and only address layout issues, not functionality). -- Janice Schwarz GeekArtist Web Solutions, LLC www.geekartist.com Phone: (214) 731-4733 Twitter: GeekArtist http://twitter.com/geekartist Facebook http://www.facebook.com/GeekArtist *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] mobile
Very nice mobile design. Works great too! Sent from my Droid On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Laakso da...@chelseacreekstudio.comwrote: If anyone has time to check this site [portrait/landscape] in their mobile device it is greatly appreciated. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/fa/ Best, ~d *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] mobile
Very nice mobile design. Works great too! Sent from my Droid On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Laakso da...@chelseacreekstudio.comwrote: If anyone has time to check this site [portrait/landscape] in their mobile device it is greatly appreciated. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/fa/ Best, ~d *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] mobile
Very nice mobile design. Works great too! Sent from my Droid On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Laakso da...@chelseacreekstudio.comwrote: If anyone has time to check this site [portrait/landscape] in their mobile device it is greatly appreciated. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/fa/ Best, ~d *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] best formatting for alt text
Alt text is not formatted. You just have alt=your description here. And that's it. Janice On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org wrote: Hello; I am assuming that alt text will be heard and not read. If this is so, it need only be there and could be any size, correct? How do people handle alt? format it with h6 and call it good? thanks for any advice! cs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] The head of the document
The other issue is that those top ranked sites have a lot of other sites linking to them. Relevant linking also drives Google's search engine rankings and a lot of other search engines have moved to that too. It isn't just about the content picked up by the search bots, but the massive number of sites linking to them too. But good content also means you'll have more linking to you, further boosting your ranking. Personally, I count quality content as part of SEO efforts. Janice Schwarz GeekArtist Web Solutions Putting the e in your business www.geekartist.net Do a search for something small to medium scale, for instance a doctor's surgery, a restaurant, a musician, a theatre etc. (I guess a large proportion of internet searches are for things like this). Now have a look at the number one entry returned in your search engine and examine the head. In my experience it probably won't have any meta data, and yet there it was at the top of the list. There is so much great content out there presented in terrible ways and the success of search engines is that they are able to interoperate all that mess and return relevant results to people's searches. Part of me feels that most SEO is a bit of a waste of time - if you have good content, the search engines are clever enough that they will find it. I am not saying that you should put barriers between your content and the search engines, but maybe all the time and effort you spend forming the correct keywords would be better spent improving the quality of your content. Andy -- a...@universalsprout.com Andrew Stewart London :: +44(0)7900 245 789 Sydney :: +61(0)416 607 113 www.universalsprout.com :: websites that sprout *** 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] :changing font sizes from within a page.
I find the text resizer concept (i.e. the 3 A's you mention) to be a poor idea. Unless you are making those VERY large...more often than not, they are unnoticed by those that need them because a. those 3 A's are VERY tiny b. those 3 A's are tucked away in some part of the site that will not be easily noticed. Thus, those that need them have no way of using them. Personally, I'd just use the relative sizing so fonts will scale per user setting. And following up on what someone else wrote: trying to teach your users to use your site doesn't work. They won't take the time to learn. They will simply leave. Most surfers have no patience for a site that requires effort on their part. Janice 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. Thanks, Bob *** 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] Browser toolbars
I typically go with I highly recommend against that because and give the reasons why. And keep your written and/or spoken tone as respectful and polite as possible. That said, it doesn't always sway them. My 10 years in this field sometimes means nothing to those that are hard-headed enough. In situations where they won't go with your recommendation...then its up to you to decide if you're willing to do it or not. Janice -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of CK Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:35 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser toolbars I'm all ears, please inform On May 4, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Andrew Maben wrote: BTW, has anyone come up with a bulletproof way to tell a client his stupid idea is stupid? Without losing the account? CK *** 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] Box model in IE7
Can you clarify what your issue is regarding setting font size to 62.5%?
Just curious. Wondering if I'm missing something here.
Janice
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Chris F.A. Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:28 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Christopher Kennon wrote:
S,
See this article from Links for light Reading scrolling down a bit
you'll find a JS solution that may prove useful:
Why Programmers Suck at CSS Design
http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/169/
That article ceased to be credible as soon as I saw:
My suggestion for you is to do the following: start your CSS
stylesheet with
html {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
RE: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Ah, ok. Either that person is misunderstanding the technique or I've just
never seen anyone actually leave all text on a site at that size when I've
seen it used.
Ideally, you set that (62.5%) as the base font size. Then you apply specific
formatting to the rest of the site (headers, body text, etc.) so that text
is not actually that tiny. Preferably using using scaleable sizing.
*I* can't read text at that size either. :-)
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Chris F.A. Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:22 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Box model in IE7
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Janice Schwarz wrote:
Can you clarify what your issue is regarding setting font size to 62.5%?
Just curious. Wondering if I'm missing something here.
http://bergamotus.ws/misc/sensible-css-text-sizing.html
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of Chris F.A. Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:28 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Christopher Kennon wrote:
S,
See this article from Links for light Reading scrolling down a bit
you'll find a JS solution that may prove useful:
Why Programmers Suck at CSS Design
http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/169/
That article ceased to be credible as soon as I saw:
My suggestion for you is to do the following: start your CSS
stylesheet with
html {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster http://woodbine-gerrard.com
===
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
***
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] Box model in IE7
I admit, I've only seen it used on the body tag too. Seeing it on html threw
me, so at first I was wondering if the objection was over that instead of
body.
Janice
_
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Brett Patterson
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:46 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Forgot to mention that you do set specific formatting on text afterwards, as
you mentioned, Janice. And I might add that that is a good point Christian,
it does seem a little silly!
--
Brett P.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Brett Patterson
inspiron.patters...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, according to the rules as I have read, Browser font-sizing takes
precedence in certain circumstances...so, if the user's font-size is 14pt.
then that means the body text font-size will be 62.5% of that. This goes in
according to the rules of inheritance...I have never actually seen anyone
set font-size in html, let alone at 62.5% or 74%. But I have, however, seen
it at body at 100%.
--
Brett P.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Jason Grant ja...@flexewebs.com wrote:
We were told in the past by a massive client that for accessibility purposes
font sizes needed to be set to 74% as a minimum as the basic reading size
below which it's a straign on the eyes.
I personally don't mess with browser defaults and don't tend to use resets,
but for minimal purposes only.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Brett Patterson
inspiron.patters...@gmail.com wrote:
I have always been told to use something along the lines of either body {
font-size: 100%; /* a fix for internet explorer */ } because of the way IE
reads/sizes font. Starting out with html at only 62.5% font-sizing would
completely mess up IE and the font in the browser would it not?
--
Brett P.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM, CK jobs@bushidodeep.com wrote:
Hi,
Would you elaborate on why the CSS rule invalidates the article? As it
appears the authors explanation is sound.
html {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
CK
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Christopher Kennon wrote:
S,
See this article from Links for light Reading scrolling down a bit you'll
find a JS solution that may prove useful:
Why Programmers Suck at CSS Design
http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/169/
http://www.betaversion.org/%7Estefano/linotype/news/169/
That article ceased to be credible as soon as I saw:
My suggestion for you is to do the following: start your CSS
stylesheet with
html {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Stevio wrote:
Is the box model in IE7 still messed up? I thought they sorted it?
It is fixed in standards mode, but I think it uses the broken model
in quirks mode.
I am floating a div to the right with a width of 50%. The div to the left
has a right margin of 50%. I've put a 1px solid border on both of them. In
IE7 there is a gap between them but in Firefox they are right against each
other.
Go figure?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster http://woodbine-gerrard.com
===
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
***
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
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
--
Jason Grant BSc, MSc
CEO, Flexewebs Ltd.
www.flexewebs.com
ja...@flexewebs.com
+44 (0)7748 591 770
Company no.: 5587469
www.flexewebs.com/semantix
www.twitter.com/flexewebs
www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs
***
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
RE: [WSG] add to favorites?
I'm new to this group, so I can't speak for anyone else. However, this sounds like something that would be of interest to me. I'm certainly game for hearing how other people handle these conflicts, how they arrive at their decisions, and so on. The simple fact is that regardless of our commitment to web standards, many are often in the position where we don't get to make the call as to whether we can adhere to those standards or not. Sometimes, if we want to keep our day jobs or clients as freelancers, we have to pick our battles and sometimes pick and choose what we can get them to comply with and what we're willing to let go of. Janice -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Steve Green Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:56 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] add to favorites? Is this list interested in discussing how to balance the conflicting requirements of various stakeholders (including marketers) or does it take the dogmatic position that compliance with web stardards trumps everything else? Steve *** 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: Who's responsible (was Re: [WSG] add to favorites?)
-Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Matt Morgan-May Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:50 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Who's responsible (was Re: [WSG] add to favorites?) On 3/25/09 12:12 PM, Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote: The correct design (and web standards that are adhered to or not) is that design for which the client is paying. Sorry, but that just reads to me like a way to excuse slipshod work. It is one thing to figure out any old way to collect the check, and quite another to think out all the angles and produce something that reaches the largest possible audience. I think the latter is far more professional, and all of the people I now work with, and all the ones I think of as successful in web design/dev, sweat those details. You seem to assume that no one took the steps to create other options or inform in these situations. I have. And I've been told no go, do it my way or the highway. Not everyone is reasonable about things like that. Some people insist they know it all and persist with ridiculous demands that are often non-standards compliant and downright ugly. Regardless of the alternatives they've been handed. I've dealt with some moronic requests when it comes to websites, from people that know nothing about it. I'm sure we all have at some point. I've personally refused jobs before based on the knowledge that accessibility was being left out. So I know it can be done. Whether others would do the same is a question of their own judgment, not their professionalism. It's good that you have the luxury to be able to make that call. The reality is that not everyone is in a position, financially or otherwise. Yes, it can be done. It is simply not always practical. That said, I'm in a position where I typically do get to call the shots. I want standards compliance. Every design is blood and sweat because I'm not compromising. But to get where I am, I had to put up with a lot of hideous nonsense along the way. I'm not saying let's just toss standards out the window. I'm just saying that the reality is that sometimes we're stuck with compromise, or worse, we don't even get to compromise. Learning how to balance conflicting requirements, or how to offer alternatives in some cases, strikes me as a valuable tool to advance the cause of usability and accessibility. As with any cause, sometimes advancement and education of the masses involves babysteps and doing what we can. Speaking of doing what we can: anyone taken a good look at whitehouse.gov? While they've made some great strides in modernizing the site, its sorely lacking in basic accessibility. For starters: fixed font sizes. I filled out the comment form to give feedback on the subject. If more of us piped up, it could benefit. Janice *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
