Re: [WSG] http://ie6countdown.com/
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:54 AM, tee wrote: > http://ie6countdown.com/ > > In some countries, the usages are disturbingly high. I wonder how the stats > are collected and how accurate it is. > > 24.8% from South Korea is quite shocking as internet and IT communication > technology is very advanced. Possible explanation for that is if the stats lump mobile devices running windows mobile are included which would come across as IE6. That would explain higher usages of IE6 in more tech savvy countries. Just a thought. -- ---- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Dan Macfadyen is out of the office.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Jay Tanna wrote: > > > Can something be done to stop these messages? People are alsways out of > office making money but why do we need to know of their availability? Can > they not use non-business email that doesn't need such messages? Also those > signatures of more than 4 lines should also be banned IMHO. > I've been wondering that myself. It seems like half the email sent to this list is someone's out of office auto reply message. For instance this morning I log into my account and see 9 new email threads. 7 of which are out of office and 2 are actual questions from people. Are these folks getting deleted from the list per the guidelines? > --- On Fri, 11/2/11, dan.macfad...@immi.gov.au > wrote: > > >> >> I will be out of the office starting 11/02/2011 and >> will not return until >> 21/02/2011. >> >> I will respond to your message when I return. >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******* > > -- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] attribute selectors to target external and internal links
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:57 PM, tee wrote:
> Unless I am missing the obvious, this wouldn't work because I have no way to
> know what external links client's will link to. I need a method that wouldn't
> fail.
>
Unless I'm misunderstanding your question all you need to do is style
your a tags this way in this order to get the right style on the right
links:
a { style whatever the default style you want }
a[href^="http"] { style whatever style you want for all external links }
a[href*="sitethatisnotanexternalsite.com"] { style should be the same
styles used in the a{} style}
the above order of rules will style external and internal links
differently and won't fail and if there are additional domains that
you want styled the same as the internal links you just keep adding
a[href*="siteyouwanttoadd.com"] { styling} to the bottom of the list.
Keep adding them to the bottom is the key here.
--
--------
Jason Arnold
http://www.jasonarnold.net
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] CSS, :hover and touch screen devices (Was: CSS "rollovers" for images?)
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM, cat soul wrote: > I agree thoroughly, Hassan. Yet as this is a best-practices discussion and > group, and since we've been hearing that these things A) don't always work > and B) aren't always well-received by end users, we're left with a need. > > And that need is to know: out of the universe of what we can do, what ought > we do to ensure as universal an experience as possible? progressive enhancement is what you ought to do. and to answer the question if the experience needs to be same universally we have the answer right here: http://dowebsitesneedtobeexperiencedexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/ -- -------- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] HTM5 Semantic markup overly done?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:24 AM, tee wrote: > Is this example overly done? > http://playground.html5rocks.com/#semantic_markup > > > > > > Article Title > > > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, > > > > > > Article Title > > giat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non > proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. > > > > the only overly done part with the above example is the use of the tag inside the article. I would use the tag instead like in your below example, but the rest is good. Just remember that is defined in the spec as a "thematic grouping of content, typically with a header" so you should also have a in your unless it truly doesn't apply. > I thought this is suffice but then I am not sure as these HTML5 tags are > still too new for me. > > > > > ... > ... > > > > > ... > ... > > > This one is okay except, IMO, that you should wrap the in a . Also just wanted to point out with HTML5 you can use all tags in your articles instead of . And honestly I think any of those ways would probably be okay -- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] CSS and h264 vs Flash
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:06 AM, cat soul wrote: >Flash offers a one-stop shopping > tool, and as has been said, most/many people have the flash plug-in, so > playback is more or less assured across the intertoobs. Except when dealing with the Mobile market where Flash isn't universal and if you care at all if your content plays on the iProducts (Pad, Pod, Phone which does have a decent marketshare in mobile devices) then you'll be looking at alternatives in addition to Flash anyway. > So my question is: can CSS and/or Javascript plus *some* codec of > movie/sound content replace Flash? Yes. If you encode in Ogg and H.264 and include a Flash player fallback for IE < 9 then your video would be available in all the popular browsers and available on all mobile devices that can play video from websites. There's already many templates out there that includes all this (minus the video encodings obviously). -- ---- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] HTML5 with Chrome
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Erickson, Kevin (DOE) wrote: > Hi, > > I found an edgy “Chrome Only”, HTML5 development here, > http://www.chromeexperiments.com/, called The Wilderness Down and am > wondering if this wasteful, at this point in time, to develop an HTML5 site > like http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/? If it is, how long is your ETA > of when it will be the normal? Well, since that page is actually a doctype of XHTML 1.0 Transitional (not HTML5, although one could say it's HTML5 because it uses some HTML5 tags but it's clearly XHTML 1.0) and that it doesn't work I'd say it's wasteful. However, is it wasteful to create a working site in HTML5, depends on your audience and the type of content you need to implement. If it's a site like this one that suppose to be all rich interactive (aka using the canvas tag) and has to work in IE6/7/8 then it might be wasteful since you'd want to also create a flash version to replace the canvas tag for those versions of browsers that don't support the canvas tag yet. However, for all other tags in HTML5 you would be fine building a site with them today and not be wasteful. -- ---- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] html5 issue
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Tom Livingston wrote: > No luck there, but thanks. Here's the head to my page: > > > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";> change the above line to just that will take care of this error. > this line will also throw an error due to too many dashes -- -------- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Yes or No? HTML5 FOR WEB DESIGNERS
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM, tee wrote: > Months ago I tried converting a theme to HTML5, but had to give it up for > the following reason: > Ran into a number of validation errors with obsolete tags which are no > longer supported by HTML5. Though they were all fixable but it gave me a > second thought perhaps it's not such a good idea to be progressive with > newer markup technology for sites that need to go live today, tomorrow, next > year and that I have no control, no way to know how the site owners going to > use their sites and how many plugins they will be using which have terribly > markup in the template files. I can't remember exactly how many errors I > encountered except this one that had me a change of heart because I am not > certain of the impact on the WCAG 2.0 success criteria and how today's > Screen readers handle the HTML5. > W3C validator flagged Summary attribute as obsolete. Quote: "The summary > attribute is obsolete. Consider describing the structure of complex tables > in or in a paragraph and pointing to the paragraph using the > aria-describedby attribute." So this is more a validation error than > accessibility issue right? TotalValidator doesn't find it wrong. So I assume > it's not an accessibility issue, or TotalValidator got it wrong. > Last time I checked, browsers are buggy rendering Caption element, not sure > if this is still the case but I certainly don't want to go find a hack or > invent a hack to make caption element render correctly in all > browsers. Aria-described attribute maybe a way to go but I don't know > little about it. I'd be curious to see your validation errors. FYI, obsolete is brand new to HTML5, it's different than being deprecated, it means you can still use it but there's a probably a better way to do what you're trying to do and that you should abandon that old way for a better way but it's okay if you don't. Also if you would use the W3C validator you will see it only gives a warning about the summary but will still say your markup is valid so technically it's still valid markup to use summary. This is why all the experts I hear talk say if you have valid HTML or XHTML just changing your doctype to gives you valid html5 markup. -- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Yes or No? HTML5 FOR WEB DESIGNERS
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:49 AM, jeffrey morin wrote: > Does anyone have an opinion on whether the book, HTML5 FOR WEB DESIGNERS by > Jeremy Keith is worth the purchase? I want to learn more about HTML5 but am > turned off by the shameless promotion they've done for this book. Does > anyone have any suggestions on other books or if this is worth it? It's a good starter book to introduce you to HTML5. It's not a reference manual just a good starter book. You still should read the W3C spec and get the other book Introduction to HTML5. I will disagree with Jason Grant that it's too early to start using HTML5. Because HTML5 supports the older tags you can start using it today by simply using that's it and you're site is now considered html5, and if you're site validated for XHTML or HTML prior it should validate for HTML5. Then you can also start coding for HTML5 by doing where you name the class the HTML5 tag name which will allow you to later find and replace with the real HTML5 tag. This kind of stuff is also covered in Jeremy Keith's book. Also if www.google.com is already using HTML5 (view the source the next time you do a search) then I don't see why you can't start using HTML5. Not to mention if you're building anything for mobile today you'll want to begin with HTML5, IMO. -- -------- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Getting my feet wet in HTML5
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Chris Knowles wrote: >> a 'div' definitely has meaning, ie: it is a division of one part of >> the page, from another; whether it is used for other behaviour, >> doesn't preclude it from from its original meaning. > > but when everything is in a div, div ceases to have much meaning. It simply > says theres a bunch of things on the page that are separate to each other > without giving any clue as to what they might contain > >> Similarly, a #id was originally designated as the location within a >> page, not for CSS -> semantically it is to reference a particular >> piece of information, within the bigger piece of content, eg: a >> "section" header maybe... It just so happens that it works really >> well for CSS too. And simplifying content manipulation. And so on. > > but in the context of the question, the reason to use , for > instance, vs , is to add meaning to the markup > >> I'm not sure why you would infer that information in section's, is any >> more important than stuff written in a div? Can you elaborate? >> ie: assistive technologies can already target div's, so using that >> argument needs more. > > I didn't intend to infer that, I was just trying to show how is > more useful because it can be programmatically accessed in a way that id=section> can't. With regard to relevance of content, I was just trying to > say that a search engine *might* choose to weight content in a given tag > more than in another, whereas if everything is in a div it's harder to do > this. A better example would have been to have said that the content in > *might* be more relevant to a search engine than the content in > - compared with and which would be > harder to tell apart. > > -- > Chris Knowles Just to add onto Chris' email. This sounds like a good place to suggest people purchase Jeremy Keith's book HTML5 for Web Designers. In it he actually describes the semantics of the new tags and gives defines when and how to use tags like etc. If you have questions like these definitely pick this book up as it will help clear up the confusion. Also as far as goes there is not much difference between it and as is suppose to be used for grouping of thematically similar content. The difference between the two is that has no semantic meaning and doesn't tell you anything about the content whereas section does. -- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:29 PM, tee wrote: > It's been quite a while I have to do a site using EM unit for the layout > width (with max/min-widths treatment), I am getting a shrunk page in Safari. > > In these two examples, the width is 62em which is around 992px according to > pxtoem dot com, but in Safari 5 it's around 871px in actual size. First I > thought maybe it's because I mixed the EM and % (for left/content columns), > so I did another test page using EM only, still getting the same result. > > EM and % > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.png > > EM only > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/safari-ss.png > > My monitor is 27" 2560x1440 resolution, but I don't think this is the reason. > > Can you confirm if you see the same? > I had this issue to then I checked safari's default font size and it was set to 12px instead of 16px like the other browsers. Once I changed that setting to 16px then they all looked the same. I would suggest verifying in your browsers that they all have the same px size set for their default font size before testing. -- ---- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] ems versus pixels
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:58 PM, tee wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Mathew Robertson wrote:
>
> On 21 July 2010 11:52, tee wrote:
>>
>> EM can fail miserably in below senario for IEs for p, li and span tags due
>> to inheritance making them very tiny and unable to get consistence font size
>> for one block of content in different browsers not just the IE.
>>
>> body {font-size: 100.1%}
>> p, li {font-size: 0.95em}
>> span {font-size: 0.9em}
>>
> [snipped]
> As a general rule, you shouldn't be putting any font-size in tags, as that
> will frequently suffer inheritance problems. This general-rule applies to
> most attributes on most tags. The one example where this may not apply, is
> when defining a reset.
>
> That was just a quick example to illustrate the problem using EM unit when a
> layout has a span (class) 3 level deep or a li 2 level deep. It doesn't
> matter whether the font size is declare in a type selector or a class. The
> general rule that you may stick with, will still fail miserably.
> Let me make an example and partially answer Scott's question.
> In a eCommerce site, price is showed everywhere in a page, and pricing info
> are stored in one template, we have regular price show in the product
> listing, in cart report, in best selling product block, in recently view
> product block, in checkout, in invoice, in quick report etc etc; then we
> also have "as low as" together with "regular price", "suggested price" vs
> "our price", or "from x price" to "y price". The price maybe wrapped in a p,
> a div, a li, a td, a dd tag, and it can be 2, 3 or 4 level deep of other
> tags, with so many variations and no matter where the pricing will be
> showed, the font size of the pricing must be consistent with the rest of the
> content where the block is, or it maybe that all pricing, no matter where
> they get shows up, have to be the same font size. Under these condition,
> whether I have
> span {font-size:0.9em}
> or
> .price {font-size:0.9em}
> make no differences as far as how it fails in some browsers.
>
> If {font-size:0.9em} change to "{font-size:12px}", I will be getting
> consistent font-size if it needs to be exact the same font size no matter
> where it shows up.
> Using the same pixel unit, with extra rule, I can also get the pricing
> info's font-size be consistent with the rest of text in the same block of
> content.
> Using EM, all I get is headache and madness to try to make something show up
> consistently in the same block of content within the same browser -- this
> was the reason the programmer changed my code back. He needed something be
> absolute consistent, and a chunk of code that can be inserted in any part of
> the content.
> tee
A lot of whether or not you use EMs vs Pixels is going to depend a lot
on what the structure of your content looks like and how well you know
what that the structure is going to be consistent. Even with your
example I was able to get the EMs and Pixel versions to look exactly
the same (using Chrome, IE may need some minor tweeks but it should
look "okay" there too).
Pixel code:
p, li {font-size: 24px}
span {font-size: 18px}
xxx
xxx
some text
some more texts depend on situation
extra more texts depend on above situation
xxx
some text
some more texts
extra more texts depend on above situation
Ems code:
body {font-size: 100%}
p, li {font-size: 1.5em}
div span, span {font-size: 1.125em}
p span, li span, li div span {font-size: 0.75em}
p span span, span span, span span span, li span span, li span span
span, li div, li div p, li li div p, li li {font-size: 1em}
xxx
xxx
some text
some more texts depend on situation
extra more texts depend on above situation
xxx
some text
some more texts
extra more texts depend on above situation
obviously there's a little more work involved with ems (although it
didn't take me long to fix things), but you have to agree your example
is a little contrived. If you're content looks this horrible then my
sympathies, because you're gonna have a heck of a time styling the
layout for any document that is this poorly structured let alone
figuring out the typography. It all just goes back to writing
semantically good content and utilizing web standards and you should
be able to use ems just fine.
--
J
Re: [WSG] ems versus pixels
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David Laakso wrote: > Points is the way to go nowadays :-) . > > Best, > ~d I think picas is the way to go ;) here are some resources on the use of Ems vs Pixels http://css-discuss.incutio.com/wiki/Using_Font_Size which links to these two additional pages http://css-discuss.incutio.com/wiki/Using_Pixels http://css-discuss.incutio.com/wiki/Using_Ems Then i found this document from 2007 which is a decent read and is relative to the this topic http://www.alistapart.com/articles/howtosizetextincss/ personally, I prefer ems to pixels. -- ---- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
