Re: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes
About 4-5 months ago they built a new national library here in Norway, the architects worked alot with making the place accesible for users with different disabilites. Essentially they did everything wrong. The biggest mistake was of course not to talk with anyone blind or in a wheelchair. There was some high-contrast art on the floor which seemed like a trail to follow to someone visually impaired, they'd just end up in a wall. There was switches installed that would open doors for people in wheelchairs or with crutches, but it was placed about 1 meter away from the door and those who were blind couldn't find the switch in addition to that it was a real struggle for people in wheelchairs because the door closed too fast. These architects actually really tried to make the life easier for people with different disabilites, but they didn't know anything about how these people expected things to work. Now they have to rebuild the whole thing. Don't make assumptions, they might turn out expensive. When it comes to font-sizes I'd really like to blame the browsers. I don't think it's up to us to provide tools for enlarging or shrinking fonts, just like it's not up to newspapers to provide a spyglass with every paper. Both Windows and MacOS are shipped with different tools to help people with special needs. Among those tools there's a zoom-tool. In addition browsers like Opera also has a zoom-tool and as I've heard IE7 will also come with a zoom-tool. The problem with IE6 and FireFox is that the function to increase or decrease font-size is well hidden and they are also very easy for users to change without themselves knowing it. My argument:Newspapers comes out with fixed font-size, but people who's got low vision may very easily use a spyglass to read easier. People in need of a spyglass gets themselves one. The same thing applies to web and computers, it's just that not all people are aware of the invention of digital spyglasses. Solution: Spread the word of this invention. I'm of course also willing to listen to your arguments, you might have thought of something I've never thought of!Best regardsVincentOn 2/18/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bert Doorn wrote: I sense an utterly erroneous presumpton that the designer knows best what suits people they have never met.Bert - Isn't that what all good 'designers' do?The 'consumers' thendecide if they like the design and whether they want it or not. There is little point in anyone paying for a 'designer' if they are going todo it themselves!Maybe 'provider' is a better term than designer. Or Georg's term : 'Webcarpenter' is more to the point here. --Best Regards,Bob McClellandCornwall (UK)www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] semantic help needed
Either that way or with a table. I'd go with that way.There was a discussion about this exactly same topic not so long ago on the list.I'd try to find it, was alot of good opinions and suggestions as to what would be the most semantically way to do it. VincentOn 2/12/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to semantically mark up large lists of contact info.Below is an example of one of the list items.Is this the best way to mark it up?dldt class=HeadAccord Inishowendt dtContact Name:/dtddSecretary: Breege Canny dddtContact Informationdt dd Tel: 074 937 4103 - 07493 74103/dd dd Fax: 074 9374103/dd ddWeb Site: Click to view./dd dd Email: Send Email../dd/dl-thankskvnmcwebn**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE6/7 have horizontal scrollbars on this
Sorry to break this to you, but you're trying to accomplish something that's as good as impossible (maybe not impossible, but you're most likely to unless you drop IE5 or alternatively give it another stylesheet that don't have a fixed footer. It just won't work for IE5 because of something or another. Robbie is right in one thing and that is it's the overflow:auto; that's causing your problems in IE5, take it away and the site will work.I'm quite sure that you may solve this with DOM and some _javascript_, but I don't know where you'd might find it. I essentially gave up the whole thing, part because of trouble with IE5 and part because I didn't like how it turned out in FireFox and IE6 either. On 2/10/06, Vaska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This article does not create a footer that is fixed to the bottom ofthe screen. If your content is longer it will push the footer off thebottom of the screen.On 10 Feb 2006, at 11:33, Robbie Shepherd wrote: I'm guessing its due to the overflow: auto; in your #content div. Remove that, and use the DOM and some _javascript_ to reset your footers (tutorial on http://www.alistapart.com/articles/footers/ )**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Does this mean we're supposed to make all the sites we've ever made useless in IE5 and IE6?Maybe it's time we just give up on Internet Explorer and design for standards compliant browsers instead?The sad thing is that of course everyone who's using Explorer will blame the designer of the site and our clients will rip the hair out of their heads because most people use IE anyway. If you ask me we're all properly and royally fd by Microsoft. Why won't they play ball with us (and their users)?On 2/10/06, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cade Whitbourn wrote: The compatibility issue is caused by our use of CSS filters. They specificially highlight our use of Star HTML Hack, Selector HTML Hack and the Holly Hack. Although they don't say it explicitly, the implication is that we should remove these from our CSS as the use of these filters fails in IE7.Hi, this is the MS IE Team. We've removed the bugs that were exploitedfor CSS filters, but didn't actually fix the fundamental problems that caused people to use filters in the first place. We decided that youshould use conditional comments instead...--Patrick H. Lauke__re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com__Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Forcehttp://webstandards.org/ __**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Hi, If you tell your client to visit www.msn.com with his Mac IE5.2 browser then he'll get the message that his browser is out of date and that he should change it to another browser like FireFox or Safari. So even Microsoft tells Macusers to change to another browser than Internet Explorer. I think that's a good arguement. Maybe your client would accept a message asking the user to change to a newer browser which supports webstandard? Personally I think we should design for all browsers on all platforms, but when even the creators of IE (Microsoft) tells the audience to change to another one it's time for us to forget about IE for Mac. Regards Vincent Hasselgård On 11/25/05, Web Man Walking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are you using as an editor? I noticed a meta I haven't seen before:meta name=MSSmartTagsPreventParsing content=true /Does that indicate FrontPage or something MS-based? http://www.html-reference.com/META_name_MSSmartTagsPreventParsing.htmPoint out to your client that IE5.2 is so flakey it might as well be in sanskrit and that and smart people using Macs will be using Safari orFirefox ;-)Will give it a shot.ThanksE.**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Hi, If you tell your client to visit www.msn.com with his Mac IE5.2 browser then he'll get the message that his browser is out of date and that he should change it to another browser like FireFox or Safari. So even Microsoft tells Macusers to change to another browser than Internet Explorer. I think that's a good arguement. Maybe your client would accept a message asking the user to change to a newer browser which supports webstandard? Personally I think we should design for all browsers on all platforms, but when even the creators of IE (Microsoft) tells the audience to change to another one it's time for us to forget about IE for Mac. Regards Vincent Hasselgård On 11/25/05, Web Man Walking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are you using as an editor? I noticed a meta I haven't seen before:meta name=MSSmartTagsPreventParsing content=true /Does that indicate FrontPage or something MS-based? http://www.html-reference.com/META_name_MSSmartTagsPreventParsing.htmPoint out to your client that IE5.2 is so flakey it might as well be in sanskrit and that and smart people using Macs will be using Safari orFirefox ;-)Will give it a shot.ThanksE.**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
