Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites
When I explain to clients why standards are important I bring up the following list: http://www.geminidevelopment.com.au/html/article_whycomplient.php And explain it to them point by point. Samuel Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: As a thought, I wanted to point something out. No one cares about standards or accessibility but us. Its our job to care. As an example, we can view any of the URLs on this list, and see a common thread - we all like to point out that we use standards and care about accessibility. I've noticed that often, our text almost sounds as though we write it just in case another group member reads it so we make sure no one thinks we suck or something. You won't find this in any other industry. Our potential clients want to know that we care, but we can never expect them to care about the difference between HTML and XHTML and XML, nor should we ever expect them to care much about CSS vs. tables for layout. Our clients don't care as long as it works. They do care that we care enough to make them the best, most accessible site we can, but they could care less how. Just a thought. Joe Taylor http://sitesbyjoe.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Thanks, Sam. That was useful. I've been looking for official-looking third-party confitmation of this description. It's now being printed out and will be framed and mounted by end of day. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Monday, 31 October 2005 10:09 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites When I explain to clients why standards are important I bring up the following list: http://www.geminidevelopment.com.au/html/article_whycomplient.php And explain it to them point by point. Samuel Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: As a thought, I wanted to point something out. No one cares about standards or accessibility but us. Its our job to care. As an example, we can view any of the URLs on this list, and see a common thread - we all like to point out that we use standards and care about accessibility. I've noticed that often, our text almost sounds as though we write it just in case another group member reads it so we make sure no one thinks we suck or something. You won't find this in any other industry. Our potential clients want to know that we care, but we can never expect them to care about the difference between HTML and XHTML and XML, nor should we ever expect them to care much about CSS vs. tables for layout. Our clients don't care as long as it works. They do care that we care enough to make them the best, most accessible site we can, but they could care less how. Just a thought. Joe Taylor http://sitesbyjoe.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Hi Everyone cares about accessibility, both consciously and/or subsconsciously. I hate this website, I can't find anything on it. I'm going somewhere else - that's someone caring about accessibility. Cheers JamesOn 10/31/05, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a thought, I wanted to point something out.No one cares aboutstandards or accessibility but us.Its our job to care.
Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites
Hi Joe, Our clients don't care as long as it works. They do care that we care enough to make them the best, most accessible site we can, but they could care less how. It's more of an issue when a website is maintained by the client. If they're not aware of the distinction between accessible and inaccessible markup, they'll be unable to preserve the integrity of the content. If they 'don't care' in this sense, then they won't take the time to add alt attributes, validate code, only use tables for data, etc. While some CMS's have measures to prevent contributors from unintentionally creating inaccessible markup, others happy proclaim standards compliance while encouraging/enabling content to be entered inappropriately or incompletely. For example, the use of blockquote to achieve a text indent (a 'feature' of a number of wysiwyg authoring tools). An informed content author would (of course) only use this feature to denote a quotation... The manufacturing industry provides another example of where standards are equally important. Screw threads, washer bores, etc. that are manufactured to a particular quality (as in materials or finish) or standard specification (size, weight) have a 'home' in the real world. It all depends on who the client is and what criteria they're using to assess potential development partners as to how relevant standards and accessibility discussions are. Legal precedents can also carry a bit of weight. Cheers, -- Andy Kirkwood | Creative Director Motive | web.design.integrity http://www.motive.co.nz ph: (04) 3 800 800 fx: (04) 970 9693 mob: 021 369 693 93 Rintoul St, Newtown PO Box 7150, Wellington South, New Zealand ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Samuel Richardson wrote: When I explain to clients why standards are important I bring up the following list: http://www.geminidevelopment.com.au/html/article_whycomplient.php And explain it to them point by point. Of course if I was a client, I'd immediately question the compliance of the spelling :) whycomplient Mike - unable to resist, even though I do live in a glass house ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
I don't think it must be neccessarily a common issue. Many agencies I know here mostly don't even mention standards or the particular technologies, they're just selling greatly usable, effective and profitable web solutions to the clients and since they are professionals and they care the output is standards-based as an obvious thing. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Hi James, I would argue that your statement I hate this website, I can't find anything on it. I'm going somewhere else - that's someone caring about accessibility. Is someone caring about usability not accessibility. Whats the difference? Usability is about being fit for the intended purpose, accessibility is about being equally available to all demographics, or as I describe them when I train web accessibility, usability discriminates against everyone equally, accessibility discriminates against individuals or specific groups of people. Graham Cook www.uaoz.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Ellis Sent: Monday, 31 October 2005 10:18 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites Hi Everyone cares about accessibility, both consciously and/or subsconsciously. I hate this website, I can't find anything on it. I'm going somewhere else - that's someone caring about accessibility. Cheers James On 10/31/05, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a thought, I wanted to point something out.No one cares about standards or accessibility but us.Its our job to care.
Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites
I make a point of mentioning it in my scopes, if I'm asked about it then I iterate the advantages of it but I don't feel the need to really push the promotion of it. Jan Brasna wrote: I don't think it must be neccessarily a common issue. Many agencies I know here mostly don't even mention standards or the particular technologies, they're just selling greatly usable, effective and profitable web solutions to the clients and since they are professionals and they care the output is standards-based as an obvious thing. ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Actually James, I think this is more a Usability concern rather than an Accessibility concern. Whatyou might say instead is: "I can't view the site on my browser and even if I could, the text is samll and I can't change it!" Or "Why does this site tell me I need to have _javascript_ turned on? How do I even do that?" R :o) - Original Message - From: James Ellis To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites HiEveryone cares about accessibility, both consciously and/or subsconsciously."I hate this website, I can't find anything on it. I'm going somewhere else" - that's someone caring about accessibility.CheersJames On 10/31/05, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a thought, I wanted to point something out.No one cares aboutstandards or accessibility but us.Its our job to care.
Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites
I think another part of this is also the fact that web development is moving towards being a more respected industry and escaping the 'techno-mysticism' that surrounded it in the late 90s when we were all meant to be snowboarding designers or propellorheads. Having standards (and using them!) is a way to make Web Development more of a serious industry in the same way that having an industry body (like AIMIA) adds to our credibility. On top of of all that, Jan's absolutely right - we ARE professionals and we DO care about providing our clients with the best quality work we can - otherwise we'd all create web sites in MS word and export them as HTML. Our clients demand that we give them the best product and if they don't then it's only becuase they don't know the difference. Thing is, they shop around and if one developer mentions standards-compliant design in their proposal and another one doesn't then any vaguely intelligent client is going to ask the other do YOU write standards-compliant code? Hopefully, it will not be something to look out for in the future, but rather a base practice - like having a license to drive a taxi. In the meantime, I think it's still a bit of a selling point, if nothing else. R :o) - Original Message - From: Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites I don't think it must be neccessarily a common issue. Many agencies I know here mostly don't even mention standards or the particular technologies, they're just selling greatly usable, effective and profitable web solutions to the clients and since they are professionals and they care the output is standards-based as an obvious thing. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
You know, you CAN be semantic to a point. Usability is directly related to accessibility. If a site's unusable, ot difficult to navigate, then it is inaccessible. Nuff said, peeps. Let's get back to some real work. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard CzeigerSent: Monday, 31 October 2005 11:30 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites Actually James, I think this is more a Usability concern rather than an Accessibility concern. Whatyou might say instead is: "I can't view the site on my browser and even if I could, the text is samll and I can't change it!" Or "Why does this site tell me I need to have _javascript_ turned on? How do I even do that?" R :o) - Original Message - From: James Ellis To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites HiEveryone cares about accessibility, both consciously and/or subsconsciously."I hate this website, I can't find anything on it. I'm going somewhere else" - that's someone caring about accessibility.CheersJames On 10/31/05, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a thought, I wanted to point something out.No one cares aboutstandards or accessibility but us.Its our job to care.
Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites
On 30/10/05, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually James, I think this is more a Usability concern rather than an Accessibility concern. What you might say instead is: I can't view the site on my browser and even if I could, the text is samll and I can't change it! Or Why does this site tell me I need to have JavaScript turned on? How do I even do that? AFAIK, all browsers have JavaScript turned on by default. If a user has turned it off, the user certainly ought to know how to undo his previous action. (If a user has had a friend do it, the user ought to be able to get the answers from the friend.) (Disclaimer: I avoid using JavaScript because many people will not use it.) -- T. R. Valentine Use a decent browser: Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera (Avoid IE like the plague it is) ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:20:09 -0600, T. R. Valentine wrote: AFAIK, all browsers have JavaScript turned on by default. If a user has turned it off, the user certainly ought to know how to undo his previous action. (If a user has had a friend do it, the user ought to be able to get the answers from the friend.) Not necessarily - corporately, some IT departments will turn off Javascript pre-emptively for non-trusted sites. This does not mean that the user will be aware, or understand, this. :( warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Organisations can turn javascript off when installing/configuring then lock the browser. I've worked in places where this has happened... Donna On 30 Oct 2005 at 19:20, T. R. Valentine wrote: AFAIK, all browsers have JavaScript turned on by default. If a user has turned it off, the user certainly ought to know how to undo his previous action. (If a user has had a friend do it, the user ought to be able to get the answers from the friend.) -- Donna Maurer Maadmob Interaction Design e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: http://maadmob.com.au/ blog: http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/ AOL IM: maadmob ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Also - the Nokia browser on my phone doesn't support JavaScript. And even if it did, where the heck would I change the settings? Device independence is a big part of Accessibility, IMHO. R :o) - Original Message - From: Donna Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites Organisations can turn javascript off when installing/configuring then lock the browser. I've worked in places where this has happened... Donna On 30 Oct 2005 at 19:20, T. R. Valentine wrote: AFAIK, all browsers have JavaScript turned on by default. If a user has turned it off, the user certainly ought to know how to undo his previous action. (If a user has had a friend do it, the user ought to be able to get the answers from the friend.) -- Donna Maurer Maadmob Interaction Design e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: http://maadmob.com.au/ blog: http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/ AOL IM: maadmob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
I think it's important to NOT expect users to know how to do this or even be vaguely technically literate. Doctors, for example, shouldn't have to be IT experts. They fix people not machines. It's simply not their job or responsibility to be forced to learn the HUGE amount of stuff that as developers we've crammed into our head. This doesn't mean they should be penaliseed and not allowed to see web sites or interact as freely on the web as the rest of us. Isn't that part of the point of accessibility? R - Original Message - From: Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites Not necessarily - corporately, some IT departments will turn off Javascript pre-emptively for non-trusted sites. This does not mean that the user will be aware, or understand, this. :( warmly, Lea ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Hi Richard, To play the devil's advocate... Certainly humanist developers aim to remove the barriers that technology might place between users and content. However, difficulty arises when determining what constitutes 'technical' literacy. This could range from 'What's a link' through to 'How do I increase/decrease text size'. Even many of the 'hooks' put into content markup to make it more accessible are not used by a screen reader unless the user customises the behaviour of the software (reading title attributes for one). The issue of determining prior (technical) knowledge is one of those bug-bears like browser statistics. Even though we'd like to, it's problematic to generalise. On the other hand, adding an introduction to every webpage on how to use the web is equally untenable. Incidentally, does anyone know of a formal public-school curriculum that covers using the web? Such a document/documents might provide an insight as to how we (as in society-at-large) currently qualify 'technical literacy'. I think it's important to NOT expect users to know how to do this or even be vaguely technically literate. Doctors, for example, shouldn't have to be IT experts. They fix people not machines. It's simply not their job or responsibility to be forced to learn the HUGE amount of stuff that as developers we've crammed into our head. This doesn't mean they should be penaliseed and not allowed to see web sites or interact as freely on the web as the rest of us. -- Andy Kirkwood | Creative Director Motive | web.design.integrity http://www.motive.co.nz ph: (04) 3 800 800 fx: (04) 970 9693 mob: 021 369 693 93 Rintoul St, Newtown PO Box 7150, Wellington South, New Zealand ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Good point, Andy. However, I think there actually *is* a benchmark we can use as a guide to work from in terms of the user's technical ability. I'd start by looking at 'default behaviour'. The ability to operate a machine/software using ONLY its default settings. For the web, this would be a level above What is a Link and below 'How do I increase/decrease text size. Assuming users know what's on the context menu is above the scope of this (that's why so many sites put instructions like right-click and select 'save target as' in their pages). Assuming the User knows how to clear their cache or set their Home Page is also above this level, as this requires the user to go into the 'options' available for the software. The second they start to get 'under the hood' of the software is when they start to become more advanced. You're example of screen readers' users setting the Title attribute is not so much a fault in page design or standards but rather (at best) a mis-calculation by the software developers on the importance of one of their features or (at worst) a dramatic over-site in terms of standards support by the software developers. Hope I'm making sense, here and I know it's a slippery slope, but hey ... That's why they pay us the big bucks, right? .. Right? Anyone? R :oP - Original Message - From: Andy Kirkwood | Motive [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites Hi Richard, To play the devil's advocate... Certainly humanist developers aim to remove the barriers that technology might place between users and content. However, difficulty arises when determining what constitutes 'technical' literacy. This could range from 'What's a link' through to 'How do I increase/decrease text size'. Even many of the 'hooks' put into content markup to make it more accessible are not used by a screen reader unless the user customises the behaviour of the software (reading title attributes for one). The issue of determining prior (technical) knowledge is one of those bug-bears like browser statistics. Even though we'd like to, it's problematic to generalise. On the other hand, adding an introduction to every webpage on how to use the web is equally untenable. Incidentally, does anyone know of a formal public-school curriculum that covers using the web? Such a document/documents might provide an insight as to how we (as in society-at-large) currently qualify 'technical literacy'. I think it's important to NOT expect users to know how to do this or even be vaguely technically literate. Doctors, for example, shouldn't have to be IT experts. They fix people not machines. It's simply not their job or responsibility to be forced to learn the HUGE amount of stuff that as developers we've crammed into our head. This doesn't mean they should be penaliseed and not allowed to see web sites or interact as freely on the web as the rest of us. -- Andy Kirkwood | Creative Director Motive | web.design.integrity http://www.motive.co.nz ph: (04) 3 800 800 fx: (04) 970 9693 mob: 021 369 693 93 Rintoul St, Newtown PO Box 7150, Wellington South, New Zealand ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Quoting Andy Kirkwood | Motive [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Certainly humanist developers aim to remove the barriers that technology might place between users and content... Humanism has nothing to do with this - what if you're a Buddhist developer? Seriously, in a valid attempt to create a profession, let's not obscure 'making websites available to the majority of clients at whom those sites are aimed' by dropping in inappropriate terms. However, difficulty arises when determining what constitutes 'technical' literacy Wood for the trees stuff. Forget technical 'literacy' (the literacy element being key) concentrate on what your market requires. Example (A) A site designed for graphic designers will benefit from useful Flash elements that are viewable on Macintoshes. Example (B) A site designed for General Practitioners seeking advice on the latest anti-biotic requires IE functionality with fast return on text searches via good database support. Example (C) A site designed for 'yoof' orientated marketing will benefit from audio in downloadable MP3 format, streamable video; multiple entry points, fast, auditable add-banner serving, forums and e-commerce functionality. Example (D) A site designed for web developers will benefit from areas specific to different browsers, server technologies, scripting languages and other heavily geekoid stuff. There is no one magic bullet to destroy all possible flaws. Nor is there a panacea to please all users. Accessibility/usability is specific to the target audience of the site that you are designing. Let's not lose the main focus here by attempting to create a web-dev equivalent of the Grand Unifying Theory. Diversity is also important when appropriate. Of course, IMHO... Tim Sub-Marxian Historical Materialist Developer :-) ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
where is that damn unsubscribe button! -Original Message- From: Tim Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 31 October 2005 1:49 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites Quoting Andy Kirkwood | Motive [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Certainly humanist developers aim to remove the barriers that technology might place between users and content... Humanism has nothing to do with this - what if you're a Buddhist developer? Seriously, in a valid attempt to create a profession, let's not obscure 'making websites available to the majority of clients at whom those sites are aimed' by dropping in inappropriate terms. However, difficulty arises when determining what constitutes 'technical' literacy Wood for the trees stuff. Forget technical 'literacy' (the literacy element being key) concentrate on what your market requires. Example (A) A site designed for graphic designers will benefit from useful Flash elements that are viewable on Macintoshes. Example (B) A site designed for General Practitioners seeking advice on the latest anti-biotic requires IE functionality with fast return on text searches via good database support. Example (C) A site designed for 'yoof' orientated marketing will benefit from audio in downloadable MP3 format, streamable video; multiple entry points, fast, auditable add-banner serving, forums and e-commerce functionality. Example (D) A site designed for web developers will benefit from areas specific to different browsers, server technologies, scripting languages and other heavily geekoid stuff. There is no one magic bullet to destroy all possible flaws. Nor is there a panacea to please all users. Accessibility/usability is specific to the target audience of the site that you are designing. Let's not lose the main focus here by attempting to create a web-dev equivalent of the Grand Unifying Theory. Diversity is also important when appropriate. Of course, IMHO... Tim Sub-Marxian Historical Materialist Developer :-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Craig Rippon wrote: where is that damn unsubscribe button! URI: http://webstandardsgroup.org/ you'll need to log in with your email and pwd and click the unsubscribe link... and shame on you for swearing. :-) also, to the list moms, should there be a link directly to the unsubscribe section in the WSG email footer? it would probably need a log in form b/f giving you the unsubscribe button of course. ;) ciao, Z -- Zulema Ortiz web designer email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] website : http://zoblue.com/ weblog : http://blog.zoblue.com/ browser : http://getfirefox.com/ ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
On 10/31/05, Zulema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also, to the list moms, should there be a link directly to the unsubscribe section in the WSG email footer? it would probably need a log in form b/f giving you the unsubscribe button of course. ;) Most lists have an [EMAIL PROTECTED] address you can send a blank message to unsubscribe to. Maybe that would suffice for the footer, if such a thing is possible with whatever software the listserv is using? -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Richard Czeiger wrote: Hope I'm making sense, here and I know it's a slippery slope, but hey ... That's why they pay us the big bucks, right? .. Right? Anyone? You make money at this??? What a concept!! ;-) mark ** 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] Text choices on our own sites
Hope I'm making sense, here and I know it's a slippery slope, but hey ... That's why they pay us the big bucks, right? .. Right? Anyone? You make money at this??? What a concept!! ;-) That's true... I want in on these big bucks :-) -- -- C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
