date:20060201

hi,
for a vertical navigation bar with multiple headings like this:


 

 Buncrana Town

Business Directory
Accomodation Directory
.

 Community

Groups
Clubs
.

so on...

   

What is the proper heading to use(h1, h2, h3)?


-best 
kvnmcwebn

**
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] list's with header text

2006-02-01 Thread Darren West

I would use:


  
    Buncrana Town
    
  
  
    
  
  
    Community
    
  
  
    
  


Where 'bananas' is replaced with a semantically suitable name such as main for main navigation or supp for supplemental etc...

I would use h3 as long as it fits in with the rest of your markup, for
example h1 for page subject, h2 for content subjects on the current
page, h3 for content subjects off page.

Darren


On 01/02/06, kvnmcwebn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi,for a vertical navigation bar with multiple headings like this:  Buncrana Town
. Community.so on...   What is the proper heading to use(h1, h2, h3)?-best
kvnmcwebn**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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

Once or twice I've ask a question here and got a wee sting along with my
awnser. Thats very rare though and doesnt bother me.
Anyway a cheeky experts advice works the same as a one with manners.
-best
-kvnmcwebn


**
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] list's with header text


ok thanks,
just to clarify a point: what odds that the ul id have a semantically
suitable name-beside making sense to people working in the code after me?

-thanks again
kvnmcewbn


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Accessible drop down menu

2006-02-01 Thread Paul Collins




Hello all,
 
Got another question today which I can't seem to 
find any new information on.
 
Was wondering with Ajax and some of these new 
methods coming out, is there a way of creating an accessible drop-down menu that 
doesn't use scripting? As in, can we have a drop-down menu that 
would submit to the server when you click on a selection, 
 instead of requiring a submit button?
 
One option would be to use _javascript_ to submit 
using "onchange", then hiding the submit button in a nosript tag for those who 
don't have jscript turned on. Does anyone have a better idea?
 
I realise it may be better practice to have a go 
button, but would like to know if it's possible to do without.
 
Cheers,
Paul

Re: [WSG] Accessible drop down menu

2006-02-01 Thread Richard Stephenson

> One option would be to use Javascript to submit using "onchange", then
> hiding the submit button in a nosript tag for those who don't have jscript
> turned on. Does anyone have a better idea?

Hi Paul,

Don't know if its exactly what you are after but i did a little script
a while ago that turns a list of links into a select box that acts as
a jumpmenu that loads a new url onchange. If the user has no js they
just get the list of links.

http://www.donkeymagic.co.uk/listselect

Richard
--
DonkeyMagic: Website design & development
http://www.donkeymagic.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
**

[WSG] IE7 Now what?





I have downloaded IE7 Beta 2 and I have looked at a couple of my sites.
I have found some problems (never mind how slow the programs is). I use
some * html hacks and some display:  inline block tricks to emulate
tables in IE's 6 and lower. Are there resources for ways to fix these
hacks that are backward compatible or is the only way the method
suggested by IE team which is to use conditional comments in the *head*
and use a separate stylesheet?
Jay
-- 

Jay Gilmore

U)SmashingRed Web & Marketing
B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed
Blog
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[WSG] Re: Moral High-horse


James Bennett wrote:
And yet, in many other industries, "I was doing my best" would be 
considered a completely unacceptable response from a contractor who 
failed to adhere to the standards of that industry. If, for example, a 
construction firm puts up a skyscraper that doesn't adhere to building 
codes, do they get to say "Well, we did our best, but it's just so 
darned difficult to follow every bit of those standards"? Do they get 
to mumble about how they just haven't had time to pick up new versions 
of the building codes and learn how to comply with them?


You make a very good point here and, indeed, I have come across this 
very same attitude, however there's is an important distinction that can 
be seen between the use of standards-based web development and that 
building-a-skyscraper analogy.


In the case of failing to follow building standards or codes of 
practice, there are serious penalties enforced if such standards are not 
followed properly.  For example, failing to follow a standard could lead 
to fines, injury, being sued for negligence or, in the very worst case, 
the whole building collapsing.  There's also the issue of licensing. 
i.e. You need to be a licensed/registered/qualified builder to build a 
skyscraper, or nearly any building for that matter, and failing to 
follow standards could result in loss of licence, among many other things.


However, in the case of building a website, there are very few penalties 
- actually, there are none.  You don't need a license to build a web 
site, you don't even need to be qualified or educated in any special way 
to build and publish a website.  You're not likely to get fined for 
failing to follow the standards, and not very likely to be sued 
(although, it has happened for accessibility reasons in the past).


The problem is that many people see the issue as "what will happen if I 
don't follow standards?"; whereas the questions they should be asking 
are "what are the benefits of following standards?", "how much 
easier/faster is it to develop with standards?", etc.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] Accessible drop down menu

2006-02-01 Thread Paul Collins




Hi Richard,
 
Thanks for that one, that will definitely come in 
handy in the future and I've got it bookmarked. Unfortunately though, in this 
instance the design won't permit me to have a list of links as it would be far 
too long to fit, so a select box is preferable.
 
Really useful  though, thanks very 
much.
 
Paul

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Richard 
  Stephenson 
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:05 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessible drop down 
  menu
  > One option would be to use _javascript_ to submit using 
  "onchange", then> hiding the submit button in a nosript tag for those 
  who don't have jscript> turned on. Does anyone have a better 
  idea?Hi Paul,Don't know if its exactly what you are after but 
  i did a little scripta while ago that turns a list of links into a select 
  box that acts asa jumpmenu that loads a new url onchange. If the user has 
  no js theyjust get the list of links.http://www.donkeymagic.co.uk/listselectRichard--DonkeyMagic: 
  Website design & developmenthttp://www.donkeymagic.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] list's with header text

2006-02-01 Thread Darren West

Exactly for that point; IMHO decribing the content rather than the
presentation makes your markup easier to read, style and manage by
whomever - users, coders, accessibility tools, browsers, search
engines, and yourself,  this is why web standards are so
important. Some interesting reading on suggested markup guidelines can
be found at
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/whats_in_a_name.html and
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/whats_in_a_name_pt2.html

On 01/02/06, kvnmcwebn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ok thanks,just to clarify a point: what odds that the ul id have a semanticallysuitable name-beside making sense to people working in the code after me?-thanks againkvnmcewbn**
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] Accessible drop down menu

2006-02-01 Thread Marko Mihelcic - founder of mcville.net (http.//www.mcville.net)|(http://board.mcville.net)

Richard Stephenson wrote:
> Don't know if its exactly what you are after but i did a little script
> a while ago that turns a list of links into a select box that acts as
> a jumpmenu that loads a new url onchange. If the user has no js they
> just get the list of links.
> 
> http://www.donkeymagic.co.uk/listselect

This is brilliant! Thanks for sharing.

Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] IE7 Now what?

2006-02-01 Thread Miles Davies

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/ie7beta_patch_glitch/You should think twice before installing any Microsoft Better products.
On 01/02/06, Jay Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



  


I have downloaded IE7 Beta 2 and I have looked at a couple of my sites.
I have found some problems (never mind how slow the programs is). I use
some * html hacks and some display:  inline block tricks to emulate
tables in IE's 6 and lower. Are there resources for ways to fix these
hacks that are backward compatible or is the only way the method
suggested by IE team which is to use conditional comments in the *head*
and use a separate stylesheet?
Jay
-- 

Jay Gilmore

U)SmashingRed Web & Marketing
B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed
Blog
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

could the new IE 7 beta 2 or beta 1 , can they be installed on Service pack 1 ? - coz I don't have SP2 jet :S :) 2006/2/1, Miles Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/ie7beta_patch_glitch/You should think twice before installing any Microsoft Better products.
On 01/02/06, Jay Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:



  


I have downloaded IE7 Beta 2 and I have looked at a couple of my sites.
I have found some problems (never mind how slow the programs is). I use
some * html hacks and some display:  inline block tricks to emulate
tables in IE's 6 and lower. Are there resources for ways to fix these
hacks that are backward compatible or is the only way the method
suggested by IE team which is to use conditional comments in the *head*
and use a separate stylesheet?
Jay
-- 

Jay Gilmore

U)SmashingRed Web & Marketing
B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed
Blog
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?





Thanks, but I fail to see what this has to do with the Beta 2 version.
The Beta 2 version is installed on top of IE  6 and acts as it should
so far. I am assuming that they have fixed any issues with Beta 1
before releasing a public beta. I have uninstalled it and all works
fine in IE6 but what I want to make sure is that I can fix issues with
my previous designs so that they don't remain broken in IE7 when it is
in GA release.

I will restate my question to be more clear:

Are there any resources, index, tables or references on specific
differences between IE7 box model and other browsers that will enable
me to check and correct for layout issues that will exist on designs in
IE 7?

I don't want to have to try tweaking every single line of my
stylesheets to GUESS if I have fixed it (as we all know, just because
it LOOKS right in the browser doesn't mean that it IS right). There are
two places I have found issues. One relates to display:table-cell and
display: table. In addition I have some odd margins/padding issues with
one site that doesn't exist in other sites with similar layout.

All the best,

Jay


Jay Gilmore

U)SmashingRed Web & Marketing
B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed
Blog
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Miles Davies wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/ie7beta_patch_glitch/
  
You should think twice before installing any Microsoft Better products.
  
  
  
  On 01/02/06, Jay Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
I have downloaded IE7 Beta 2 and I have looked at a couple of my sites.
I have found some problems (never mind how slow the programs is). I use
some * html hacks and some display:  inline block tricks to emulate
tables in IE's 6 and lower. Are there resources for ways to fix these
hacks that are backward compatible or is the only way the method
suggested by IE team which is to use conditional comments in the *head*
and use a separate stylesheet?
Jay

-- 
Jay Gilmore

U)SmashingRed Web
& Marketing
B)Jay Gilmore's
SmashingRed
Blog
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WSG] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

2006-02-01 Thread Hopkins Programming

Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on my question?

--ZacharyOn 1/30/06, Hopkins Programming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all!

I re-did my website (http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/) a while back in an effort to update its look and improve the quality of the coding behind it.


Right now, it looks perfect, just like I want it to.  But, I need
to improve/clean up the XHTML coding behind it - eg, properly structure
the page, designing first for Lynx and text based browsers, then going
back and making everything pretty for modern browsers through CSS.

Do you all have any suggestions on the proper kinds of things that
should end up in the heading (-) tags?  Like,
is my site title or my page title supposed to be in ?

I greatly appreciate your suggestions and input.

--Zachary Hopkins
-- =="The best way to predict the future is to invent it."  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net

-- =="The best way to predict the future is to invent it."  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net

[WSG] IE7 Now what?

2006-02-01 Thread Ted Drake









Hi All

 

I’ve been following the IE7 progress.


It isn’t an IE6 patch and it is far,
far better than beta 1.

 

I’ve written some notes on my blog: www.tdrake.net
about the launch.

 

For the most part, IE7 Beta 2 is pretty
good. It’s not perfect, but pretty good.  Think of it as Firefox
1.0. 

 

You should seriously consider how you are
doing your CSS right now and how you should begin planning for the not so
distant future of IE6 being the minority browser.  Microsoft wants to
ditch IE6. IE7 will be part of a service pack upgrade to xp and as part of the
fabled vista platform. I will put my neck out on a limb right now and say that
the majority of your traffic by the end of October will have the ability to use
:hover pseudo classes, first-child, alpha-transparency png graphics, attribute
selectors, etc.

 

Further, they just announced their xmlhttp
requests to match the other browsers. We will see better pages and markup very
soon.

 

Consider this an open door. Remember the
discussions about what true professional web developer is? Working towards an
IE7 population is a true professional. Building pages with IE6 hacks is a 2005
professional.

 

Ted

[WSG] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

The advantages of this solution:
- It uses semantic markup.
- It degrades nicely (hidden elements are visible in script-disabled
UAs).
- DTs do not appear as links without script support.
- It does not use inline event attribute (onclick()).
- It does not require "A" elements in the markup.
- It is screen-readers "friendly".
- It is IE Mac compatible.
- It relies on one single hook.

http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp

Please report errors/problems/etc..

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

2006-02-01 Thread Ted Drake

Nice work Thierry.
I'm going to add this one to the library.

I know there are plenty of hide/show examples out there. This one has a nice
combination of clean code and attention to accessibility.
Ted


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:58 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

The advantages of this solution:
- It uses semantic markup.
- It degrades nicely (hidden elements are visible in script-disabled
UAs).
- DTs do not appear as links without script support.
- It does not use inline event attribute (onclick()).
- It does not require "A" elements in the markup.
- It is screen-readers "friendly".
- It is IE Mac compatible.
- It relies on one single hook.

http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp

Please report errors/problems/etc..

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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
**

[WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Roberto Santana

Hello,

Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ...

Thanks!
Roberto Santana

 



**
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Brian Cummiskey


Roberto Santana wrote:

Hello,

Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ...


"Better" is like beauty--  it's in the eye of the beholder.

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize

**
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Christian Montoya

On 2/1/06, Roberto Santana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ...
>
> Thanks!
> Roberto Santana

Em and percent.

html { font-size:100.01%; }
body { font-size: 1em; }  // this is a bug fix for browser compatibility

to start off right. Then you can choose whether to use em or percent
throughout the rest of your document. I like em.

For the record, most browsers default text size is 16px = 1em = 100%.
That's most, not all.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Joseph R. B. Taylor

It's my understanding that "em" is the very best way as it'll work with 
the user's preferred text size.  "px" obviously gives you the most 
control as the designer, but doesn't scale in IE when the user changes 
their text size.


There are other existing issues, but that pretty much covers it.

I myself use both depending on the situation.  I've never used a "%" 
measurement.


Hopefully that helps.

Joseph R. B. Taylor
Sites by Joe, LLC
http://sitesbyjoe.com
(609)335-3076
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Roberto Santana wrote:

Hello,

Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ...

Thanks!
Roberto Santana

 
	



**
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] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

2006-02-01 Thread Stephen Stagg

Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The  
technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in Safari.


Stephen

On 1 Feb 2006, at 17:58, Thierry Koblentz wrote:


The advantages of this solution:
- It uses semantic markup.
- It degrades nicely (hidden elements are visible in script-disabled
UAs).
- DTs do not appear as links without script support.
- It does not use inline event attribute (onclick()).
- It does not require "A" elements in the markup.
- It is screen-readers "friendly".
- It is IE Mac compatible.
- It relies on one single hook.

http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp

Please report errors/problems/etc..

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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
**

[WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

2006-02-01 Thread Designer


Hi All,

I have just read Matthew Levine's interesting  piece, 
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail and I wondered if anyone 
has ever seen a similar thing done with padding as well (i.e., same 
effect as with a padding : 25px all around)? I've searched and not found 
anything . . .


I hate pages with no breathing-space (just my personal quirk).

Anyone?

Thanks,

Bob McClelland
Cornwall (U.K.)
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Minh D. Tran

My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to measure size of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font sizes.     Minh"Joseph R. B. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  It's my understanding that "em" is the very best way as it'll work with the user's preferred text size. "px" obviously gives you the most control as the designer, but doesn't scale in IE when the user changes their text size.There are other existing issues, but that pretty much covers it.I myself use both depending on the situation. I've never used a "%" measurement.Hopefully that helps.Joseph R. B. TaylorSites by Joe, LLChttp://sitesbyjoe.com(609)335-3076[EMAIL PROTECTED]Roberto Santana
 wrote:> Hello,> > Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ...> > Thanks!> Roberto Santana> > > > > > **> 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.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list & getting help**  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
 protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Brian Cummiskey


Minh D. Tran wrote:
My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many 
professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to measure size 
of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font sizes.
 
Minh


pt is for PRINT media, not screen.

**
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] Holy Grail - with padding!

2006-02-01 Thread Ray Cauchi



Just a note that this 'holy grail' needs to be revisited for
IE 7...
At 06:52 AM 2/02/2006, you wrote:
Hi All,
I have just read Matthew Levine's interesting  piece,

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail and I wondered if anyone
has ever seen a similar thing done with padding as well (i.e., same
effect as with a padding : 25px all around)? I've searched and not found
anything . . .
I hate pages with no breathing-space (just my personal quirk).
Anyone?
Thanks,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (U.K.)

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
**



Best Regards
Ray Cauchi
Manager/Lead Developer

( T W E E K ! )
PO Box 15
Wentworth Falls
NSW Australia 2782
| p:+61 2 4757 1600
| f:    +61 2 4757 3808
| m:    0414 270 400
| e:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| w:
   

http://www.tweek.com.au

Re: [WSG] Re: Moral High-horse

2006-02-01 Thread Paolo Dodet


Lachlan wrote: 
The problem is that many people see the issue as "what will happen if Idon't follow standards?"; whereas the questions they should be asking
are "what are the benefits of following standards?", "how mucheasier/faster is it to develop with standards?", etc.
If the whole matter were addressed this way, IMHO we would have two major benefits:

1. Clear understanding of our role within the society as a whole and the www community as part of that whole.

2. Easyness in communicating this concept to others (clients and/or
other webdesigners), since they will be clear to us in the first place.

I hope I was able to make my point here ;-)

Happy coding
-- Paolo Dodetwww.noblocodenotas.comVerba volant, Scripta manent, Digitalia juvant

Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page


Stephen Stagg wrote:

Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The
technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in
Safari.


Hmm. You're right. All I see is a blank page in Safari (Panther).

--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".







**
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] Holy Grail - with padding!


Ray Cauchi wrote:

Just a note that this 'holy grail' needs to be revisited for IE 7...


Ray,

I might be speaking out of turn, but premature consternation over IE7 
could cause an unwarranted panic :-) It's a beta.


--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".





**
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] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page


Thierry Koblentz wrote:

Stephen Stagg wrote:
Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? 
The

technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in
Safari.


You're right, I get a blank page in Safari. Very weird.
I know it worked with the previous version (using document.wrtie()),
but the following approach seems to create a problem in this 
browser:


if (document.getElementsByTagName && document.createElement){
var zStyles =
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(document.createElement(
'link'))zStyles.href = '/TJK_ToggleDL/TJK_ToggleDL.css';
zStyles.type = 'text/css';
zStyles.rel = 'stylesheet';
}

Is it something I should know about Safari and the method used here?


I'm not sure except that createElement is kind of fashionable but 
document.write is *much* more straightforward ;-)


--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".






**
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] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

Stephen Stagg wrote:
> Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The
> technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in
> Safari.

Safari chokes on the way I set the attributes. I'll update the script to
take care of the issue.
Thanks a lot for your feedback.

Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

Stephen Stagg wrote:
> Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The
> technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in
> Safari.

You're right, I get a blank page in Safari. Very weird.
I know it worked with the previous version (using document.wrtie()), but the
following approach seems to create a problem in this browser:

if (document.getElementsByTagName && document.createElement){
var zStyles =
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(document.createElement(
'link'))zStyles.href = '/TJK_ToggleDL/TJK_ToggleDL.css';
zStyles.type = 'text/css';
zStyles.rel = 'stylesheet';
}

Is it something I should know about Safari and the method used here?

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

> On 1 Feb 2006, at 17:58, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>
>> The advantages of this solution:
>> - It uses semantic markup.
>> - It degrades nicely (hidden elements are visible in script-disabled
>> UAs).
>> - DTs do not appear as links without script support.
>> - It does not use inline event attribute (onclick()).
>> - It does not require "A" elements in the markup.
>> - It is screen-readers "friendly".
>> - It is IE Mac compatible.
>> - It relies on one single hook.
>>
>> http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp
>>
>> Please report errors/problems/etc..
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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
**

[WSG] Firefox being naughty

2006-02-01 Thread Joseph R. B. Taylor


Guys and Gals,

Perhaps you can help me with this mystery.  I built this site over a 
year ago http://holidayrealty.com, and recently Firefox (I'm using 1.5 
(could be the issue)) has stopped displaying my background image on the 
main content (on subpages only) and is instead just making the 
background black!  I even went into the CSS and added a 
background-color: #FF and it didn't affect the behavior at all.


Any guesses would be greatly appreciated.
--
Joseph R. B. Taylor
Sites by Joe, LLC
http://sitesbyjoe.com
(609)335-3076
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
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] Holy Grail - with padding!

Designer wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I have just read Matthew Levine's interesting  piece,
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail and I wondered if anyone
> has ever seen a similar thing done with padding as well (i.e., same
> effect as with a padding : 25px all around)? I've searched and not
> found anything . . .
> 
> I hate pages with no breathing-space (just my personal quirk).
> 
> Anyone?

Something like this:
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/3cols/ ?

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Francesco

--- Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> html { font-size:100.01%; }
> body { font-size: 1em; }  // this is a bug fix for
> browser compatibility

Why do you need this?  I don't use font-size hacks in
my CSS yet my fonts look exactly the same in all
browsers.

Francesco

Francesco Sanfilippo
Web Architect and Software Developer
http://www.blackcoil.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
402-932-5695 home office
402-676-3011 mobile

Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience.
Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography.
Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month.
**
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: Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

Microsoft has newsgroups for identifying and reporting bugs. I blogged
a for/against thing on IE7 preview beta 2 after having played with it
for a morning, http://joahua.com/blog/2006/02/01/ie7-beta-2 , and
discovered a zoom bug that doesn't play nice with CSS backgrounds. Bug
is here: 
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general&tid=42be81fd-c05e-4b16-bac5-3976493b33a0&cat=en_us_28cca3eb-7037-4d4f-bde1-d8efee1f1420&lang=en&cr=us&sloc=en-us&m=1&p=1
- please vote for it!

Shameless self-promotion aside, that newsgroup looks like something to
watch + be active in until it gets closer to final. We won't really
know for sure what render bugs IE7 is going to have until we get
there, but for now the best tactic is probably to treat it like a
standards-compliant browser (because, from what I've seen of it, it's
definitely getting there) and if you find problems report them. (And
maybe shout about them in here so they get votes from people on list +
get noticed + fixed!)

A good first-step would be to ensure your conditional-comments are if
lte IE 6, and see how IE7 goes then.

Josh

On 2/2/06, Jay Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Thanks, but I fail to see what this has to do with the Beta 2 version. The
> Beta 2 version is installed on top of IE  6 and acts as it should so far. I
> am assuming that they have fixed any issues with Beta 1 before releasing a
> public beta. I have uninstalled it and all works fine in IE6 but what I want
> to make sure is that I can fix issues with my previous designs so that they
> don't remain broken in IE7 when it is in GA release.
>
>  I will restate my question to be more clear:
>
>  Are there any resources, index, tables or references on specific
> differences between IE7 box model and other browsers that will enable me to
> check and correct for layout issues that will exist on designs in IE 7?
>
>  I don't want to have to try tweaking every single line of my stylesheets to
> GUESS if I have fixed it (as we all know, just because it LOOKS right in the
> browser doesn't mean that it IS right). There are two places I have found
> issues. One relates to display:table-cell and display: table. In addition I
> have some odd margins/padding issues with one site that doesn't exist in
> other sites with similar layout.
>
>  All the best,
>
>  Jay
>
>
>
> Jay Gilmore
>
>  U)SmashingRed Web & Marketing
>  B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed Blog
>  P) 902.529.0651
>  E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  Miles Davies wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/ie7beta_patch_glitch/
>
>  You should think twice before installing any Microsoft Better products.
>
>
>
>
> On 01/02/06, Jay Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have downloaded IE7 Beta 2 and I have looked at a couple of my sites. I
> have found some problems (never mind how slow the programs is). I use some *
> html hacks and some display:  inline block tricks to emulate tables in IE's
> 6 and lower. Are there resources for ways to fix these hacks that are
> backward compatible or is the only way the method suggested by IE team which
> is to use conditional comments in the *head* and use a separate stylesheet?
> > Jay
**
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Christian Montoya

On 2/1/06, Francesco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > html { font-size:100.01%; }
> > body { font-size: 1em; }  // this is a bug fix for
> > browser compatibility
>
> Why do you need this?  I don't use font-size hacks in
> my CSS yet my fonts look exactly the same in all
> browsers.

First of all, it's not a hack. Second of all, you haven't seen the
browsers that really do need this. It covers a lot of issues such as
various DPI and rendering errors and such. Read:

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=InternetExplorerWinBugs

... first item on the list.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Re: Moral High-horse






Paolo Dodet wrote:

  
  
Lachlan wrote: 
  
  
  The
problem is that many people see the issue as "what will happen if I
don't follow standards?"; whereas the questions they should be asking

are "what are the benefits of following standards?", "how much
easier/faster is it to develop with standards?", etc.

  
  
  

This statement is very true
If
the whole matter were addressed this way, IMHO we would have two major
benefits:
  
1. Clear understanding of our role within the society as a whole and
the www community as part of that whole.

I don't know how this is true as we can only really know our role
within a small portion of the www community within society.

 There are way too many subcultures in the development and design
community. There are the DW users and the former graphic designers who
are all over WYSIWYG editing and the tag soup makers and the perpetual
transitionals (Doctypes) and the M$Word doc converters, FrontPage
zealots, template selling shills, and more. Then there are the people
who are just unplugged from any community and develop in a bubble at
home on whatever software they were told to buy at school. 

So that being said we don't have a clear role unless we are to be self
proclaimed pundits. Some more puntidtious (word?) than others. 
2.
Easyness in communicating this concept to others (clients and/or
other webdesigners), since they will be clear to us in the first place.

True(ish). But why do we have to continue to set ourselves on a course
for a long up hill climb to never know where the peak is. I have felt
for a while that the WSG and WASP need to have a clear public relations
and communications strategy. If we, as the standards oriented, can
agree on certain principles that can be easily made into a total cost
accounting for the case for web standards to business and clients and
get ourselves out of the proverbial lab with the technology then we can
get on with innovating and the day to day business of web development. 

I consider myself as a serious student of standards based development
and this ng has been a tremendous help to it but we need to stop
preaching constantly to the converted and go out there and like Seth
Godin and Guy Kawasaki get ourselves some standards evangelists.
Clients who have implemented sites on standards and saved money,
development time, upgrade headaches, forward compatibility etc. 

While I am a developer, I am still a businessperson who understands
that the little details should never stand in the way of making a
decision and to deliver a good product now --perfect it later. Cash
flow and operation is most important to business. 

Some of the members of this group are students, interested hobbyists or
just plain code freaks -- learn lots, make great websites. But for us
website developers building a business around web standards
development, I want to get past the point of critical mass for the
knowledge and acceptance of web standards in the business community so
that when I talk about it to clients they don't glaze over and even so
they are asking for it.  

BTW this is the best ng I have ever been in -- even if people do think
they see high-horses. And if you think things are at all nasty here
(which they are not), I used to subscribe to the Slackware ng, and when
Patrick V.(Slack's Developer and owner) got some mystery illness and
people though he was going to die, there were flame wars and personal
attacks like no other.

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread liorean

On 01/02/06, Brian Cummiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Minh D. Tran wrote:
> > My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many
> > professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to measure size
> > of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font sizes.
> pt is for PRINT media, not screen.

Wrong. Points are for all devices that operate at different ppi* than
96. Points have a locked points per logical inch resolution of 72.
Pixels vary depending on ppi. So, if a medium has 96 ppi then a 12pt
text will be rendered as 12*96/72=16px. If a medium has 120 ppi, then
the same 12pt text will be rendered as 12*120/72=20px. If a device has
300 ppi, the 12pt text will be rendered as 12*300/72=50px. And the
reverse is also true. That means that 16px text on a 96 ppi medium
will be rendered the same size as 16*72/96=12pt. If a medium has 120
ppi, 16px text will be rendered as 16*72/120=9.6pt, and if a medium
has 300 ppi the 16px text will be rendered as 16*72/300=3.84pt.
...except for the fact that the CSS reference pixel is defined at
about 1/96 inch and not the actual medium pixels, so a smart renderer
that knows about it's medium's ppi might scale it and thus make sure
that 16px=12pt is always true. That knowledge or it's implementation
for that matter is not guaranteed, however.

* Pixels per "logical" inch, which is about equivalent to dots per
physical inch as is used in print media. Default in Windows is 96
(Windows even calls it DPI), or 120 for large size.
--
David "liorean" Andersson
http://liorean.web-graphics.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] Firefox being naughty


Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
Perhaps you can help me with this mystery.  I built this site over a 
year ago http://holidayrealty.com, and recently Firefox (I'm using 1.5 
(could be the issue)) has stopped displaying my background image on the 
main content  (on subpages only) and is instead just making the
background black!  I even went into the CSS and added a 
background-color: #FF and it didn't affect the behavior at all.


The background is displaying just fine on all pages I checked.  Have you 
tried viewing the page from another computer, if you have one available, 
and seen the same problem?  Does the same problem occur whether you're 
viewing the page from the web or from your local file system?  Do you 
have any firewall software enabled that could possibly be interfering 
with the page?  I've known Norton Internet Security to cause problems 
with pages before, which are fixed by disabling it, though I've never 
been able to work out exactly why it causes problems at all.


However, there is a problem with the CSS that you should fix.

body {
  ...
  background-image: url(../images/greenBG.gif);
}

You should specify a background colour and a foreground colour as well. 
 You shouldn't rely on the browser defaults, some users may change them 
and their choices may clash with yours.


  background: #X url(../images/greenBG.gif);
  color: black;

(where #X is roughly the same colour green as the greenBG.gif.)

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] Holy Grail - with padding!

2006-02-01 Thread Ray Cauchi



Al
That was my point - when a structure such as Thierry's works in the
current Beta of IE7, I would prefer to use it over a 'holy grail' that
breaks (ref:

http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_3.html)
Sure its a Beta, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will all change for
the final product...though I guess it is MS???
Love your work Thierry!
ray
At 08:01 AM 2/02/2006, Thierry Koblentz wrote:


http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/3cols/ ?


Best Regards
Ray Cauchi
Manager/Lead Developer

( T W E E K ! )
PO Box 15
Wentworth Falls
NSW Australia 2782
| p:+61 2 4757 1600
| f:    +61 2 4757 3808
| m:    0414 270 400
| e:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| w:
   

http://www.tweek.com.au

Re: [WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

2006-02-01 Thread Ray Cauchi



Al
That was my point - when a structure such as Thierry's works in the
current Beta of IE7, I would prefer to use it over a 'holy grail' that
breaks (ref:

http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_3.html)
Sure its a Beta, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will all change for
the final product...though I guess it is MS???
Love your work Thierry!
ray
At 08:01 AM 2/02/2006, Thierry Koblentz wrote:


http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/3cols/ ?


Best Regards
Ray Cauchi
Manager/Lead Developer

( T W E E K ! )
PO Box 15
Wentworth Falls
NSW Australia 2782
| p:+61 2 4757 1600
| f:    +61 2 4757 3808
| m:    0414 270 400
| e:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| w:
   

http://www.tweek.com.au

Re: Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

2006-02-01 Thread Paul Dwyer

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7

dumping ground for IE7 bugs
--

—pd—

RE: [WSG] [Fixed div elements] - Having troubles with IE

2006-02-01 Thread Focas, Grant

Andrew,
You could also look at this - the code explains what's happening.

http://www.homebass.info/fixedPosTest/

Grant

That is exactly what am I talking about.
I applaud your skill, but not your memory :)

I am trying to pick away at your css to figure out how you got
it
working but so far I have had no luck. I will most likely create a new
page
away from the code I have no to see if I can just get it working.

Thanks for pointing me in some direction!

-Andrew Brown

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bert Doorn
Sent: February 1, 2006 2:16 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] [Fixed div elements] - Having troubles with IE

G'day

Andrew Brown wrote:
>   I changed the doctype to strict locally and still the scrollbar
does
> appear. I also already have those additional tags added. Do you know
of a
> website that has enough content that scrolls and has div banners such
as
> mine only done in css? I cannot say I have saw many that do. I am
still on
> top of this. 

Kinda like www.sure-kleen.com ?

Don't ask me how I did it - I forgot.  But if it does what you 
want, feel free to reverse-engineer.

Regards
-- 
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites

**
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
**

**
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Safari issue SOLVED! - was Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

It seems that adding the "rel" attribute to the "link" element through the
DOM makes Safari go ballistic.

Using the "style" element instead appears to do the trick. A new version of
the script should be uploaded later today.

Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Firefox being naughty

2006-02-01 Thread Marilyn Langfeld


On Feb 1, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:

Guys and Gals,

Perhaps you can help me with this mystery.  I built this site over  
a year ago http://holidayrealty.com, and recently Firefox (I'm  
using 1.5 (could be the issue)) has stopped displaying my  
background image on the main content (on subpages only) and is  
instead just making the background black!  I even went into the CSS  
and added a background-color: #FF and it didn't affect the  
behavior at all.


I get a double Flash image in Safari 2.0.3 which pushes the text  
below the box into the background on the homepage. Double image in  
other pages, but the main text box stretches down to enclose the copy  
in other pages.


I get the background, though, both in Safari and Mac Firefox 1.5.

Best regards,

Marilyn Langfeld
Langfeldesigns
http://www.langfeldesigns.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1.301.598.3300 business phone
+1.301.598.0532 fax
+1.202.390.8847 mobile


**
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] Holy Grail - with padding!


From: "Ray Cauchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Al

That was my point - when a structure such as Thierry's works in the
current Beta of IE7, I would prefer to use it over a 'holy grail'
that breaks (ref: 
http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_3.html)


Sure its a Beta, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will all 
change

for the final product...though I guess it is MS???


You lost me, Ray. I was trying to say that people should not get 
alarmed over pages that do not work in IE7 Beta 2. It should be 
completely irrelevant at this stage of developement and only to test 
for bugs - not in yours or our web pages - but in IE7.


Sorry if I confused you.

--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling 
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".







**
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] Article: DL + DOM = "cool" FAQ page

Al Sparber wrote:
>> Is it something I should know about Safari and the method used here?
>
> I'm not sure except that createElement is kind of fashionable but
> document.write is *much* more straightforward ;-)

I agree, but the DOM police scares me...
;-)

Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com (wondering why his posts show up with so much
time delay on this list)


**
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Felix Miata

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:13:13 -0500:
 
> "px" obviously gives you the most control as the designer, 

The control is illusory as to users with modern browsers, since they
have the power to zoom and set a minimum font size, in addition to the
power to disregard your styles entirely, and veto power to apply very
specific overruling styles.

> but doesn't scale in IE when the user changes their text size.

This is true, but it understates the problem. The problem is that px
sizes bear no relationship to user defaults. Users are free to set
defaults to whatever size best suits, which sizes in px totally
disregard.
-- 
"Love your neighbor as yourself."Mark 12:31 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/

**
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Felix Miata

Christian Montoya wrote Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:10:40 -0500:
 
> For the record, most browsers default text size is 16px = 1em = 100%.
> That's most, not all.

While as a practical matter this is true, technically it isn't true.
Some browsers have a default size in px, but others, including all
versions of IE, have a default size in pt. IE's default is 12pt.

12pt means 16px only when the working DPI is 96. 96 DPI has historically
been the windoze default, which is how one gets away with claiming it
defaults to 16px. The problem is that the default 96 DPI isn't any
longer so easy to presume. Laptop sales have for a while outnumbered
desktop sales, and many higher resolution laptops are configured by
their manufacturers to 120 DPI by default. 12pt @ 120 DPI is 20px.

Just as with default font size, doze users are free to configure to
other DPI values. This is how it has always been with Linux, where 96
DPI is clearly an exception rather than a rule. In most cases Linux's
DPI is less than 96 if accurately set.

OTOH, DPI values in excess of 120 are no longer ususual either, and are
set to average quite a bit higher before long if the promise of $100
laptops for children materializes.


So, counting on the ubiquity of a 16px default is considerably less safe
than it used to be.

For those interested in DPI derivation without a calculator, visit:
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html
-- 
"Love your neighbor as yourself."Mark 12:31 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/


**
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] Re: Moral High-horse

2006-02-01 Thread Paolo Dodet

Jay wrote:
I don't know how this is true as we can only really know our role
within a small portion of the www community within society.
I see your point and I can't but agree, partly because I didn't really
stated clearly what my point was, this in the first place, and secondly
because... yeah, the web community at large is really large, know what
I mean?

When I stated this:

2.
Easyness in communicating this concept to others (clients and/or
other webdesigners), since they will be clear to us in the first place.What I really meant was that I can't sell anything if I'm not clear about what the advantages would be for my client.

But then you said:

we need to stop
preaching constantly to the converted and go out there and like Seth
Godin and Guy Kawasaki get ourselves some standards evangelists.
Clients who have implemented sites on standards and saved money,
development time, upgrade headaches, forward compatibility etc.

I couldn't agree more.

The best way to sell something is through some satisfied client of yours' friends. If I got your point here.

And then, regarding this group.

Well, I like it here. In spite of people who say there are some who look down to newbies and all that stuff, you know?

I AM a newbie, I don't feel like I am being looked down to by nobody. I
found people who helped me by giving me advice directly or indirectly,
and good pieces of advice too, mind you.

Surely, not all of us are from the same lot... Well, Thanks God. The
world would be such a boring place, otherwise. Don't you think so?

I think that the way people would look at me is the way I let them to,
and if I think that somebody is treating me contemptously well, I know
for experience that what I see in others is what is inside me, that's
why I can spot it in the first place, see what I mean?

So, I am with you, this is a nice place to share thoughts and ideas.
Far better than a lot of other place I didn't mention 'cause I like to
talk of good things and let the bad work out for themselves ;-)

Cheers
-- Paolo Dodetwww.noblocodenotas.comVerba volant, Scripta manent, Digitalia juvant

Re: [WSG] Norton Problems was Firefox being naughty



I've known Norton Internet Security to cause problems with pages before, 
which are fixed by disabling it, though I've never been able to work out 
exactly why it causes problems at all.





Lachlan,

I encountered this with one of my sites and it is because I used an 
image in a folder that was named "banner". I looked into the advanced 
settings for Internet Ad Blocking and it has a filter list and banner is 
one of the blocked words. I suspect the issue could either be in the 
filename or pathname(which was my case).


It sucks for two reasons because:

1.  if the list is visible from within the app,  all advertisers have to 
do is change naming of filenames and pathnames, and
2.  if Norton further tries to filter content in the headers and other 
content of the page it may end up wrecking more and more legitimate pages.


All the best,

Jay
**
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Minh D. Tran

Thank you Liorean. Brian Cummiskey, please read: On 01/02/06, Brian Cummiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> pt is for PRINT media, not screen.Wrong. Points are for all devices that operate at different ppi* than96. Points have a locked points per logical inch resolution of 72.Pixels vary depending on ppi. So, if a medium has 96 ppi then a 12pttext will be rendered as 12*96/72=16px. If a medium has 120 ppi, thenthe same 12pt text will be rendered as 12*120/72=20px. If a device has300 ppi, the 12pt text will be rendered as 12*300/72=50px. And thereverse is also true. That means that 16px text on a 96 ppi mediumwill be rendered the same size as 16*72/96=12pt. If a medium has 120ppi, 16px text will be rendered as 16*72/120=9.6pt, and
if a mediumhas 300 ppi the 16px text will be rendered as 16*72/300=3.84ptexcept for the fact that the CSS reference pixel is defined atabout 1/96 inch and not the actual medium pixels, so a smart rendererthat knows about it's medium's ppi might scale it and thus make surethat 16px=12pt is always true. That knowledge or it's implementationfor that matter is not guaranteed, however.* Pixels per "logical" inch, which is about equivalent to dots perphysical inch as is used in print media. Default in Windows is 96(Windows even calls it DPI), or 120 for large size.--David "liorean" Andersson**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list & getting
help**

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

[WSG] Safari frameset link tabbing bug

2006-02-01 Thread Focas, Grant









Hi,

I’d like to alert people to a bug I have found in
Safari (1.2 and 2.0 and maybe more – that’s all I have access to).

When using framesets (I know – we have a good reason
that we have to use them OK?) and navigating by keyboard:

 

The first link in a frame is skipped if both frames have
links. An example - http://www.meridian-records.co.uk/recmd.html
. After the link ‘Z’ the focus goes to the second link in the next
frame ‘Adar’. You can go back to the first by using shift –
tab but it’s not intuitive.

 

If there are 3 frames with one link in each – an example
is http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/frames/frame-test.html
- the focus skips from frame 1 to frame 3 and frame 2 cannot be accessed via
keyboard – even with shift-tab.

Grant
Focas

 




**This message is intended for the addressee named and may containprivileged information or confidential information or both. If youare not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.**

Re: [WSG] Web Standards Shetland Ponies

2006-02-01 Thread Katrina





Some people write as if there were a club, a them and us, people who get 
it and people who don't, and never the twain shall meet. 


My original post was not meant to seperate 'standardistas' from the rest 
of the industry.


It's just that I thought Standards Were the Way Things Were Done by 
Everyone (TM), and then I came across a huge article about a website 
that fit the qualification of 'Failed Redesign' (these things didn't 
really exist).


I wanted to understand why this happened. Is standards only really 
something a small contingent of geeky developers go for?


The more I look around at redesigns, I notice that more are failed than 
not. Sunbeam, Shiels Jewellry, VideoEzy, etc, etc, etc. Very few are 
standards compliant.


I don't think there is a them and us, because I think even people on 
this list are creating Failed Redesigns. There are quite a few on this 
list, and yet very few successful redesigns.


Surely it's a matter of trade-offs that people weigh up and make a 
decision about, and have their reasons for doing so. Not that long ago 
there was advice to add in all the proprietary attributes within the 
body element to make it work in all browsers.


Wouldn't it be better to be straightforwards and honest about the 
reasons for the trade-off decisions and their results?


Kat






**
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] Which unit is better for web site font size?

2006-02-01 Thread Stephen Stagg

Technically, you may be right.  However many monitors do not report  
their PPI correctly, or at all.  the DPMI(?) Info and its usage can  
depend on the monitor, the drivers, the graphics card and many other  
things.
I had a Dell monitor what worked fine unless I plugged it into an ATI  
Radeon XT board.  The catalyst drivers installed a monitor profile  
that  destroyed the Monitor's Self-reported info and the reported  
PPI. Many windows machines just report 9(2|6)ppi as a default.  Also,  
people with high-resolution displays will have set their browsers to  
display text at a comfortable size, to then use a potentially  
resolution-dependant text size is to invite problems. Therefore to  
all intents and purposes, pt should only be used for PRINT media.


Stephen


On 1 Feb 2006, at 21:35, liorean wrote:


On 01/02/06, Brian Cummiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Minh D. Tran wrote:

My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many
professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to  
measure size
of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font  
sizes.

pt is for PRINT media, not screen.


Wrong. Points are for all devices that operate at different ppi* than
96. Points have a locked points per logical inch resolution of 72.
Pixels vary depending on ppi. So, if a medium has 96 ppi then a 12pt
text will be rendered as 12*96/72=16px. If a medium has 120 ppi, then
the same 12pt text will be rendered as 12*120/72=20px. If a device has
300 ppi, the 12pt text will be rendered as 12*300/72=50px. And the
reverse is also true. That means that 16px text on a 96 ppi medium
will be rendered the same size as 16*72/96=12pt. If a medium has 120
ppi, 16px text will be rendered as 16*72/120=9.6pt, and if a medium
has 300 ppi the 16px text will be rendered as 16*72/300=3.84pt.
...except for the fact that the CSS reference pixel is defined at
about 1/96 inch and not the actual medium pixels, so a smart renderer
that knows about it's medium's ppi might scale it and thus make sure
that 16px=12pt is always true. That knowledge or it's implementation
for that matter is not guaranteed, however.

* Pixels per "logical" inch, which is about equivalent to dots per
physical inch as is used in print media. Default in Windows is 96
(Windows even calls it DPI), or 120 for large size.
--
David "liorean" Andersson
http://liorean.web-graphics.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
**

[WSG] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Todd Baker

Hello Everyone,

We are in final testing for a largish site that uses a large amount of
background images for navigation and various graphical effects (as all
CSS-based sites do).

We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are
downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable untill the
background arrives .. almost last. The list that drives this is right
at the topm of the source code.

Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
order the browser requests and downloads background images?

Cheers

Todd
**
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] IE7 Now what?

2006-02-01 Thread Todd Baker

Thats a big call Ted.

Ill be happy to see that back of IE6 as much as anyone but I think it
will be well into next year before IE7 overtakes IE6, even if they do
roll it into XP SP3.

Your right tho... We need to start planning for it.

On 02/02/06, Ted Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I will
> put my neck out on a limb right now and say that the majority of your
> traffic by the end of October will have the ability to use :hover pseudo
> classes, first-child, alpha-transparency png graphics, attribute selectors,
> etc.
>
**
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] Background-Image download order


Todd Baker wrote:

We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are
downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable untill the
background arrives


You're assuming the background image will arrive.  What happens if 
someone has images turned off?  You should specify a background colour 
as well.



Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
order the browser requests and downloads background images?


Browsers would likely request images in the order that they are 
required, though there is no guarantee of this.  If the markup for the 
navigation appears last in the markup, then due to incremental 
rendering, it is likely that the images required to render it will be 
downloaded near the end.  If it's at the top of the markup, then it 
seems logical that it would be downloaded near the beginning.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Alexander Todorenko

So you're saying that if images are disabled in the browser you
navigation becomes invisible? Can you add a background color so the
nav is readable before the images load?

Alex

On 2/2/06, Todd Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> We are in final testing for a largish site that uses a large amount of
> background images for navigation and various graphical effects (as all
> CSS-based sites do).
>
> We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are
> downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable untill the
> background arrives .. almost last. The list that drives this is right
> at the topm of the source code.
>
> Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
> order the browser requests and downloads background images?
>
> Cheers
>
> Todd
> **
> 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] IE7 Now what?




Todd Baker wrote:


Thats a big call Ted.

Ill be happy to see that back of IE6 as much as anyone but I think it
will be well into next year before IE7 overtakes IE6, even if they do
roll it into XP SP3.

Your right tho... We need to start planning for it.

On 02/02/06, Ted Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


I will
put my neck out on a limb right now and say that the majority of your
traffic by the end of October will have the ability to use :hover pseudo
classes, first-child, alpha-transparency png graphics, attribute selectors,
etc.

I am just trying to plan ahead. I don't want to be building sites that 
have issues that I have to go back and fix when the GA release comes 
out. I have three sites with issues and want to correct them but also 
fear that it is to early to rely on the rendering in the current beta 2. 
I just don't want to be stuck with 10 projects on the go only to find 
that NOW I have to address these issues.


-Jay
**
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] Background-Image download order

For the navigation, you can put all your nav images into the one file
so that they all load at once, then use background-position to make
them sit in place.

As for making things readable before the background images download,
how about setting a background colour as well? That way if users have
images disabled (dialup users, etc.) they can still read your primary
navigation. This will obviously only work if you're not dependent on
the background being partially transparent for the nav.

Josh

On 2/2/06, Todd Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> We are in final testing for a largish site that uses a large amount of
> background images for navigation and various graphical effects (as all
> CSS-based sites do).
>
> We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are
> downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable untill the
> background arrives .. almost last. The list that drives this is right
> at the topm of the source code.
>
> Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
> order the browser requests and downloads background images?
>
> Cheers
>
> Todd
**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Todd Baker

On 02/02/06, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're assuming the background image will arrive.  What happens if
> someone has images turned off?  You should specify a background colour
> as well.
>

Yes indeed we are adding a background colour that its "close" to the graphic.

> > Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
> > order the browser requests and downloads background images?
>
> Browsers would likely request images in the order that they are
> required, though there is no guarantee of this.  If the markup for the
> navigation appears last in the markup, then due to incremental
> rendering, it is likely that the images required to render it will be
> downloaded near the end.  If it's at the top of the markup, then it
> seems logical that it would be downloaded near the beginning.

Thats what I would of thought but the list for this nav is right at the top..

Thanks
**
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] Background-Image download order


Todd Baker wrote:

On 02/02/06, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

You're assuming the background image will arrive.  What happens if
someone has images turned off?  You should specify a background colour
as well.


Yes indeed we are adding a background colour that its "close" to the graphic.


But you stated that the text is unreadable until the text arrives.  The 
background colour is obviously not suitable.



Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
order the browser requests and downloads background images?

Browsers would likely request images in the order that they are
required, though there is no guarantee of this.  If the markup for the
navigation appears last in the markup, then due to incremental
rendering, it is likely that the images required to render it will be
downloaded near the end.  If it's at the top of the markup, then it
seems logical that it would be downloaded near the beginning.


Thats what I would of thought but the list for this nav is right at the top..


Is there a URI so that we may see the page and this effect occurring?

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Paul Novitski


At 03:59 PM 2/1/2006, Todd Baker wrote:

Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
order the browser requests and downloads background images?



Todd,

I'll be interested to see if anyone has any constructive suggestions 
to contribute toward this universal issue.


One might assume that images are requested from the server in the 
order they appear in markup and that markup's styling, but one might 
also be dead wrong...  Browsers undoubtedly differ in the strategies 
they use.  From watching the way pages render, I figure that multiple 
images download simultaneously, so that for example a large image can 
begin downloading before a small image but finish last.  With this in 
mind, I'd look closely at the image file sizes you're working with 
and do your best to minimize the size of images you want to appear 
first, in addition to placing them earlier in the markup.


How to force the situation?  Well, I suppose you could duplicate the 
background image as a foreground  first thing on the page so it 
would theoretically begin downloading first; the background image 
would therefore draw from cache.  I can think of a couple of ways to 
style the foreground image so that it would download but wouldn't 
show, such as positioning it absolutely and giving it a large negative left.


Background images don't display progressively, so it wouldn't help to 
save the image file for progressive display -- in fact, it would 
hinder since making it progressive would inflate its file size.


If you really wanted to display the image progressively -- or if you 
decided that foreground images began downloading before background 
images -- you could mark up the image as a foreground  and 
z-index it beneath your menu instead of styling it as a 
background.  Disadvantages: it would be one more vulnerability in 
your layout, and it wouldn't be able to tile automatically; however 
you could, if appropriate, size it in ems or percentages which we 
can't do with CSS backgrounds.


Good luck, and let me know if you come up with a solid solution.

Paul 


**
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] IE7 Now what?

2006-02-01 Thread heretic

> You should seriously consider how you are doing your CSS right now and how
> you should begin planning for the not so distant future of IE6 being the
> minority browser.  Microsoft wants to ditch IE6. IE7 will be part of a
> service pack upgrade to xp and as part of the fabled vista platform.

Just because Microsoft *wants* to ditch IE6 doesn't mean it happen
just like that. Based on that logic: considering how old IE6 is right
now, you'd think that would mean nobody would be using IE5. Right?
Wrong.

I know thecounter isn't scientific, but it's a big sample; and they're
still reporting 3% IE5.x.
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm shows up to 8% for some
samples, which highlights the slow-moving software of large
organisations (including .gov).

In any case, that's a lot of people still sitting on *really* old software.

Pushing IE7 out as part of a service pack doesn't guarantee anything
either; consider all the users out there who don't have broadband yet
- many of them don't install service packs. A lot of people just don't
update their machines at all, for whatever reason.

> I will
> put my neck out on a limb right now and say that the majority of your
> traffic by the end of October will have the ability to use :hover pseudo
> classes, first-child, alpha-transparency png graphics, attribute selectors,
> etc.

You are far more optimistic than I am. I'd guess a high take-up rate;
but after the IE userbase gets to about 50/50 IE6/IE7 I think it will
slow down a lot.

We certainly won't be able to ignore IE6 in October.

...but, obviously, I really hope I'm wrong and you are right :)

> Further, they just announced their xmlhttp requests to match the other
> browsers. We will see better pages and markup very soon.

If they've really fixed the CSS bugs they claim to have fixed, life
will be much better. CSS layouts won't be subject to such a time
blowout due to IE bugfixing, which will make it more likely that large
firms will switch over from old school table designs.

> Consider this an open door. Remember the discussions about what true
> professional web developer is? Working towards an IE7 population is a true
> professional. Building pages with IE6 hacks is a 2005 professional.

Personally I think it's worth showing some caution and waiting for the
final release of IE7 before we start trying to design for it. A lot
can change between beta and final release.

Ben

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
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] Web Standards Shetland Ponies

2006-02-01 Thread heretic

> I wanted to understand why this happened. Is standards only really
> something a small contingent of geeky developers go for?

I think it's fair to say that standards developers are still the
minority, but that doesn't make them wrong. "What's right is not
always popular, what's popular is not always right."

> The more I look around at redesigns, I notice that more are failed than
> not. Sunbeam, Shiels Jewellry, VideoEzy, etc, etc, etc. Very few are
> standards compliant.

Probably mostly done by larger design firms, which tend to be using
older techniques. When your profit margins are up, it's easier to get
comfortable I think.

Also, most clients still aren't aware of
standards/accessibility/usability; they're still judging sites on how
they look and what the first few users say.

> Wouldn't it be better to be straightforwards and honest about the
> reasons for the trade-off decisions and their results?

Yes, that's true. What really sets off the standards crowd is when the
reasons are really bad, and/or people are hostile to standards. The
trap is expecting and assuming the worst of reasons, I guess :)

Ben

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Lea de Groot


On 02/02/2006, at 9:59 AM, Todd Baker wrote:

We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are
downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable untill the
background arrives .. almost last. The list that drives this is right
at the topm of the source code.


I've always found the download order somewhat unpredictable,  
particularly cross-browser. Generally the image you want most drops  
in last (I think its related to that butter and bread falling thing)


Just to be a naysayer, have you given consideration to the  
accessability issues of background images being Important?
Derek Featherstone's "CSS Background Images: Naughty or Nice?"  
discusses it nicely.
http://24ways.org/advent/naughty-or-nice-css-background-images (Hi  
Derek!)

Hope that doesn't make you scream too much :)

Lea
--
Lea de Groot
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Nick Gleitzman


Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
order the browser requests and downloads background images?


Bear this in mind, too - some browsers will call *all* images specified 
with the background property in your CSS file, whether they're needed 
for that page or not. I fell foul of this one, and was wondering why my 
first page was taking ges to render. The solution? Boring, but 
multiple CSS files, one for each page, containing only the bg image 
declarations for that page.


HTH...

Nick
___
Omnivision. Websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/

**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Ric Raftis


Nick Gleitzman wrote:

 Boring, but multiple CSS files, one for each page, containing only 
the bg image declarations for that page.


Maybe I've missed something, but why wouldn't you just have the one css 
file but declare the background image in the head section of each 
individual page?


Regards,

Ric
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Separate mobile content considered harmful?

Hi all,

This was big news a year or two ago now, but I just realised that,
perhaps, a separate domain space for mobile content isn't particularly
evil afterall. Tim Berners-Lee weighed in on this in May 2004 [1], and
I do agree with everything outlined in that document -- but there is
more.

We're looking at mobile content for the Sunrise Family site, along
similar lines to that on the Y!7 Sunrise WAP site [2].

However, this seems to make a great deal of sense for that website
(crappy markup on the core Sunrise site notwithstanding) simply
because the content has been trimmed down to something...
intrinsically usable. I'm quietly a fan of this approach, I think, but
would still be interested to hear compelling arguments against it.

Obviously, I'd be keen to ensure any WAP content we produced was
valid, just so there's less a pathetic mobile parser can give up on --
for example, I disagree with Yahoo!7's decision to ditch the doctype
in their WAP pages, even if WAP data is still 3c/KB or whatever it is.
If you're using WAP, you can probably afford it, plus they've used
images for bullet points. A list would surely suffice!

So I guess this is more of a content-based question. But the subdomain
thing comes into it, too, as well as the fact that this equates to
providing different versions for different devices.

1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD
2. http://wap.yahoo.com.au/sunrise/ -- note the evil subdomain

Regards,
Josh

--
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] Background-Image download order


nick
"
Bear this in mind, too - some browsers will call *all* images specified
with the background property in your CSS file, whether they're needed
for that page or not."

errr..
what browsers?

I wonder what would happen if the seperate stylesheets were alled called in
from one "importer" stylesheet? would that make any sense?

kvnmcwebn


**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Nick Gleitzman



On 2 Feb 2006, at 1:24 PM, Ric Raftis wrote:


Nick Gleitzman wrote:

 Boring, but multiple CSS files, one for each page, containing only 
the bg image declarations for that page.


Maybe I've missed something, but why wouldn't you just have the one 
css file but declare the background image in the head section of each 
individual page?


You could, of course, but I use external files for the same reason that 
I don't include the whole CSS file in the  - separation of of 
content and presentation.


N
___
Omnivision. Websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/

**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Terrence Wood

Todd Baker said:
> We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are
> downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable

This makes for quite a usability issue. Is there any way you can revisit
the design to ensure the text is visible with images turned off or not
downloaded?

Or if it's just a case of fixing the anchor color then supply a background
color for just that element. The browser will render the specified
background color and place the image over the top of it when it is
downloaded.

EXAMPLE
a {background: #000 url(image.gif); color: #fff}

> Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the
> order the browser requests and downloads background images?

Not that I'm aware of... I always thought it was something magical that
browsers and servers worked out amongst themselves to in order to make
best use of the available packets and minimise requests.

kind regards
Terrence Wood.






**
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] Background-Image download order

2006-02-01 Thread Nick Gleitzman



On 2 Feb 2006, at 1:18 PM, kvnmcwebn wrote:



nick
"
Bear this in mind, too - some browsers will call *all* images specified
with the background property in your CSS file, whether they're needed
for that page or not."

errr..
what browsers?


Safari, from memory... it was a while ago. Later versions may have seen 
a fix. Sorry, don't have time to test right now...


I wonder what would happen if the seperate stylesheets were alled 
called in

from one "importer" stylesheet? would that make any sense?


Uh - wouldn't that result in the same problem? If a browser reads a CSS 
file, it will process all the other files called by it - won't it?


N
___
Omnivision. Websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/

**
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] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

2006-02-01 Thread John S. Britsios


Hi Zachary,

I just have noticed that your web site does not meet the requirements 
for WAI AA and AAA.

But it is really beautiful.

Best,

John

Home: http://www.webnauts.net
Redesign in process: http://www.webnauts.net/redesign/



Hopkins Programming wrote:


Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on my question?

--Zachary

On 1/30/06, *Hopkins Programming* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


Hello all!

I re-did my website (http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/) a while
back in an effort to update its look and improve the quality of
the coding behind it.

Right now, it looks perfect, just like I want it to.  But, I need
to improve/clean up the XHTML coding behind it - eg, properly
structure the page, designing first for Lynx and text based
browsers, then going back and making everything pretty for modern
browsers through CSS.

Do you all have any suggestions on the proper kinds of things that
should end up in the heading (-) tags?  Like, is my site
title or my page title supposed to be in ?

I greatly appreciate your suggestions and input.

--Zachary Hopkins

-- 
==

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net




--
==
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net 



**
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] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

2006-02-01 Thread Hopkins Programming

It meets -A and -AAA.  This re-coding process will allow me to add
text back into my 

Do you know if its better to arrange the actual HTML code on the page
such that the content all comes first, and all links are at the bottom
of the page?

== Example 
Site
Page
Section One
Blah, blah, blah...

  
  
  

==

--Zachary
On 2/1/06, John S. Britsios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Zachary,I just have noticed that your web site does not meet the requirementsfor WAI AA and AAA.But it is really beautiful.Best,JohnHome: http://www.webnauts.net
Redesign in process: http://www.webnauts.net/redesign/Hopkins Programming wrote:> Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on my question?
>> --Zachary>> On 1/30/06, *Hopkins Programming* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:>> Hello all!>> I re-did my website (http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/) a while> back in an effort to update its look and improve the quality of
> the coding behind it.>> Right now, it looks perfect, just like I want it to.  But, I need> to improve/clean up the XHTML coding behind it - eg, properly> structure the page, designing first for Lynx and text based
> browsers, then going back and making everything pretty for modern> browsers through CSS.>> Do you all have any suggestions on the proper kinds of things that> should end up in the heading (-) tags?  Like, is my site
> title or my page title supposed to be in ?>> I greatly appreciate your suggestions and input.>> --Zachary Hopkins>> --> ==
> "The best way to predict the future is to invent it.">> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net> --> ==
> "The best way to predict the future is to invent it.">> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net**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 best way to predict the future is to invent it." 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net

Re: [WSG] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

2006-02-01 Thread Terrence Wood

Hopkins Programming said:
> [is it] better that the content all comes first?

Mark Pilgrim [1], Sarah Horton (of Web Style Guide Fame, in her latest
book) and others say it is.

Roger Hudson, WSG's very own Russ Weakley, and Lisa Miller say that it isn't.

[1]:
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_10_presenting_your_main_content_first.html

[2]: http://www.usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm

**
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] Background-Image download order







Nick Gleitzman wrote:

On 2 Feb 2006, at 1:24 PM, Ric Raftis wrote:
  
  
  Nick Gleitzman wrote:


 Boring, but multiple CSS files, one for
each page, containing only the bg image declarations for that page.
  
  

Maybe I've missed something, but why wouldn't you just have the one css
file but declare the background image in the head section of each
individual page?

  
  
You could, of course, but I use external files for the same reason that
I don't include the whole CSS file in the  - separation of
of content and presentation.
  
  

What about SSI or PHP. I have used this for conditional class
application in navigations I don't see why you couldn't use it for
applying to stylesheet insertion. For navigation where I use image
replacement I use a single image and use the background image
positioning to handle the various states. This way the whole nav loads
at the same time and there is no need for _javascript_ preloads. 

This makes me think that I should put all my background images on one
image for an entire site. That might be a cool experiment. Has any one
tried this?

Jay



Jay Gilmore

U)SmashingRed Web & Marketing
B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed
Blog
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WSG] Web Standards Shetland Ponies





heretic wrote:

  
I wanted to understand why this happened. Is standards only really
something a small contingent of geeky developers go for?

  
  
I think it's fair to say that standards developers are still the
minority, but that doesn't make them wrong. "What's right is not
always popular, what's popular is not always right."
  

How very  true.

  
Probably mostly done by larger design firms, which tend to be using
older techniques. When your profit margins are up, it's easier to get
comfortable I think.

Also, most clients still aren't aware of
standards/accessibility/usability; they're still judging sites on how
they look and what the first few users say.
  

As I said earlier in the high horse thread, we (standards oriented
developers)  have not yet provided adequate answers for business to
take to their buddies and say " We just built our website around
standards and it was the best thing we ever did!" 

  Yes, that's true. What really sets off the standards crowd is when the
reasons are really bad, and/or people are hostile to standards. The
trap is expecting and assuming the worst of reasons, I guess :)
  

I don't know if this is true or not. What I do know is that business
doesn't care about standards because no one from THEIR group of peers
have told them to. If you had some of the biggest names in marketing
and business saying you should build around standards for such and such
a result to the overall competitiveness of the company, then you would
have standards all over. 

What I have said and will continue to say is that it is not our jobs as
a community to sell standards to our clients -- we can do it on a
one-on-one basis -- as a community we need to sell standards to the
people business looks to for answers -- Marketing Gurus, Accountants,
Consulting firms, Business Reporters and Pundits. 

Business owners rarely want to be first adopters unless they are true
entrepreneurs and don't care if they flounder on their way to the top.
Most business owners make decisions because it is the accepted thing to
do, the cheapest thing to do or the thing to do because they look or
seem better as a person or a company. When you have people like Vincent
Flanders and Jakob Nielsen talking about usability to fortune 500
companies and to web design conferences etc. they both acknowledge the
bottom line and the sacrificial choices companies must make to ensure
viability and usefulness you don't hear them talking  about whether or
not the site used a clearing div at the bottom of their site or a hack
in their CSS. 

The only way that we will ever gain wide acceptance (I sound like some
sort of human rights activist) is to make business demand it because
they will not be competitive without standards based design. 

Jay


Jay Gilmore

U)SmashingRed Web & Marketing
B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed
Blog
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[WSG] css/html snippets

2006-02-01 Thread Peter Ottery

on the topic of css patterns and re-usable chunks of code,

there's plenty of whole css page layout resources that you can use as
a starting point for your own stuff right, like the 'ol classics
http://glish.com/css/ or http://www.bluerobot.com/web/layouts/

what about the insides of those layouts?

with every subsequent design i do i gather more and more html &
associated css "chunks" that i reuse over and over. if you were using
dreamweaver you'd call them "snippets".

things like:

a login box
a search box
a search results pagination bar
a set of search results
a contact us form
etc... you get the idea. just the really common stuff.

obviously customisation of these would be/is required in almost all
cases as soon as you paste them in but at least a starting point
is handy

are there resources/collections of these snippets out there? i cant
find anything decent. ie: clean / semantic / sensible / 2006.

if not, maybe there's a need for something...?


~~~
Peter Ottery ~ Creative Director
Daemon Pty Ltd
17 Roslyn Gardens
Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011
http://www.daemon.com.au/

& COMING SOON
webDU - the web technology conference
http://webdu.com.au/
Sydney, March 2/3 2006
~~~
**
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] css/html snippets