[WSG] FYI Vision Australia culls 60 jobs

[Mark Harris]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25438090-29277,00.html

" VISION Australia has culled up to 60 staff from its New South Wales 
offices.
Vision Australia confirmed it had "reluctantly" notified staff that a 
number of positions could not be sustained. Three offices in regional 
Victoria will also close, and working hours will be reduced for some 
staff in NSW, Queensland and Victoria.


The “slaughter” began at the not-for-profit organisation’s Enfield 
offices in NSW at 9am, a source told news.com.au.


Among those to lose their jobs was a blind woman who worked in its proof 
reading department, the source said..."


How not to run a redundancy process (hat tip to @plasmaegg and @OfficerAnni)

Mark Harris
Technology Research and Consultancy Services Ltd.
Waikanae New Zealand
@nzlemming
+64 21 444 954


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Another IE issue with CSS

[Jens Brueckmann]

2009/5/6 Lynette Smith :
> Good afternoon
>
> http://www.westernwebdesign.com.au/zoobridal/bridegallery.html
>
> Pages at issue  in IE are bridegallery.html and bridesmaidgallery.html.
> Fine in FX and others.

Good morning Lynette,

I am loth to say that your pages do not work at all in Opera (9.63, Linux).
This, and the IE problems are probably caused by the plethora of markup errors.

You may want to take care of purge your source of any HTML errors
before trying to adjust any CSS problems.

Cheers,

jens

-- 
Jens Brueckmann
http://www.yalf.de


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Another IE issue with CSS

[Lynette Smith]

I am loth to say that your pages do not work at all in Opera (9.63, Linux).
This, and the IE problems are probably caused by the plethora of markup errors.

You may want to take care of purge your source of any HTML errors
before trying to adjust any CSS problems.
  

Sorry,  in such a rush I forgot the basics.  Will clean it up.

Thanks for the reminder!

Lyn



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

[WSG] Tree structure

[Michael Vogt]

Hello all.

What is the comon way to build a tree structure in html? One sample of
what I need can be found here:

http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/lib/mktree/

Is this a good way to do it, or are there better ones available?


Thanks,
Michael Vogt


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Tree structure

[Tobias Horvath]

On 06.05.2009 at 11:07 Uhr, i...@michaelvogt.eu (Michael Vogt) wrote:


What is the comon way to build a tree structure in html? One sample of
what I need can be found here:

http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/lib/mktree/

Is this a good way to do it, or are there better ones available?


Mark-up wise you would be fine there. Make sure to pay attention 
to semantics. A good read-up on lists in HTML is:



Your posted example then utilizes JavaScript to bring behavior 
to the whole thing, making it possible to expand and collapse.


There are languages better suited for trees but semantically I 
see now way of doing it "the right way" in HTML, other than 
relying on lists, but I will stand corrected if others have 
ideas :)


T.
--
Tobias Horvath  



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7

[Felix Miata]

On 2009/04/24 20:34 (GMT+1000) daniel a. thornbury composed:

>>> On 24/04/2009, at 7:47 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:

>>> And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes.

>> On 2009/04/24 12:47 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas composed:

>> On the contrary, everything is wrong with pixel sizing fonts, because any
>> "size" in px totally disregards the size the visitor has set in his browser
>> prefs,

> I wouldn't agree with Felix's statement at all, and tend to think  
> Rimantas is correct - there is NOTHING wrong with px font sizes. They  
> are not absolute

According to the CSS spec, it is correct that px font sizes are not absolute.
However, what it says is that px is relative to the viewing device. Well,
that's little short of an oxymoron. On modern flat panel displays, you don't
change the display, nor its resolution. As a consequence, on any given system
with such a display, px is functionally absolute - it is what it is and you
don't get to change it.

> and browsers are able to modify the size...

The whole point of a browser having a default size that is independent of
everything else on the desktop is that the user can personalize it to best
suit his needs. Whatever the size is that he makes it should be respected by
the web designer as best suited to the majority of the content.

> ...without any problems.

Hardly. Designers have different ideas about right size. It's not
particularly often that one can browse from one web site to another unrelated
one, and find that the fonts are not different in size. If OTOH most
designers were respecting user personalization, most fonts on most sites
would be pretty much just as the user prefers them, and the defenses of
minimum font size, style disabling, and zoom, would rarely be needed.

> Likewise, font sizes are irrelevant for accessibility. All  
> accessibility software and screen readers should be able to scale the  
> fonts accordingly, if not then it's an issue with the accessibility  
> software. It's easier to keep track of em and percentage sizes for  
> site wide but px is

You've jumped over a huge web-using population, those between those with
perfect and near-perfect vision, and those requiring assistive technology.
Accessibility isn't just about special software and hardware to create
accessibility for those with extreme handicaps. Far more people have mild to
moderate visual limitation. For these people, this is very much an
accessibility issue. People in this category don't need special hardware or
software. The tools that can work for them are part of standard operating
systems and browsers in the form of personalization features. All they need
for those personalizations to work satisfactorily is for designers to respect
them. Since designing totally in px totally disregards those
personalizations, and even disregards the settings shipped by the system
vendors, px designs are de facto non-accessible, and offensive. To access
such sites, it is necessary to employ the above enumerated defense
mechanisms. Without the offense, the defense would not be necessary.

> Joe Clarke gave a great presentation on this at @media 2007 titled  
> "When Web Accessibility Is Not Your Problem", notes available here: 
> http://joeclark.org/appearances/atmedia2007/#fonts

That's largely a dishonest defense of laziness, and rudeness. To say that CSS
is mere suggestion is certainly correct technically. In the real world it is
not. It is much too difficult to competently disregard the suggestions, which
transforms CSS from suggestion to compulsion for the vast majority of web
surfers.
-- 
"A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man
keeps himself under control."   Proverbs 29:11 NIV

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

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***