> So, who's heading to London next week for the @media conference?
I'll be there! :)
Antony
Antony Golding
Principal Systems Development Officer
Salford City Council - http://www.salford.gov.uk
DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is i
http://www.apartmentrealty.com.au/site/search/search-results.cfm
The icons for bed,
bath and parking do not display in the position they should in Firefox, they
should be displayed in the grey table header on the right
from
Ipanema Luxury Apartment $650 pw
It displays correct
in IE, I ca
There is work going at the W3C to make it easier for
developers to make AJAx applications more accessible to people
with disabilities.
More information at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/roadmap/
Jon
Original message
>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:36:02 -0400
>From: "Michael Yeaney" <[EMAIL PRO
ExactlyI was not suggesting that we should ignore all aspects - I was
merely questioning why it seems that we (web developers) are responsible (or
so it seems) for the specifics (for example, why should we worry about
_exactly_ what colors we choose - I can only hope that a capable program can
Hi Steve, sorry I better confirm what I said "IMO even considering colour blindness is
counter-productive, colour correction should be a feature of an
'acccessability-friendly' browser.".If a website is accessable via a screen reader, then it _must_ be possible to display the site in more appropria
Ted Drake wrote:
Hi Everyone
So, who's heading to London next week for the @media conference?
Me too. Coming across the pond from the U.S. It should be quite a party -
at least as geek parties go.
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
**
The discussio
On 6/9/06, Ted Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, who's heading to London next week for the @media conference?
I'll be there, too - from Tokyo, Japan.
--
Kazuhito Kidachi
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
The discussion list for http://webstand
Having just returned from a user-testing session with
someone who has severe colour perception impairment (caused by retinitis
pigmentosa) I am appalled by this "it's not the designer's problem" attitude.
This person uses the ZoomText magnifier, which has a wide range of colour
substitution
On 08/06/06, Jan Brasna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, who's heading to London next week for the @media conference?
*Raises hand*
Me too!!! :)
--
Olly Hodgson
http://thinkdrastic.net/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.
I think the only burden placed on developers is to ensure their site can be realisticly processed by a computer.When I consider "accessability", I consider it reffering to accessability by computers... I know that's not how the term is usually used, but that's just how I think about it. Because, in
On 6/10/06 4:50 AM, "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I cracking up?
Is it better now?
http://66.155.251.18/mlinc.com/test/index2.html
[thanks Francky]
--
Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph:
518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com
Hi Mike,
You wrote:
However, what I've noticed that you do not see are articles pushing
the screen reader manufacturers to make more capable and intellegent
readers for the browsers.they seem to be able to do this for
desktop applications (at least to a reasonable level). It seems that
man
While reading a recent article [1] about AJAX applications, I had a
thought that will no doubt offend some, inspire others, and humor the
rest. It seems that we are putting tons and tons of work into making
sure our documents are structured correctly to work with things such
as screen-readers and
This is a one-way list for WSG Announcements
This email covers:
- Links for light reading
- Events
- Jobs
--
LINKS FOR LIGHT READING
--
Site Check
> http://uitest.com/en/check/
Sizer,
> h
> John S. Britsios
> So I have visited the "HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines 1.0" here
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#image-text-equivalent
> and I was
> surprised to find there an example, that is 100% identical to
> one of the
> images of my site.
You
John S. Britsios wrote:
First of all I would like to thank you all for your kind contribution.
Things got very complicated, because of all pros and conts, so I thought
of having a look again, what W3C recommends.
So I have visited the "HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines
First of all I would like to thank you all for your kind contribution.
Things got very complicated, because of all pros and conts, so I thought
of having a look again, what W3C recommends.
So I have visited the "HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0" here
http://www.w3
Laura Said
>>If a search button is a magnifying glass or binoculars its alt text
should be 'search' or 'find' not 'magnifying glass' or 'binoculars'.
- If an image is meant to convey an image - then a description is
appropriate.
Thanks Laura, this says it all.
What about titles, ive seen
An alt attribute is not a label or description for the image. This is
not an immediately obvious distinction. In fact, it might seem natural
to assume that alternate text is a label or a description. It is not.
The words used should be a text equivalent and convey the same
information/serve the
Title: Re: [WSG] Jello variation
On 6/10/06 8:52 AM, "Gunlaug Sørtun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The logic behind the use of an _expression_ to fix IE's lack of
> 'max-width' when dealing with 'em-width' scaled layouts, should be
> reversed - like in this test/demo-example...
>
>
Thanks
Hi Al, it doesn't make sense to be performing formatting inside the script like that, think about what you're really trying to acheive.I'd at least do something like:safemail('shirazman','
hotmail.com','BUCHANAN', 'Mark (Buck)')and the safemail function does semanticly nice html, with css for the b
Designer wrote:
Thanks Lea, and 'Whooops'! I should have said www.kernowimages.co.uk !
You're welcome :) A quick header check -
http://www.seoconsultants.com/tools/headers.asp is the first result on
google - shows them doing a simple little 302.
I'd move host, rather than try and make them h
Lea de Groot wrote:
Designer wrote:
The way the hosting company offer to overcome this is to wrap the
whole thing in a frameset, and indeed it works, except that every
page appears as www.kernowimages.com and you can't get to 'view
source' or bookmark. It's a mess, and obviously isn't good pra
Hi Bob, sorry to say but I think you've been misslead, or at least someone's held off telling you 'the full story'.Do some reading on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System
and it'll all make perfect sense.I would call this on-topic, since from the users perspective hosting can still equa
Designer wrote:
The way the hosting company offer to overcome this is to wrap the whole
thing in a frameset, and indeed it works, except that every page appears
as www.kernowimages.com and you can't get to 'view source' or bookmark.
It's a mess, and obviously isn't good practice.
Well, we are
Dear Listees,
I hope this is not OT, but I have a question about domain displays in
the UA.
The folk who I use to handle my domains do it in a way that displays the
real location of the site in the browser address bar. So, if I put
www.kernowimages.com in the address bar, it gets to the right
David Dixon wrote:
Hi Al,
Someone might be able to correct me, if my info is not totally accurate,
but if memory serves the following applies:
The tag is deprecated in XHTML 1.0, and not allowed in strict
No it is not deprecated. It is declared in the XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD.
http://www.w3.o
Lachlan, I tried using the CDATA method you discribe but unfortunately it still does work. The text does not display and I am presuming it has something to do with the other part of the script as it has a
document.write() compentent in it. Any other help would be greatly appreciated
It seems that you can't nest strong and span under a script.
Not nest - you can't use the closing tag in a string unescaped.
--
Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net
**
The discussion list for http://webstan
Hi Al,
Someone might be able to correct me, if my info is not totally accurate,
but if memory serves the following applies:
The tag is deprecated in XHTML 1.0, and not allowed in strict
The tag doesn't exist
The tag is perfectly valid in XHTML, but in strict, it cannot
be a direct child of
Al Kendall wrote:
Hi,
I have a simple little script I use for protecting email addresses
from spammers...
problems is that using the 'bold - strong or b' elements within are not
allowed in xhtml strict markup.
Can anyone help me with a solution please?
sample
type='text/javascript'>sa
I can see you could wrap that _javascript_
command in a div/span and then apply CSS attributes to it.
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Al Kendall
Sent: Monday, 12 June 2006 4:12 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] using html
Al Kendall wrote:
Hi,
I have a simple little script I use for protecting email addresses
from spammers...
problems is that using the 'bold - strong or b' elements within are not
allowed in xhtml strict markup.
Can anyone help me with a solution please?
sample
type='text/javascript'>sa
Al Kendall wrote:
I have a simple little script I use for protecting email addresses
from spammers...
problems is that using the 'bold - strong or b' elements within are not
allowed in xhtml strict markup.
Can anyone help me with a solution please?
sample
type='text/javascript'>safemail('shi
Hi, I have a simple little script I use for protecting email addresses from spammers... problems is that using the 'bold - strong or b' elements within are not allowed in xhtml strict markup.Can anyone help me with a solution please?
sample safemail('shirazman','
35 matches
Mail list logo
