Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Reading a bit more I saw validating as transitional was a bit senseless. As my brother really wanted the target blank in his links, I used a simple javascript, it is in http://www.ramirocosta.com.ar/external.js. And now I can validate (despite this important detail) as strict. Just to let you know! Thank you all; Eugenio. Yes, but validation is only a part of embracing a standard. Target was not deprecated for laughs and giggles, but to promote the idea that XHTML strict is user agent agnostic and simply does not consider different windows to be an option. If you want to use target for popups or frames you create HTML, so a HTML 4.01 doctype would do the same. How can ask browser vendors to support XHTML if noboby uses it as it is intended? In the case of popup windows, adding a click handler that opens the window only when JS is available makes sense, as you can test for blocking of popups and also change the window with JS. This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. ** 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] target=_blank
... If you want to use target for popups or frames you create HTML, so a HTML 4.01 doctype would do the same. ... This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. What am I missing here? XHTML is reformulation of HTML in XML that's it. Target in HTML4.01 Strict is as invalid as in XHTML Strict. It is allowed by transitional and frameset DTD in both too. -- Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.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] target=_blank
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. Richard. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 11/08/2006 ** 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] target=_blank
Richard Conyard wrote: It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. but you can have target_blank without a hack, just not with a strict doctype. The whole point is to use standards in a valid way, not find a sneaky way to get round the validator... ;o) ** 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] target=_blank
This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. If you don't use strict and HTML you don't need to hack. The client doesn't care, really. ** 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] target=_blank
Ok.. Why isn't target=_blank a valid tag/attribute in XHTML Strict? It's a necessity really if your going to link so why not.?? Dave -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford Sent: Monday, 14 August 2006 4:12 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Richard Conyard wrote: It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. but you can have target_blank without a hack, just not with a strict doctype. The whole point is to use standards in a valid way, not find a sneaky way to get round the validator... ;o) ** 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] target=_blank
Ok.. Why isn't target=_blank a valid tag/attribute in XHTML Strict? It's a necessity really if your going to link so why not.?? How so? It is the user's choice if she wants to stay on your page (and shift click the link) or not, it is not yours to demand. You cannot expect the user agent to support several windows or the user to be able to deal with them, not all people see pages or use a mouse. XHTML strict is not only enforcing strict XML syntax, it is also taking HTML to an application level. For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. ** 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] target=_blank
On 14/08/2006, at 6:39 PM, Christian Heilmann wrote: Target was not deprecated for laughs and giggles, but to promote the idea that XHTML strict is user agent agnostic and simply does not consider different windows to be an option. I always thought it was because the target attribute is supposed to be used with frames: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/ frames.html#adef-target and frames are bad because (amongst other things) they cannot be loaded from a single uri. Which brings me to a point: if your document is not within a frameset is it even legal to use target in HTML 4.0? Later he said: If you don't use strict and HTML you don't need to hack. The client doesn't care, really. And Tony Crockford wrote: The whole point is to use standards in a valid way, not find a sneaky way to get round the validator... I completely agree with this. If you want to open new windows use a doctype that allows it - it's a heck of a lot quicker than messing around with javascript - although I advocate against opening new windows, it's annoying. 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] target=_blank
I think we can discuss a long time about this subject :) I'm renewing the code of my website and I removed the script I used : http://domscripting.com/book/sample/ Today more and more people are using tabs. And default more and more browsers switch from opening the window to open it in a new tab. So with the other reasons the members said, I think you can skip this hack. Try to explain it to your client. Anyway if you really have to use it, I will ask you to not forget about accessibility. Please use alternative text like this : title=Description (Launches a new window) Cheers PS: Any suggestions about your studies / diploma / advises to work for the web ? I apologize to add ps to my messages but the Web Standards Group IRC seems to be empty most of time -- Pierre-Henri Lavigne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +33 (0)6.18.75.32.67 ** 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] target=_blank
Anyway if you really have to use it, I will ask you to not forget about accessibility. Please use alternative text like this : title=Description (Launches a new window) Misconception really, as not many screen reader users have title readout enabled (it is disabled by default) which is why you should give crucial information like this in the link text and not in a title attribute [1]. My chapter Accessible JavaScript in Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance (http://www.friendsofed.com/book.html?isbn=1590596382) dealt with that and you can download the code for it at http://www.friendsofed.com/download.html?isbn=1590596382 That one uses the rel attribute and changes the text content only when JS is available. [1] http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/01/10/13-browsing-habits ** 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] target=_blank
Christian Heilmann wrote: For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. Is there something I'm missing here? If you make a frameset, the pages which constitute the actual frames are not using a frameset doctype, so the problem of validity is the same as any other (non-frame) page(s). Isn't it? What I mean is that, as an example, your left frame may have navigation links and your right frame is where the pages will be displayed. Since framesets are still included in the W3C specs, it does seem silly to me that one can't use them in a strict environment. ?? -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/14/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heilmann wrote: For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. Is there something I'm missing here? If you make a frameset, the pages which constitute the actual frames are not using a frameset doctype, so the problem of validity is the same as any other (non-frame) page(s). Isn't it? What I mean is that, as an example, your left frame may have navigation links and your right frame is where the pages will be displayed. Since framesets are still included in the W3C specs, it does seem silly to me that one can't use them in a strict environment. This is where the modularity of XHTML strict comes in: With XHTML 1.1, the concept of separation of structure and presentation is complete. XHTML 1.1 has only one public DTD, based on the Strict DTD found in XHTML 1.0. Web authors also have the option to work with modularization. Modularization breaks HTML down into discrete modules such as text, images, tables, frames, forms, and so forth. The author can choose which modules he or she wants to use and then write a DTD combining those modules into a unique application. This is the first time we really see the extensibility introduced by XML at work, because instead of having only the public DTDs to choose from, authors can now create their own applications. http://www.webstandards.org/learn/tutorials/common_ideas/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Admin Reminder Re: [WSG] To Donna re: Neighbors/my question
Hi everyone Another friendly reminder about the guidelines of the WSG list... We ask that if you would like to hold a private conversation with another member then it's best to do this off list. No offence to your relatives but most of us don't really want to know where your mother lives. It has no bearing on Web Standards, CSS or various bugs in IE. We endeavour to keep the list on topic as this helps people to find the emails and help they really need. Remember when you send an email it's going to close to 4000 people. If anyone is interested in helping with the WSG both off and online then you may like to get in contact with the admins / listparents about this. As a member of the core group you can also have a hand in organising meetings in your area - if there is enough interest. Emails do tend to become a bit faceless after a while and because of this we tend to lose our manners sometimes - the meetings are a good remedy for this. Finally, if you really really want to tell people where they should place quotes in their emails or other such things please bear in mind that they don't belong on the list. If you feel strongly about something going on on the list then contact the listparents (email address is on the wsg homepage) and let one of us deal with it. I think at last count there are about 20 so someone should jump on it (it may not happen straight away). all the best James --- admin On 8/14/06, Dani Nordin | 401.787.5178 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dani: We're sorta neighbors, by the way. Actually, my mom lives in East Dixfield, ME, about 45 minutes NW of Augusta ... ** 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] target=_blank
I agree with this. But that way of doing it is just how he wants it. Any way, how can I do a really accesible solution? Because: new windows open only if JS is enabled. But that doesn´t mean it is a windowed enviroment. I think talking about tabs, and more freedom to do the same thing if it weren´t required to do it one way, would be the best. Thank you all for your feedback! Eugenio. On 8/14/06, Christian Heilmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but validation is only a part of embracing a standard. Target was not deprecated for laughs and giggles, but to promote the idea that XHTML strict is user agent agnostic and simply does not consider different windows to be an option. If you want to use target for popups or frames you create HTML, so a HTML 4.01 doctype would do the same. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. ** 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] target=_blank
Christian Heilmann wrote: On 8/14/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heilmann wrote: For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. Is there something I'm missing here? If you make a frameset, the pages which constitute the actual frames are not using a frameset doctype, so the problem of validity is the same as any other (non-frame) page(s). Isn't it? What I mean is that, as an example, your left frame may have navigation links and your right frame is where the pages will be displayed. Since framesets are still included in the W3C specs, it does seem silly to me that one can't use them in a strict environment. This is where the modularity of XHTML strict comes in: With XHTML 1.1, the concept of separation of structure and presentation is complete. XHTML 1.1 has only one public DTD, based on the Strict DTD found in XHTML 1.0. Web authors also have the option to work with modularization. Modularization breaks HTML down into discrete modules such as text, images, tables, frames, forms, and so forth. The author can choose which modules he or she wants to use and then write a DTD combining those modules into a unique application. This is the first time we really see the extensibility introduced by XML at work, because instead of having only the public DTDs to choose from, authors can now create their own applications. http://www.webstandards.org/learn/tutorials/common_ideas/ I'll take that as a 'yes', then! :-) -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Screen Readers, abbr and code
My question is Is it better for screen readers when ALL abbreviations are identified by abbr? Or, instead of using abbr, should I wrap the code with code? Sample code: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en-us lang=en-us meta http-equiv=content-type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 I cite code in my articles. [Please see http://www.elementary-group-standards.com/archives/site-standards/why-xhtml.html for an actual page which has fifty such code inclusions.] I know (or, at least, as stated in various articles) screen readers read' abbr as characters as opposed to attempting to pronounce them as words. I haven't been able to find any explanations of how screen readers render - read or pronounce or ignore - text set inside of code. I am willing to use abbr for all instances on all abbreviations but I do not know which is best for screen readers, abbr or code. So. Use abbr? Or, use code? Any assistance would be very much appreciated. Sean Fraser www.elementary-group-standards.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] Screen Readers, abbr and code
Use abbr or acronym ... but abbr is better. Please also notice that this tag may not be recognized by some browsers. Therefore, it is recommended to embrace the abbr tag with a span tag that will do basically the same thing. abbr title=...span title=...acronym/spanabbr Pat Boens www.fastwrite.com -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Fraser Sent: 14 August 2006 23:31 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Screen Readers, abbr and code My question is Is it better for screen readers when ALL abbreviations are identified by abbr? Or, instead of using abbr, should I wrap the code with code? Sample code: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en-us lang=en-us meta http-equiv=content-type content=text/html; charset=utf-8 I cite code in my articles. [Please see http://www.elementary-group-standards.com/archives/site-standards/why-xhtml. html for an actual page which has fifty such code inclusions.] I know (or, at least, as stated in various articles) screen readers read' abbr as characters as opposed to attempting to pronounce them as words. I haven't been able to find any explanations of how screen readers render - read or pronounce or ignore - text set inside of code. I am willing to use abbr for all instances on all abbreviations but I do not know which is best for screen readers, abbr or code. So. Use abbr? Or, use code? Any assistance would be very much appreciated. Sean Fraser www.elementary-group-standards.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I don't see how a class could describe an element (for UAs, not authors). If there was a known convention on possible values, then I'd agree to say that it could convey information (other than style), but AFAIK this is not the case. I may be missing something though, so I'd be happy to hear what others think about this... Short and hefty: http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html :-) It's not that it's supposed to be, it's allready reality. (hey this is a rime) Ciao Niels ** 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] target=_blank
I don't see how a class could describe an element (for UAs, not authors). If there was a known convention on possible values, then I'd agree to say that it could convey information (other than style), but AFAIK this is not the case. I may be missing something though, so I'd be happy to hear what others think about this... Short and hefty: http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html :-) It's not that it's supposed to be, it's allready reality. (hey this is a rime) Not really, however you are right that some class names can be a lot more than originally meets the eye. Enter Microformats: http://microformats.org/ footer being the most used class on the google stats shows that when it comes to semantics a lot has to be learnt still. A class, by definition is something that can appear more than once on the page, while an ID defines a unique element. How many footers would you use on a page? ** 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] Screen Readers, abbr and code
Sean Fraser wrote: My question is Is it better for screen readers when ALL abbreviations are identified by abbr? Or, instead of using abbr, should I wrap the code with code? “ Not sure that I am with you - while there is some debate over how to represent abbreviations, such as acronyms and we have a choice between abbr acronym abbrspan and more. But - the code tag is intended for marking up blocks of code as such. It is not used for abbreviations! HIH Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems 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] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank I dont know why this isnt allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as its LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I dont put in target=blank when theres a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And in general, Id much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that its not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. And whats wrong with popups? No I guess I shouldnt go there. But there are times when popups are really useful like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) - susie **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] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank If people are reasonably proficient with a browser then they can choose if they want your links to open in a new window (shift-click) or a new tab (middle click - Firefox). By including _blank youre forcing people to accept the link opening in a new window. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:53 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank I dont know why this isnt allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as its LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I dont put in target=blank when theres a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And in general, Id much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that its not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. And whats wrong with popups? No I guess I shouldnt go there. But there are times when popups are really useful like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) - susie **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] target=_blank
I don't know why this isn't allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as it's LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I don't put in 'target=blank' when there's a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And if you use HTML 4.01 transitional then there is no problem with that whatsoever. If you try to shoehorn future-driven standards into past practices you'll run into issues. Frames can be helpful, but they also mean - the page is not bookmarkable - the page is badly scanned in search engines (you'll end up on pages without the rest of the navigation as they are meant to be in a frameset) - the site is a lot tougher to navigate with assistive technology. And in general, I'd much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that it's not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. If you can see several windows or have several windows that makes sense, which is why you can shift-click those links and open them in a new window. Being a trackpointer and firefox user I am thoroughly annoyed by links opening new windows - I like tabs, as I can switch between them with crtl+tab (I know, I could set open new windows in tabs) And what's wrong with popups? No – I guess I shouldn't go there. But there are times when popups are really useful – like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) What's wrong with lightbox? http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/ I know what is wrong with popups - they are unreliable, mean a new instance of the browser rather than taking resources for only one, they are insecure (until browsers always show the location bar - which MSIE will do in the 7th version you can simulate a popup appearing to be from the originating page while it isn't - and ask people for their credit card details) and they simply give me a 1999 feel. Generally: What is useful to you is not useful to everybody. You can easily offer these things when and after you tested if the user's browser can support it - or even better if the user wants it (a checkbox with open links in new windows for example). But assuming users can and want to deal with several windows is just arrogance. http://hesketh.com/publications/progressive_enhancement_paving_way_for_future.html ** 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] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Yeah, but who knows if people are reasonably proficient with a browser? I think many many people are not! They dont care about things like that ... :) Anyway ... shrugs shoulders / :) - susie On 15/8/06 10:16 AM, Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If people are reasonably proficient with a browser then they can choose if they want your links to open in a new window (shift-click) or a new tab (middle click - Firefox). By including _blank youre forcing people to accept the link opening in a new window. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:53 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank I dont know why this isnt allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as its LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I dont put in target=blank when theres a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And in general, Id much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that its not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. And whats wrong with popups? No I guess I shouldnt go there. But there are times when popups are really useful like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) - susie ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] Screen Readers, abbr and code
So. Use abbr? Or, use code? From what I could tell, your content looks like sample code, and only needs a code element. However, in case I am missing something (quite common for me), here is an overall approach... STEP 1 The first aim is to ignore devices and mark up content based on its meaning. This means using the most appropriate element for the purpose. If the content is a code sample, then it should be marked up with the code element. If it is an abbreviation of some sort then it should be marked up with the appropriate abbreviation element [1]. Abbreviation: abbr title=associationassoc./abbr Initialism: abbr title=Cascading Style SheetsCSS/abbr Acronym: acronym title=Radio Detecting And Rangingradar/acronym STEP 2 Once you have decided the basic markup, you can then deal with devices and how they interpret markup. If they do not interpret the markup as intended you can choose to apply work-arounds if needed. For example, as mentioned by Pat, Internet Explorer 5 and 6 for Windows do not support the abbr element. Some authors choose to wrap a span inside the element so that their styles will be applied in these browsers [2]. Another example of poor device support is that many screen readers do not support the title attribute [3], so the titles within abbreviations and acronyms are often ignored by screen readers. Some authors use a workaround when writing initialisms. So, CSS could be written as C.S.S. to make sure that the content is not read out as a single, unintelligible word. Not sure that helps... Russ [1] http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/abbreviations/ [2] http://www.sovavsiti.cz/css/abbr.html [3] http://www.sf.id.au/ozewai/ ** 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] tabs (was target=_blank)
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank From my observations, it is only REALLY web savvy people that use tabs. As brilliant and useful as they are, it is still too new to assume *most* people use them, and that *most* people can manage how the links open. From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:17 p.m. To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] target=_blank If people are reasonably proficient with a browser then they can choose if they want your links to open in a new window (shift-click) or a new tab (middle click - Firefox). By including _blank youre forcing people to accept the link opening in a new window. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:53 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank I dont know why this isnt allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as its LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I dont put in target=blank when theres a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And in general, Id much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that its not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. And whats wrong with popups? No I guess I shouldnt go there. But there are times when popups are really useful like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) - susie **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] tabs (was target=_blank)
I think you are not giving much credit to the average user hear...I have talked to a few normal web users and the ones who use firefox and other tab browsers all use tabsI agree that you cannot assume most people use tab browsers as the majority still use IE (stats back this up) but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. On 8/15/06, Rachel May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my observations, it is only REALLY web savvy people that use tabs. As brilliant and useful as they are, it is still too new to assume *most* people use them, and that *most* people can manage how the links open. **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] Screen Readers, abbr and code
Russ, If the content is a code sample, then it should be marked up with the code element. If it is an abbreviation of some sort then it should be marked up with the appropriate abbreviation element [1]. That helps. My original question wasn't as precise as I thought it was. Sorry. When I offer code samples what is better for screen readers? 1. Marked up with code? or, 2. Wrapped with code and use the appropriate abbreviation element for an abbreviation of some sort? How do screen readers read content between code and /code? is my secondary and underlying question. Sean ** 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] Screen Readers, abbr and code
Sean Fraser wrote: 1. Marked up with code? or, 2. Wrapped with code and use the appropriate abbreviation element for an abbreviation of some sort? Per 1. I would not put anything within the code/code tags that was not part of the original code that is being pasted in - the code should be pastable back into a real program without editing. IMHO Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems 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] Screen Readers, abbr and code
Dmitry Baranovskiy wrote: Hi Lea, What to do if I would like to put the code sample with syntax highlighting? From one point there are lots of span elements for different colors, from other point it is a code. Well then I would apply span elements to the code, rather than abbr; you aren't trying to say 'this is an abbreviation for something', you are just trying to mark it as an item for highlighting. Heck, theres probably an argument for saying use an em, as you are just trying to emphasize certain bits! :) warmly, Lea ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
If it takes forever to load then that is what is wrong with itA lot of people still use dail up and I am one of them :(On 8/15/06, Focas, Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong with lightbox?http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/It looks great but it takes for ever to load unless you have broadband because it requires huge .js files.-- JP2 Designshttp://www.jp2designs.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] tabs (was target=_blank)
but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. Are you guessing or is this what you have observed? When watching other people use computers - which I try to do whenever I get a chance - I have yet to see anyone except for the most web savvy use tabs. And these are people who are using Firefox, and one friend using IE7, every day. Maybe I just have a lot of dumb friends, family and colleagues I dunno but they just prefer to open the links in new windows, or cant be bothered doing the whole tab thing. When I open tabs in front of them they joke cause Im their computer nut web geek friend LOL! No doubt this will change over time, but IMHO I feel it is too early to assume that everyone who can uses tabbed browsing. And I guess there will be some people who will always prefer not to. From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Germ Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:14 p.m. To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] tabs (was target=_blank) I think you are not giving much credit to the average user hear... I have talked to a few normal web users and the ones who use firefox and other tab browsers all use tabs I agree that you cannot assume most people use tab browsers as the majority still use IE (stats back this up) but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. On 8/15/06, Rachel May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my observations, it is only REALLY web savvy people that use tabs. As brilliant and useful as they are, it is still too new to assume *most* people use them, and that *most* people can manage how the links open. ** 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] Screen Readers, abbr and code
Heck, theres probably an argument for saying use an em, as you are just
trying to emphasize certain bits!
I'd probably use that option too - or strong. Then CSS can be used to
style the highlights as needed using a descendant selector.
code strong { color: red; } or
code em { color: blue; }
Russ
**
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] Screen Readers, abbr and code
On 15/8/06 12:00 PM, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heck, theres probably an argument for saying use an em, as you are just
trying to emphasize certain bits!
I'd probably use that option too - or strong. Then CSS can be used to
style the highlights as needed using a descendant selector.
code strong { color: red; } or
code em { color: blue; }
Russ
But semantically, syntax highlighting is not about trying *emphasise*
certain bits of code, but rather to *differentiate* between different types
of code fragments. Surely strong and em, which are already semantically
loaded for emphasis, are not really ideal here?
--
Kevin Futter
Webmaster, St. Bernard's College
http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/
--
This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or
use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete
the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is
virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on
the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or
consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached
files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and
opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College.
**
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] target=_blank
Big is relative though, Lightbox is around 60 70k of _javascript_ I think. That would be about the size of one of the images it was displaying, and once its loaded its cached. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Germ Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 11:48 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank If it takes forever to load then that is what is wrong with it A lot of people still use dail up and I am one of them :( On 8/15/06, Focas, Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong with lightbox? http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/ It looks great but it takes for ever to load unless you have broadband because it requires huge .js files. -- JP2 Designs http://www.jp2designs.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Two things: I'd hate to be using Word as an example of what we should be moving towards grin And 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when youve got one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a new browser window ... The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! :) ducking away from platform wars etc etc / :) - susie On 15/8/06 11:24 AM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann Sent: Monday, 14 August 2006 7:17 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Ok.. Why isn't target=_blank a valid tag/attribute in XHTML Strict? It's a necessity really if your going to link so why not.?? How so? It is the user's choice if she wants to stay on your page (and shift click the link) or not, it is not yours to demand. You cannot expect the user agent to support several windows or the user to be able to deal with them, not all people see pages or use a mouse. XHTML strict is not only enforcing strict XML syntax, it is also taking HTML to an application level. Now that websites are moving more towards application style, they should really behave like applications as we are accustomed to. And a fact is that applications require pop-up windows at certain stages. Mostly when information is provided that falls outside of a linear process. The typical example: a user fills out a form and wants to read the Terms and Conditions. Or a user works in MS Word and wants to read the Help File. Never do those applications provide the user with the option of opening the supplementary information in the same window. For a good reason: the users would get taken out of the linear process they are in and potentially loose whatever they were working on. Just imagine you would loose your 200-page thesis in MS Word just because you didn't specifically request the HELP information to open in a new window. So if websites are becoming applications, why shouldn't they behave in the same fashion that we are accustomed to from other applications? In Word, if I decide to go to a new document, I expect it to open in the main window. Ergo: On the web, if the user decides to go to a different website, it should open in the main window. In Word, if I decide to access information that help me work with the current document (e.g. help file, save dialog, document preferences) I expect them to open in a pop-up window. Why should it be any different on the web? Making target an invalid attribute for links is plain stupid. It forces developers to revert to some _javascript_ ways of opening a new window which potentially makes websites extremely user-unfriendly for people with _javascript_ disabled. Developers should be educated in the correct use of the target attribute, eliminating it just creates a whole new problem. ** 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] tabs (was target=_blank)
No its what I have observed...I start to tell them about tabs and they then tell me that they already know about them and that everyone at work etc is already using them etc. One of the people is my brother and he is dumb! On 8/15/06, Rachel May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs." Are you guessing or is this what you have observed? When watching other people use computers - which I try to do whenever I get a chance - I have yet to see anyone except for the most web savvy use tabs. And these are people who are using Firefox, and one friend using IE7, every day. Maybe I just have a lot of dumb friends, family and colleagues… I dunno… but they just prefer to open the links in new windows, or can't be bothered doing the whole tab thing. When I open tabs in front of them they joke cause I'm their 'computer nut web geek friend' LOL! No doubt this will change over time, but IMHO I feel it is too early to assume that everyone who can uses tabbed browsing. And I guess there will be some people who will always prefer not to. From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Germ Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:14 p.m. To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] tabs (was target=_blank) I think you are not giving much credit to the average user hear... I have talked to a few normal web users and the ones who use firefox and other tab browsers all use tabs I agree that you cannot assume most people use tab browsers as the majority still use IE (stats back this up) but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. On 8/15/06, Rachel May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my observations, it is only REALLY web savvy people that use tabs. As brilliant and useful as they are, it is still too new to assume *most* people use them, and that *most* people can manage how the links open. ** 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 ** -- JP2 Designshttp://www.jp2designs.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] target=_blank
haha, can´t wait for one. Besides, that everyone is accostumed to some thing doesn´t mean we cannot improve it. I don´t know if for this we should use the target attribute in this special case or not; but I also disagree with the reasons you are taking to the matter. Best regards; Eugenio. On 8/15/06, Susie Gardner-Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two things: x I'd hate to be using Word as an example of what we should be moving towards grin And 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when you've got one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a new browser window ... The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! :) ** 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] tabs (was target=_blank)
but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. Are you guessing or is this what you have observed? When watching other people use computers - which I try to do whenever I get a chance - I have yet to see anyone except for the most web savvy use tabs. And these are people who are using Firefox, and one friend using IE7, every day. I don't suppose I'm typical, but i don't like tabs and don't use them very often. I prefer new browser windows and mainly its because i get around with alt tabbing through my windows. I don't like being married to the mouse and while I've learned one can Ctrl Tab, to go from tabbed page to tabbed page, i still prefer all my windows be open. Part of it is that a bunch of tabs at the top add considrably to the browser chrome, another part is that i'm used to looking in the bar at the bottom (task bar?) - with a bunch of tabs in one browser window, you can't tell what else is there, it just shows the active one. Alt tabbing works great for me and I routinely have 3 browsers open and maybe 15 or so windows and doing it all from the keyboard. cheers Donna No doubt this will change over time, but IMHO I feel it is too early to assume that everyone who can uses tabbed browsing. And I guess there will be some people who will always prefer not to. -- Donna Jones Portland, Maine 207 772 0266 http://www.westendwebs.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] tabs (was target=_blank)
I hope this won't be considered noise in what is already a long thread, but some might be interested in how assumptions can be wrong and how often.. but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. Maybe, but certainly not all. There is one sitting a few metres away from me at my office .. a die-hard Netscape user. It took me months to get her out of Netscape and into Mozilla, and then into Firefox. She won't use the tabs though .. she opens everything in a new window. It's confusing to have to look at the tab bar; she prefers to look down at the task bar to switch between pages. And this from someone for whom it took 4 years of university study to become a highly paid professional: it confuses her! It drives me seriously crazy. man, it's like playing Bach but leaving out the articulation, or Debussy without the pedal. s. ** 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] target=_blank
I'm sure its has been said but... If people want to have a site in a new window they will choose to do so. DON'T CONFUSE USERS BY FORCING THEM TO OPEN LINKS IN A NEW WINDOW! Especially now that many people use tabbed browsers its just a pain in the arse for them. Cheers, Steve. TuteC wrote: Hello everyone. I have a web page that I use as a public favorites. I have around a hundred different links to outside sites, and I use the target=blank for each one. I searched at W3schools for a way to making all the links in the page target=blank with CSS but couldn´t find one. Is just that in a line of code I would save around 100s ' target=_blank '. Do you know a way of doing it in a tidy way? Thanks in advance; Eugenio. ** 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] tabs (was target=_blank)
I think rather than noisy, this is an interesting topic. Many of us work with computers from years now. In my case since I was a child. And so I´m not afraid to invent something I don´t know, until I get it work as I want. But people who learnt as adults and in a short time now (I can see at least in groups I know) don´t feel comfortable searching new ways. They want to do it the way they know it will work. And that way is taught, not self-learnt. A bit memorized. A known path to get where they want. I know many of people who works like this. Indeed, I surely do it outside computers. We can´t, I think, rely on how it will be used. It simply has to be used by a diverse group of persons. Don´t know... I have much to do with different browsers, don´t want to think about different people using them!! :-) Best regards; Eugenio. On 8/15/06, SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope this won't be considered noise in what is already a long thread, but some might be interested in how assumptions can be wrong and how often.. but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. Maybe, but certainly not all. There is one sitting a few metres away from me at my office .. a die-hard Netscape user. It took me months to get her out of Netscape and into Mozilla, and then into Firefox. She won't use the tabs though .. she opens everything in a new window. It's confusing to have to look at the tab bar; she prefers to look down at the task bar to switch between pages. And this from someone for whom it took 4 years of university study to become a highly paid professional: it confuses her! It drives me seriously crazy. man, it's like playing Bach but leaving out the articulation, or Debussy without the pedal. ** 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] tabs (was target=_blank)
I use a combination of tabs and new browser windows. I find it quite useful to organise say work into one browser, slacking off into another and email monitoring into the last. That way if I'm slacking I can contain it all into one area but still preserve the ability to open new websites as I browse. Tabs do take getting used to but once you've got used to them it's incredibly painful to go back to just opening new windows. Tabs are here to stay and we should cater our sites for people that use them. Samuel -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Donna Jones Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 2:04 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] tabs (was target=_blank) but i think almost every tab browser user would use the tabs. Are you guessing or is this what you have observed? When watching other people use computers - which I try to do whenever I get a chance - I have yet to see anyone except for the most web savvy use tabs. And these are people who are using Firefox, and one friend using IE7, every day. I don't suppose I'm typical, but i don't like tabs and don't use them very often. I prefer new browser windows and mainly its because i get around with alt tabbing through my windows. I don't like being married to the mouse and while I've learned one can Ctrl Tab, to go from tabbed page to tabbed page, i still prefer all my windows be open. Part of it is that a bunch of tabs at the top add considrably to the browser chrome, another part is that i'm used to looking in the bar at the bottom (task bar?) - with a bunch of tabs in one browser window, you can't tell what else is there, it just shows the active one. Alt tabbing works great for me and I routinely have 3 browsers open and maybe 15 or so windows and doing it all from the keyboard. cheers Donna No doubt this will change over time, but IMHO I feel it is too early to assume that everyone who can uses tabbed browsing. And I guess there will be some people who will always prefer not to. -- Donna Jones Portland, Maine 207 772 0266 http://www.westendwebs.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 **
