On 2/6/07, Jermayn Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Well, that's nice. So, I'm curious -- the site has both a photo (jpeg)
> of the hotel exterior and a (Flash-embedded) image of one of the rooms,
> so what's the problem?
So one flash embedded image and a photo of the hotel exterior is
Well, that's nice. So, I'm curious -- the site has both a photo (jpeg)
of the hotel exterior and a (Flash-embedded) image of one of the rooms,
so what's the problem?
So one flash embedded image and a photo of the hotel exterior is going to
give you a good feel about what the hotel is all ab
On 2/5/07, Kat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
> On 2/5/07, Andrew Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
one example would be XHTML 2 which has s to
> separate parts of a page. That offers a lot more for semantics than
> just having s strewn about.
What is the difference betw
On 06/02/07, Kat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the difference between the new and a ?
Sections are typographical sections, divs are for "adding extra
structure". You can see divs as fuzzy semantically distinct content
areas and sections as a textual semantical grouping.
http://www.w3.or
On 06/02/07, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quicktime works well with IE browsers, but with other browsers it's
hit and miss. All too often I have seen my browser (FF 2.0) crash as a
result of a Quicktime movie. Flash never crashes. Regardless of which
consumes more resources (and i
Jermayn Parker wrote:
> If your in the hotel business and advertising for a brand new hotel, you
> need to sell your business and entice people away from their current
> 'fav' hotels to yours. Do you think not having any photos and just a
> nice flashy home page will do that? I know for a FACT tha
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 2/5/07, Andrew Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
one example would be XHTML 2 which has s to
separate parts of a page. That offers a lot more for semantics than
just having s strewn about.
What is the difference between the new and a ?
Kat
On 2/5/07, Sarah Peeke (XERT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Is there a different file format which is more universal?
Quicktime works well with IE browsers, but with other browsers it's
hit and miss. All too often I have seen my browser (FF 2.0) crash as a
result of a Quicktime movie. Flash ne
On 2/5/07, Andrew Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've found myself wondering just what semantic meaning the tag adds
to a document. The typical usage is when you want to separate sections
of a page. The thing is that a tag indicates a new section too.
Another issue is that we generally see
If the glyph for No. (as outlined in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.) is used, should this be in an
abbreviation element to explain it? It is an abbreviation, isn't it??
What do screen-readers make of this particular glyph, if anything?
Or should it be kept as No., which is quite commo
for inferior explorer I have had success with wrapping hr's in div's
then use css to put the background etc on the div and hide the hr inside
with display: none.
though alot of the time I have had issues with the placement of hr's
displayed after floated elements; this occurs with and without
Andrew,
I can't say that I have actually ever used a ...
If I ever need to break up sections, I use another tag and a content
div beneath it.
Interesting topic - I find there are LOT of HTML tags I rarely use...
- Chris
***
List
I love HRs,
I use seven different stylesheets and have a different background image
for each HR which is a very wide thin tiling pattern. Then you can have
different HRs for each style. I also use them to ensure clear breaks on
both sides. Explorer does not seem to support the background image
QuickTime to be more accessible to screen readers, generally?
It's generally the same - no one advised you to autostart the playback
etc., so as long as the Flash could receive focus and start the playback
via AT, it's okay.
I am most concerned about usability/accessibility issues with this
I've found myself wondering just what semantic meaning the tag adds
to a document. The typical usage is when you want to separate sections
of a page. The thing is that a tag indicates a new section too.
Another issue is that we generally seem to put them in our markup then
hide them using
I have confused myself :)
If the glyph for No. (as outlined in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.) is used, should this be in an
abbreviation element to explain it? It is an abbreviation, isn't it??
What do screen-readers make of this particular glyph, if anything?
Or should it be k
Ok I guess your having a dig at me but I will humour you
If your in the hotel business and advertising for a brand new hotel, you
need to sell your business and entice people away from their current 'fav'
hotels to yours. Do you think not having any photos and just a nice flashy
home page will do
Jermayn Parker wrote:
> Photos of what the rooms look like would be one obvious example of what
> would make this website a bit more credible.
Wow. Lack of room photos equates to:
> a useless uninformative site and apart from the home page it is
> ugly and bare as naked bones.
:: not to mention
Kat wrote:
I'm beginning to think modular css using @imports are actually quite
smart, not just for re-use reasons but also because if you do need to
support really old and dodgy browsers (sometimes it happens to the
best of us) you can create stylesheets for those, and then over-rule
them in t
Hello all,
Just wanted to let you know we did an Accessites reboot and our feed has
changed to http://accessites.org/site/feed/ (or
http://feeds.feedburner.com/accessites). All inbounds are 301 redirected so
nothing's lost or needs to be changed/updated, but the feeds are worth
mentioning.
Th
Hi Steve
> We work for a lot of clever people and they often
> revert to a non-Flash solution.
Thanks for your reply (and everyone else too!) - I was concerned about
Flash too.
Have the designers you've tested for found QuickTime to be more
accessible to screen readers, generally?
Otherwise, wh
Photos of what the rooms look like would be one obvious example of what
would make this website a bit more credible.
On 2/6/07, Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jermayn Parker wrote:
> Your explanation makes sense but as a designer who also dabbles in seo,
> would not it be your r
Jermayn Parker wrote:
> Your explanation makes sense but as a designer who also dabbles in seo,
> would not it be your right to 'suggest' and sell the importance of
> descent content?? The internet is a place were you find useful or
> useless information. It is not primely a gallery of art like thi
It may just be that our customers are not very good designers but many of
the Flash-based multimedia projects we have tested have had problems with
resource utilisation. Often the video will use 2 or 3 times as much CPU and
memory when it is embedded in Flash compared with playing it in a media
pla
Your explanation makes sense but as a designer who also dabbles in seo,
would not it be your right to 'suggest' and sell the importance of descent
content?? The internet is a place were you find useful or useless
information. It is not primely a gallery of art like this website.
also you look at
1. What is the best way to "hide" the movie from browsers that don't
support quicktime (or from users who don't want to download quicktime)?
To use an UFO/SWFObject alternative for QT, or Satay-like QT alternative
w/ fallbacks.
2. Is there a different file format which is more universal?
F
> It's been a while since I've had to include support for IE5 (and how
> great that feels),
Before not supporting any browser, you should first ask what will it
take to support it? Even if the number don't otherwise justify
supporting IE5, if the fix is simple enough (and adding two or three
text-
On 2/6/07, Sarah Peeke (XERT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Is there a different file format which is more universal?
Quicktime movies can be imported into Flash, which has much higher
browser penetration. And there is lots of information available on
embedding flash in a gracefully degradable
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:>
In document: 'link' with relative path.
I use 'style' for adding page-specific, and often media-dependent,
styles, but do not use @import in documents.
- All browsers understand 'link', and some don't understand anything else.
- I do not separate browsers on this level.
Hi all,
I am using the code below to embed a .mov file, which is standards
compliant in XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Two questions please:
1. What is the best way to "hide" the movie from browsers that don't
support quicktime (or from users who don't want to download quicktime)?
2. Is there a different fi
Andrew Krespanis wrote:
It's been a while since I've had to include support for IE5 (and how
great that feels),
Before not supporting any browser, you should first ask what will it
take to support it? Even if the number don't otherwise justify
supporting IE5, if the fix is simple enough (and a
Barney Carroll wrote:
?
& @import?
Which do you use, for what, and why?
here's what I do: