RE: [WSG] AIMIA finalists
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Smith Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2007 12:13 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists Quoth Noah at 01/24/07 11:10... Nothing bugs me more than a super-cool looking site that shows off the ability of the artist who built it, yet does nothing for the idea, product or service it promotes. Or, of course, breaks the law. Accessibility is a legal requirement in Australia[1], although I get the impression that people keep forgetting this for some (convenient?) reason. It is a law to implement accessibility into websites as much as reasonably can be expected. That's a fine but important difference. For example: you can reasonably expect government websites to be tested for accessibility before they launch (which from this discussion, I take it, has been done). However, I don't think you can reasonably expect for the website to be tested every day just to make sure accessiblity wasn't somehow screwed up by administrators of the CMS. Even though I am a strong supporter of accesibility, you have to also keep in mind that the idea of the AIMIA awards is to promote innovation in the field of multimedia (not just Internet). So let's assume somebody has got a great idea for a new online application. Let's also assume that this person doesn't have a clue about accessibility or web standards. Nonetheless they go ahead and build this amazing application which will change all of our lifes. They put this application up for the AIMIA awards, as it is truly an innovative site, great graphics, but for the moment it's accessibility compliance is just shocking. Shouldn't this person have the right to win an award for their work even though the site does not comply with web standards or accessibility guidelines? If AIMIA would restrict entries just on the basis that they are not written to the liking of members of the WSG, they would miss out on a large amount of innovative ideas. Having said that, I agree that accessibility and usability should be considered in the marking (probably even more so than it is at the moment) and that of two sites that are evenly innovative the one that provides accessibility and usability should be marked higher. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] AIMIA finalists
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2007 1:19 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists No Andreas http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html Australian gov websites are not tested for accessibility before they are launched. I am sure there are lots of people on this list that will disagree with you on that point, as many of us have been employed at some stage to test government websites for accessibility and usability. You might be generalising a bit there. Of course there are still government websites out there that have not been tested and that should be improved. But those are mostly old websites. As far as I know accessibility compliance is a requirement for every new govt website project that is out for tender. They are not even changed years later when someone points out the errors. They stay are they were launched full of the same errors everyday. Cenbtrelink's website has had the same errors for three years that I know of. Why are you making excuses for shoddy work and pretending that reviewers caught them on an off day? Everyday when I change a page I check the validation and accessibility, why can't .gov do the same Because the people that modify the content on a govt websites are not website developers. They have a life outside the Internet, don't know how HTML works and probably don't care to know how it works. For a good reason: it's not their job and you can't make it their job. Of course there are people employed by the government whose job it is to make sure the sites are accessible. But there are such huge amounts of changes happening on govt websites every day that you cannot possibly expect them to test their sites every day for accessibility. You make excuses for those breaching the 1992 Discrimination Disability Act Andreas and that could potentially cause you a lot of trouble What dream are you in that believes they are mostly OK. They are flawed and stay flawed everyday. Get real Andreas. I would appreciate it if you would not talk to me like to an idiot. I do not make excuses and even if I did it would not cause me any trouble. I am not in a dream, I fully understand the amount of work that is involved in running government sites. I appreciate your concern for the accessibility of government sites and I agree with you on the point that inaccessible sites should be made accessible as soon as possible, but maintaining those sites is not as easy as running hereticpress.com. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 9:24 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than default. does that count? As an example of the kind of empty talk I'm tired of, yes. That statement doesn't say who these people are or where they said it. Christian, I think what you are suggesting could indeed end up in just a lot of finger pointing and turn this dicussion group very ugly. On the one hand I can understand why you want people to be more specific when they complain about standardistas. But really, why pick on what one particular person said? When Tony for example talks about font-size fanatics do we really need to know which person in particular he means? Don't we all know that he means those of us that strongly believe in the importance of setting relative font-sizes? A lot of the discussions in this group are not over the value of Web Standards (we all agree they are helpful), but over how rigidly they should be implemented. Some of us believe that the standard of relative font sizes is not just a guideline, but a rule that should not be broken (if possible). Others see the need for a certain amount of flexibility in the implementation of this standard. These are the two camps, we all know that they exist, why pinpoint individuals from each one of them? I think the problem is more the negative connotation of a term such as standard fanatics, font-size fanatics or standards zealots. Coming back to the original post: On 11/2/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a css-enthusiastic web designer who sees the value of standards as a concept but does not necessarily bow to baseless trends, and more and more I see potentially brilliant ideas get shot down in the community because of 'standards' zealots who are very keen to violently condemn certain methods of working because of very dim notions of accessibility. I think what Barney was trying to express so vividly was that he disagreed with those of us who do not believe there may be cases in which we have to allow for a certain amount of flexibility in the implementation of web standards. Most of us know that there are members of this group who would never touch absolute font sizes, no matter what happens. We also know that there are members who violently oppose opening links in new windows. That's nothing to be ashamed of - just another opinion. Do we need to name names? I don't see the need for it. Maybe we can come up with more descriptive names for the two camps? Instead of standard zealots I recommend to call them Aggressive, conservative standard bullies. On the other side we've got the Can't-commit-to-nothing, undecisive, liberal guideline whimps. Some of us may feel to belong to one of the groups, others see themselves somewhere in between. But we all know what we are talking about, don't we? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] link:active = keyboard focus?
This is real strange: I am trying to change the style of a link when the user tabs onto it with the keyboard. I assumed that the active pseudo class would do the job, but maybe I am wrong? Here the code to my example: http://www.prototype.net.au/test.html I would love for the link to turn red when the user tabs onto it. But Firefox doesn't do it at all and IE6 does it if I first tab onto it and then move the mouse over it. (?!) Am I overestimating the abilities of the active pseudo class? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hucklesby Sent: Friday, 29 September 2006 2:40 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:15:47 +1000, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: [...] However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no matter what part of the page they are looking at? Interesting concept Andreas. Your idea has already been realized to a degree in Opera. Opera has a navigation bar that users can turn on or off. It sits across the top of a page, and is populated by LINK elements in the HEAD section of a document. Do you happen to know any sites that work with this concept? So any sites that have LINK elements in the HEAD section that would show up in Opera? You may also be interested in PPK's revamped site. See for example the Blogs page, and activate the show site navigation link on the left. Is this what you had in mind? - Exactly. Well, I think there must be a better way to design it, so it doesn't overlap important content, but in the long run this is what I was thinking about. I guess I shouldn't have titled it frame-style - it took people off track with the discussion. But this is exactly the idea - why not provide navigation at all times to the user (in a standards compliant way of course)? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Problem with css dropdown menus
Hi guys, I was wondering if somebody could help me with this one: I am creating css dropdown menus and have got them pretty much working. The only little thing I am dissatisfied with is that the main menu buttons overlap the dropdowns, not other way around. If you have a look at this one: http://www.addictivemedia.com.au/clients/test/test.php You will see that if youo move the mosue over the Services item, the dropdown that appears lies behind the Useful links item. I would rather have it infront of the Useful links item. I actually thought that the z-index would allow me to move the dropdown to the top, but that doesn't work. Any suggestions? Thanks heaps! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
There was a time when lots of websites utilised frames, to provide the advantage of a static menu that is always available on the screen, no matter what area of the page the user looks at. I am sure we covered the topic enough to agree that frames are not the way to go, as they carry accessibility issues with them and can cause problems for search engines. So we all moved away from frames and are now accustomed to a page layout that contains the menu somewhere at the top (or top left). However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no matter what part of the page they are looking at? Let's not worry about the problem of aesthetics right now, but imagine a site that uses css to create this frame-design: our menu sits on the left hand side, our content on the right hand side. We have got a scroll bar that only moves the content areas (achieved through overflow). The menu is available at all times. Which means the users not only are aware of all of their options at any given point in time, but they can also be visually reminded of their current position in the page (e.g. through breadcrumbs or highlighted current menu item). A browser that does not support css would simply display our sample page the way we currently do it: menu static at the top, the scrollbar moves the entire page. No accessibility or search-engine issues. I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our passion for Web Standards make us overlook the advantages of the frame-style layout? Or are there usability/accessibility issues I am overlooking here? Andreas Boehmer User Experience Consultant Addictive Media Phone: (03) 9386 8907 Mobile: 0411 097 038 http://www.addictivemedia.com.au Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:40 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout There is nothing to stop you from fixing the navigation to the same place in your page design. I don't really work on a site like this per se. I guess I am just looking for an answer if the technology of the Internet shouldn't be used in a different way than what we do at the moment. We currently design websites in a very inconvenient way which forces users to always scroll back to the top of the page before they can continue to a different page. Personally I feel our minds are still stuck with designing for print and we haven't quite understood yet how to design big amounts of information for the Internet. That only leaves the other area of the page which is contained in an overflow, there's not much point in this either as it's only going to serve to annoy your visitors as they're scrolling a view port inside the browser rather then the browser window itself. Interesting point. In a way I see what you mean: users are accustomed to having their scrollbar at a certain position of their screen. The question is: would users be willing to accept scrollbars of different sizes and positions in exchange for a menu that is available at all times? Perhaps we would need a standard to ensure that the scrollbar of the content area is always on the right hand side of the browser window...? I suppose it does stop the navigation from scrolling off the screen but if that's really a concern then you're either not designing your page properly or trying to force the user to do something you shouldn't Don't quite agree with you here. The way we design pages at the moment you cannot prevent the menu to scroll off the screen. And there's no real way for users to continue browsing other than getting back up to the menu. Of course we can always put a text navigation at the bottom of the page, but there are two problems with that: 1. Who says the user is at the very bottom of the page? There might be that much information on the page that the user can't see the top or the bottom. 2. The text navigation at the bottom looks completely different to the menu button at the top which the user clicked on in first place. This means the user's mind has to switch between two different menus - that's not really intuitive. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:16 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout There was a time when lots of websites utilised frames, to provide the advantage of a static menu that is always available on the screen, no matter what area of the page the user looks at. I am sure we covered the topic enough to agree that frames are not the way to go, as they carry accessibility issues with them and can cause problems for search engines. So we all moved away from frames and are now accustomed to a page layout that contains the menu somewhere at the top (or top left). However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no matter what part of the page they are looking at? Let's not worry about the problem of aesthetics right now, but imagine a site that uses css to create this frame-design: our menu sits on the left hand side, our content on the right hand side. We have got a scroll bar that only moves the content areas (achieved through overflow). The menu is available at all times. Which means the users not only are aware of all of their options at any given point in time, but they can also be visually reminded of their current position in the page (e.g. through breadcrumbs or highlighted current menu item). A browser that does not support css would simply display our sample page the way we currently do it: menu static at the top, the scrollbar moves the entire page. No accessibility or search-engine issues. I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our passion for Web Standards make us overlook the advantages of the frame-style layout? Or are there usability/accessibility issues I am overlooking here? Andreas Boehmer User Experience Consultant Addictive Media Phone: (03) 9386 8907 Mobile: 0411 097 038 http://www.addictivemedia.com.au Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail
RE: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 9:43 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] The usability of a frame-style layout On 9/26/06, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... However, with css we now have the ability to imitate frames in an accessible and search-engine friendly way for browsers that support it. So the question comes back to usability (and maybe aesthetics): wouldn't it be more user-friendly to always make the primary navigation available to users, no matter what part of the page they are looking at? ... I'd be curious to know what people think of that? Did our passion for Web Standards make us overlook the advantages of the frame-style layout? Or are there usability/accessibility issues I am overlooking here? The one problem I will mention is that it is important to avoid having more than one scrollbar on a page at a time. If a site has a fixed menu down the left that is very long and always has a scrollbar, and it also has the main body scrollbar for the content that is not fixed, then it loses the convention that the user can scroll the page with either the keyboard or the mouse wheel. They usually have to click on the area of the page they want to scroll first. May not be a big deal, but I do think that implementations which assume mouse use are not universal or convenient. Very important point. I agree! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] font standards today
-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann
Sent: Thursday, 24 August 2006 11:28 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] font standards today
Actually the only _real_ important thing is offering a generic
fallback as the last option.
body{
font-family:amazing fancy font, my son made this one, Arial,
Helvetica, Sans-Serif;
}
Of course your original font should be legible and the text should not
rely on the font to make sense (you can paint with wingdings for
example, but for a user listening to your site it only confuses).
This is the best comment I read all day. Why not use unusual fonts to make
the design look good (of course keeping legibility in mind - that is part of
a good design). Provide a fall-back for those users that don't have the font
and make sure your design still works and the font is still easy to read.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] font standards today
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Friday, 25 August 2006 10:35 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] font standards today Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: This is the best comment I read all day. Why not use unusual fonts to make the design look good (of course keeping legibility in mind - that is part of a good design) Because, if it's unusual, you can rest assured that 99.% of your visitors won't have it, so you might as well not do it. Don't quite agree with you. There are a lot of fonts people download as part of general applications that are not counted as standard Windows/Mac fonts. Let's take Arial Light as an example. I am sure a lot of users have got it, yet it is not counted as a standard web font. Furthermore, there may be cases in which you can assume that your particular target audience has got a non-standard font installed. Let's say you target graphic designers with your website. The chances are high that they have got Adobe Products installed and most of the standard fonts that come with it. Of course I agree chances are low that the user will have the my son made this one font, unless the website is targeted at my son's family. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
--- Original Post --- 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. [...] 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. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:57 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] target=_blank If the website is not user friendly for those with JavaScript disabled then it is a poorly designed website. Allowing target=_blank does not fix this. For instance, how would a cell phone browser handle target=_blank? You can't rely on it. Well, let's take the scenario of a form that people have to fill out on a website. Before submitting the form, the users need to agree to certain Terms Conditions. If we imagine the Terms Conditions are way too long to display as part of the form, the obvious solution is to display them on a separate page that users can open if they wish. What other reasonable solution is there than using target=_blank for that link? Opening in the same page will loose all the information the user entered into the form, which is one of the most frustrating things in the world. You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the TC in a new window. If you rely on Javascript to open the page in a new browser window than those with Javascript disabled will again loose whatever they entered into the form. Of course the best solution would be to use Javascript to open the window in a user-friendly format (e.g. foreground, focus, smaller than the main window, blah, blah) and use the target=_blank as the alternative for browsers without Javascript. But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without target=_blank? ** 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 Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank 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!! Funny that you mention the Mac behaviour. Mac does exactly what all of us are agreeing to be terrible behaviour of some websites: it constantly opens new windows all over the place. So how comes this behaviour is accepted by the Mac community who are known to openly support their interface, yet it is shunned in web development standards? ** 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 Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank [the classic terms and conditions] But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without target=_blank? 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make the user lose her data to boot. This solution is quite user-unfriendly. In most cases people do not want to read the TC as they are standard legal talk that hardly anybody understands anyway. They have to be accessible, people have to agree to them, but we all know that 90% of the people do not want to read it. 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in server-side. Pretty much the same user-unfriendlyness: you present the user with a very long page of content that they do not understand. TC are intimidating to the users and people do not want to read them. 3) Store the data already entered in a session via Ajax and retain it when the user comes back Only works with JS 4) Include the data in an IFRAME or via Ajax setting the focus to it when the user hits the TC link (not that accessible, but does work) Only works with JS 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a handler. This assumes that users know what they want. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Many users might not understand the importance of opening this page in a separate window. They click on the link without pressing Shift and then realise that they just lost all their data. ah (6) Make the terms and conditions link a terms and conditions button that sends the data and stores it in the session or POST arguments and retains them when you choose the form view again. Users do not know that their data was just stored in a POST argument. Firstly, most users will get a shock, assuming they just lost all their data. Then they will press the Back button and be presented with the shocking Refresh your browser message that most people do not understand. I am sorry, but in the long run the popup window is the best solution for TC. The reason for this is that users expect this behaviour when requesting information while in the middle of a linear process. Experience with other applications (be it Word, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, whatever) taught us that this is how computers behave. ** 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 Tony Crockford Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:43 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? ** 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] eCensus Web Site Accessibility
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2006 11:41 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] eCensus Web Site Accessibility Who is really pushing the case for accessibile website standards in Australia, a few individuals only I believe. Does Vision Australia send out non-compliance notices to companies with bad websites like RNIB do in the UK. Has Vision Australia taken any action under the DDA 1992 like Americans have against Target? I am tired of low standards in the Australian government websites and organisations who do nothing effective to force change. Vision Australia demand nothing from the government and they get nothing in return. They like to work with their clients while creating a false impression internationally that the Australian government is hanging on their every word. The Australian government could not care less what Vision Australia does, yet Vision Australia does nothing but let the status quo continue. I don't see why it should be Vision Australia's job to send out non-compliance notices to companies with bad websites. Of course accessible website would be of interest to Vision Australia, but they are not the one and only organisation with members or clients affected by bad accessibility. You might as well demand the same from Scope, Australian Hearing and the Physical Disability Council of Australia. It should be the government's job to ensure accessibility is being provided as much as can reasonably be expected. I agree that it is a waste of time and money for eCensus to make two forms (one accessible, one inaccessible), but at least they try. It's a start, isn't it? ** 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] eCensus Web Site Accessibility
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2006 11:41 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] eCensus Web Site Accessibility Who is really pushing the case for accessibile website standards in Australia, a few individuals only I believe. Does Vision Australia send out non-compliance notices to companies with bad websites like RNIB do in the UK. Has Vision Australia taken any action under the DDA 1992 like Americans have against Target? I am tired of low standards in the Australian government websites and organisations who do nothing effective to force change. Vision Australia demand nothing from the government and they get nothing in return. They like to work with their clients while creating a false impression internationally that the Australian government is hanging on their every word. The Australian government could not care less what Vision Australia does, yet Vision Australia does nothing but let the status quo continue. I don't see why it should be Vision Australia's job to send out non-compliance notices to companies with bad websites. Of course accessible website would be of interest to Vision Australia, but they are not the one and only organisation with members or clients affected by bad accessibility. You might as well demand the same from Scope, Australian Hearing and the Physical Disability Council of Australia. It should be the government's job to ensure accessibility is being provided as much as can reasonably be expected. I agree that it is a waste of time and money for eCensus to make two forms (one accessible, one inaccessible), but at least they try. It's a start, isn't it? -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2006 1:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] eCensus Web Site Accessibility I believe that UK sites are better than Australian sites in part because RNIB are a more proactive organisation, testing sites for standards compliance, awarding See it Right certification and sending notices of non-compliance to companies with inaccessible websites. Low advocacy levels produces low standards compliance. If Vision Australia do not push hard for standards compliance why should AGIMO care what a few individuals like me say? Firstly, I would like to differentiate between standards compliance and accessibility. Standards Compliance does not equal accessibility and accessibility does not equal standards compliance. A website can be not complying with standards and still be accessible by the majority of people. And just because a website complies with standards certainly does not mean it's accessible. The reason I would like to make this difference is because I certainly agree with you that if a government website is obviously inaccessible and it could be expected to be improved, organisations such as Vision Australia and other associations that represent users with disabilities should voice their concerns and attempt to force a change. However, I do not believe that it is the job of any of those organisations to go and test websites for standards compliance and send out notices or award some kind of certificates. They certainly have got better things to do than that. Do you know how many websites they would have to go and test? And what if those websites are standards compliant - does it mean they are therefore accessible or user-friendly for visually disabled users? Not really. I would suggest that it is the role of the individual to find problematic websites and report them. However, the reporting process could go perhaps through the channels of organisations such as Vision Australia or RNIB, as they have got a stronger voice. ** 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] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Czeiger
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 10:49 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Hi All :o)
Wondering if you can help me solve an issue:
I'd like to have a list of alphabetical buttons at the top of
the page (you've all seen this kind of navigation).
What I'd like to do is have them with the following features:
1. Single pixel border
2. Some padding around the letter (to make them look nice)
3. A margin around each one that is statically sized
3. .. and this is the biggy ... I'd like their width the
stretch dependent on screen resolution.
Here's a screenshot:
http://www.grafx.com.au/wip/alphabet.gif
The pale pink of the inside of each button is the bit that
stretches...
The space between them is always the same.
Effectively the whole alphabet should stretch across the top
in one row.
Hi Richard,
Sorry, I don't have time to try this one out, but the obvious solution for
me would be to try this:
We have got 26 boxes next to each other. If we wanted to float them all next
to each other so that they take up 100% of the browser width, I would
presume each box would have a width of 3.84% (100% / 26 = 3.84).
Wouldn't that work? Something like:
li{margin:0; padding:0; float:left; width:3.84%; background:pink}
Then to get the white boxes to work I would probably play with
background-images (borders with 1px width would stuff up our percentage
calculation).
What do yoou think?
**
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] Solutions against spam bots WAS: Using PHP to hide email, script made, testing needed
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike at Green-Beast.com Sent: Friday, 9 June 2006 1:39 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Using PHP to hide email, script made, testing needed The sad part is, even if it can be made fully capable of its assigned task and become a popular and accessible solution, new spam-bot builds would probably have a work-around built into their new versions within months. Unfortunately, if people are allowed to communicate with us or post to our sites, we can only hope to slow down or stay just slightly ahead to the bad guys. Without wanting to take this too much off topic, it is a truly interesting problem to be discussed: the different approaches people take to prevent spam bots from harvesting their email addresses. I have used the javascript solution a couple of times on some of our sites, but of course it can cause an accessibility issue. In that case I always provided a form for users that have got javascript disabled. I came across an article at some point that suggested to spam the bots with fake email addresses: the authors suggested to create a link for the spam-bots to follow to a page that randomly creates hundreds of fake email addresses (using php or other server-side scripting). Those addresses are collected by the spam bots and in turn bombard its own mail server with bouncing emails. As much as I like that idea it sounds a bit dubious to me and probably will turn around and bite us in some kind of way. I'd be interested to hear what other desperate measures people have taken to circumvent this 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 **
[WSG] Colour blindness simulator
Hi guys, I found this nice little tool on the web which simulates the effects of colour blindness: http://www.aspnetresources.com/tools/colorblindness.aspx You can upload your images to the site and it will show them in two of the more common forms of colour blindness. Might be useful to check if the design of a site is accessible. Cheers, Andreas. Andreas Boehmer User Experience Consultant Addictive Media Phone: (03) 9386 8907 Mobile: (0411) 097 038 http://www.addictivemedia.com.au Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development ** 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] Colour blindness simulator
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Wood Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2006 11:25 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Colour blindness simulator On 6/6/06, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I found this nice little tool on the web which simulates the effects of colour blindness: http://www.aspnetresources.com/tools/colorblindness.aspx that's a pretty cool tool. For convenience sake I find this one a lot quicker and easier to deal with: http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ You simply give it a URL and it'll spew out a live representation of the page with a specific filter applied. Hmmm... It doesn't seem to work for me. I enter the URL, but it just sends my browser to the URL I enter without changing anything. Am I doing something wrong? ** 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] new site critique - extemely
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Persson Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2006 8:01 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] new site critique - extemely Which site are you talking about... the www.grekland.gr or something else I have my purposes to make it this wide because it is targetted to swedish people that, regarding my other websites, giving me a results that 1024 screen has a 70% of the common users.. Losing 30% of your target audience is a lot, I think! I mean, fair enough: 70% will enjoy your site just fine, but almost every third person of your visitors doesn't have 1024x768. I would still make it target 800x600 in that case. ** 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] Goals for FF Text Zoom?
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn Sent: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 8:06 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Goals for FF Text Zoom? I usually only leave a one zoom buffer unless it breaks really bad. I think ive read others members here that do the same. -kvn Similar for me. 1-2 zooms - after that the design may break slightly, but always ensuring that even if it breaks the text is still legible. ** 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] Interface Flexability
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2006 9:12 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Interface Flexability Hi, I've concerns with how to best slice the content area, the center inner shadow box, to accommodate text resizing at the following: (http://working.bushidodeep.com/remix/spring_mock.png) Any suggestions would be appreciated. When you say text resizing, do you mean a liquid layout? So do you want the graphic to expand on all browser windows? ** 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] Safari and table row id
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Futter Sent: Tuesday, 28 March 2006 2:16 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Safari and table row id Not sure how on-topic this is, but I'll give it a shot. I've developed an internal page (sorry, no link to give you) that pulls IP addresses out of a database and allows you to 'manage' them (edit, change, add notes etc). Once edited (on a separate edit page), I send the user back to the main page, which is meant to jump down to the table row they've just finished editing. Works OK everywhere I need it to except Safari, which seems to have an issue scrolling to an anchor within a table - it just stops at the top of the table. I'm using URLs like this: (...)/index.php#ip_40 to achieve this, where #ip_40 is the ID of the tr element in question. Hi Kevin, Samuel's suggestions sound like a good starting point. Not sure if Safari has got difficulties with jumping to IDs. Perhaps you could try creating the old fashioned a name=ip_40/a anchor to see if that works? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
