Re: [WSG] MS Staff Blogs not W3C compliant...
This may sound a bit like im pissing all over your fire here, but I was bored, and in typical me fashion, I had to check your own site against the same validators that you ran passed the microsoft blogs... All good, except for the feedback page (http://egressive.com/HurlDinger/Feedback). 5 validation errors (a name attribute on a non-form element in xhtml strict? tut tut :p), and a failure against WCAG level 1 (for no labels). Sorry, its one of those things you have to do when someone with their own site raises an issue like this (if only for something to do at 3am! :p). Totally agree about Micro$oft being a little 2-faced with their promotion of standards however... I can only guess that they're not using their own Expression software on their blog sites yet :) ... speaking of which, I wonder just how standards compliant this new software will be... will it be standards compliant or just IE7 standards compliant? Thanks, David. Dave Lane wrote: Hi all, A few days ago, my browsers ended up on http://www.microsoft.com/nz/msdn/team.aspx after reading a few stories about IE7 and the fact that it won't be W3C standards compliant like nearly every other browser (e.g. various Mozilla Gecko-based browsers like Firefox, KHTML-based browsers like Safari and Konqueor, and Presto-based browsers like Opera, etc.). Out of mild curiosity, I looked at some of the Microsoft staff blogs linked to from the above page, and again, for the fun of it, ran them through the W3C validator at http://validator.w3.org/check/referer (I use the Firefox web developer extension - a must have for those that don't already use it) Not one of the blogs I looked at came anywhere near conforming to the W3C standards they each purported to support according to their DocTypes. Some pages had 100+ markup errors. I sent messages to the Microsofties whose blogs I tested, alerting them in a friendly tone to this rather embarrassing faux pas (the web equivalent to toilet paper on your shoe upon leaving the loo). I haven't heard back from any of them yet, but I'll be interested to see their response (might post them here if of interest). I encourage those of you who'd like to see Microsoft actually start supporting open web standards to visit those blogs and other MS pages and similarly pass on the friendly message that there's quite a lot they could do to raise their game and play by the rest-of-the-world's rules. Kind regards, Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: class names and IDs (was Re: [WSG] p:first-line)
My my, if only I had a penny for every time this topic of conversation
was brought up on the list :p
Patrick is correct however in the standards evangelist sense ;)
p.indent describes the action of the class (what in x months time, i
decided that i didnt want to indent it, but colour it blue instead). On
the other hand, p.first describes the element itself (its always going
to be the 1st paragraph unless the html order is changed... or if you do
some odd absolute positions... although that wont make any difference to
a screen reader or a non-css enabled browser) :)
David.
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
I would come up with
something that meant something to me and that made sense. Indent really
wasn't bad, though. In the CSS it would have been written as #description
p.indent { } which really is quite telling as to what it is, where it is,
and what it's for. Agreed?
Maybe it's philosophical hairsplitting, but indent still describes the
visual effect you're trying to achieve, rather than being a name
describing either the function or a characteristic of the content
itself. IMHO first falls under that second category (it's an attribute
of the content this is the first of something in the absence of
consistent :first-child support). indent however is just the same as
class names like red, centered, bold, big, etc which should
really be avoided, as they are relating purely to the presentational
aspects and not related to the pure content itself.
Again, IMHO.
P (probably sounding like a grumpy old class name evangelist ;) )
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] should ebay listing alike be tabular layout?
With that particular page, and with the example you used, then I'd say yes, a tabular layout is well justified. In fact I wouldn't even recommend structuring data in that fashion using divs/spans etc, as the markup would a) be as bulky as hell, and b) provide no relationship between the headings and data, or even the data itself. Tables are the way to go for this kind of use. I hope that helps for future reference. Thanks, David tee g. peng wrote: On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:10 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote: Hi I have a question, should ebay listing alike be tabular layout? Do you mean an entire item's listing, or a page listing multiple items? A URL would be handy to clarify which bit of ebay you're talking about :) Something like this: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F% 2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2Ffkr=1from=R8satitle=designing+with+web +standardscategory0= The layout I need to do is such: image | item desc | Price | Ending | Time Left | Bids | Store Didn't get a response early so I told client he shouldn't waste money for me to do the conversion, still, I would love to have second opinion perhaps for future reference. By the way, the layout of the site is CSS but few section are done in tables, that is part of the reason I think the listing shouldn't need to convert to CSS. It looks tabular to me. Best, tee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** __ NOD32 1.1694 (20060805) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.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] IE7 news
Actually, Microsoft are going to be pushing IE7 as a high priority update through Windows Update. http://news.com.com/Microsoft+tags+IE+7+high+priority+update/2100-7350_3-6098500.html So for many people (at those who have automatic updates turned on), IE 7 will be installed automatically but then of course youve still got the crowd that dont even have SP2 installed, so its a good bet that IE6 will still be a heavily used browser for XP users (not to mention the people still using 2000/ME/98 etc). Also, while I have no evidence to back this up, I sincerely doubt that the XP/Vista products will have any differences that will effect developer/designers sure that may have different security implementations, but from a basic CSS/Javascript point of view, these should be platform independant and simply be a feature of IE7 itself, as with IE6. (now, if IE 6 is different on 2000 than XP, I'll probably end up eating my words :p) Thanks, David. Jason Foss wrote: Yeah... can't really say this is good news. Most people on XP won't upgrade to IE7, so we'll have to test IE7 on XP for a realtively small percentage I expect. That won't be bad if it behaves the same on XP as it does on Vista mind you, but if has differences on Vista as opposed to XP then that will be a bit of a pain. Shall have to wait and see. And yes - there are a gazillion bootleg copies of XP out there - all from the corporate edition that don't require activation. Got my hands on one way back when XP was only a few months old! At least this time legal copies of Vista Beta are readily available for testing, that will probably go a long way towards reducing demand for bootleg versions. On 28/07/06, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/27/06, Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:46 AM 7/27/2006, Christian Montoya wrote: Are there any stats on how many users have a bootleg copy of Windows XP? I have a feeling it's a huge number. Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought you can't bootleg XP because each copy of the software gets registered to a single computer. When I moved from desktop to laptop a few years ago, and then six months later moved to another laptop, I actually had to persuade a dubious human being on the phone at Microsoft that I wasn't pirating their operating system. Like all security systems this is no doubt hackable (by spoofing the software id and/or whatever adds up to be the computer id), but I imagine that's too sophisticated a hack for the average computer geek, much less for the average user. I would take your word for it, but I know people who have bootleg copies. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.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] Tool for making screen shots from MSIE 7.0 Beta exists
There is another option available to you (assuming you're running Windows XP and simply dont want to lose IE6)... There are a couple of tools for running IE7 is standalone mode, meaning that you can install it and keep using IE6 too. For the newest beta 3, there is a really easy installer located at http://tredosoft.com/IE7_standalone which will do all the installation for you. This is the way I have personally chosen to test sites in IE7, although it does mean that IE7 does have some limited functionality as a browser (eg. select menus dont work, and some menu options are not available), apart from that though, I've found no problems with this setup (I also have stanalone versions of IE5.5, IE5 and IE4 installed in a standalone mode (available from http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone). Anyway, simply another option that may not have been considered. Thanks, David. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Mike. I've registered there for a free trial membership. But alas it won't let me log in. I've sent email. It might be resolved before the 24 hours has expired. The service looks promising. Sharron - Original Message - From: Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Tool for making screen shots from MSIE 7.0 Beta exists Sharon wrote: Can anyone tell me if a tool for making screen shots from MSIE 7.0 Beta exists? I googled and found this, which lead me here. But it does not show a option for the IE 7 Beta screen shots. Yes. Browsercam has IE 7 loaded. http://www.browsercam.com/ Sincerely, Mike Cherim http://green-beast.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] LInks Multi-language
I have had experience of working with a EU project called Mercator (a group that promotes accessibility and inclusion of minority and regional languages). I know from various meetings with them, that the whole use a flag icon method of determining a language is considered to be discriminatory to regions that speak a language but are not associated with it (how many people here from the UK or Australia get miffed when english is associated with a US flag??). They consider the whole concept of using flags as a description of language bad practice and non-descript. The preferred method of language selection is what has been mentioned before, to inform the user of a language option using their own language (eg. option link that say English, Francais, Cymraeg). My own thoughts are that it the showing the language choice simply by showing the language should be more than sufficient as a description of what functionality of link does. Using whole sentences such as View this Page in English, is fairly redundant as the native language itself (one french word in a whole page of english) should be quite descriptive enough as to what the expected function is. Thanks, David. Matthew Pennell wrote: On 6/30/06, *Steve Olive* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree - another option is to use small icons that are flags of the nations associated with the destiny language But (as per the link I posted above) languages are spoken in more than one country. The name of the language, in that language, is the easiest way of communicating the language options you have. ** 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] Question about naming CSS elements
I don't think you will ever find a unified agreement on the way naming conventions are used. Even after a couple of replies, you can clearly see that even people promoting web standards can use different styles. The only advice I can really give is be consistent, or you'll just end up confusing not just yourself, but anyone else who has to look through your code. I would recommend that one of the following would be most useful (for popularity, and understandability): PascalCase - generally used more for Object/Class declarations (especially in Java, PHP etc) camelCase or underscore_style - probably the two most used styles. Used for creating variables, functions etc UPPERCASE_UNDERSCORE - prob best to stay clear of this in general usage, but useful for identifying constants, and globalised variables. I would steer clear of the following: Hungarian Notation - usually seen as oMyObj - using an initial identifier to show the type of variables ([o]bject, [i]nt, [s]tring etc), in practice however, it can be very confusing. hyphenated-style - similar to underscore_style - unlike the others, this style is not universal (eg. cannot use in PHP). As css uses this style for naming its properties, it might seem like a good idea... but avoid if possible. As I said, the main thing to consider is consistency, even within different languages... adopting a single style for css, javascript, php etc will make your code much more understandable for you and others (its very time wasting to be half way through coding, and then realising you've used your php style in javascript etc). Thanks, David. tee g.peng wrote: Good evening and good morning! I remember reading an interesting thread about using lowercase for CSS element naming, but I can't seemed to find that thread from mail- archive. Vaguely I remember it was something about xml wellformness - before reading that thread, I used to use lower uppercase names, and thought it was just one's preferences. I have tried to pick up good habit since I read the thread. Was reading CSS Mastery, Advanced Web Standards Solution by Andy Budd, and it got me confused a bit. The author used lower uppercases for examples throughout the entire book. I crossed check with other CSS books I have, they all used lowercases and the only exception is in More Eric Meyer on CSS, the last chapter, project 10, Designing in the Garden, I said it was an exception because that project was for CSS Zen Garden that the code could not be altered. Not trying to stir up anything here. I simply want to learn the correct way, since that the book titled itself 'Advance Web Standards Solutions' therefor I would like to confirm what I learned from that thread is the 'correct' way, or rather, there isn't anything right or wrong as to how one names his CSS. Thank you! tee ** 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] How does CSS handle it's references
I'm making a fairly general assumption about the webserver you're using (as a lot to do with this is based on what your webserver is configured to do, and also how an individual browser reacts). In general, once an image has been loaded once (by whatever method, html/css/javascript), then that image is cached, and can be called again without having to re-download the image from the server. It also doesn't matter if the way you call the image is different from the original method (eg. first used by a stylesheet rule, and then used on a different page via javascript). As I said this depends on how your webserver is configured. However, unless there's be any reason for not doing so, then most configurations tell the browser that the image is cachable (sometimes developers tell the webserver to not allow caching for images/pages that are designed to change frequently). Also, browsers also have the ability to disable caching, but that's a fringe worry, and really isnt worth worrying about. Thanks, David. Veine Vikberg wrote: Greetings; Now this may be one of the most basic questions I have ever asked on this list - and make you laugh at me but... Here goes, if a stylesheet has a reference to three classes, each of which has an image as background that is 50K - when that stylesheet is used in another page, does that image get loaded before the page is displayed? I hope I make sense here, what spurred the question is that I have used an online web speed checker, and it refused to load the page, saying it was too big, cause my style sheet has 11 of those references for this partcular internal site, so the speed isn't really the issue, but I was thinking about other projects. Regards ~Veine Sent via the WebMail system at vikberg.net ** 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] Web site images question
Sorry Georg, I appreciate the time you took in posting your response, but I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking what was the opinion on the appropriateness of alt/title text in a general sense, but what the opinion was on the purpose of the image that was in question... is it purely aesthetic or does it convey its own meaning (i.e. is it symbolic of its own message). It's purely elementary of course, but the different interpretations are a reason why the opinion is split. Cheers, David. Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: David Dixon wrote: [...] It would be useful to get a few more opinions on what others believe the purpose is... The purpose of 'text' in the alt-attribute it to expand/complete the meaning - in context, (as close to) the same as the visible image itself does. Describing the image is not what the alt-attribute is there for. An image may tell a story, and/or strengthen (parts of) the surrounding content. The alt-text should (ideally speaking) do the same - or be left out. Whatever one puts in that alt-attribute should make optimal sense - in context. If it doesn't, then an alt= is to be preferred in nearly all cases. --- The 'graphical' version should not influence or cross-contaminate the 'text-only' version of a page at the User end. Few 'text-only' Users can, or do, compare. The 'text-only' version should carry _all_ that is relevant - and not much else, while the 'graphical' may provide space for all the relevant, less-relevant and/or non-relevant visual cues one may want to put in. --- Images can, and often do, add value - when visible, as visual cues along with text works well - visually. Text - followed by an image - followed by more text, may work well in most cases - for those of us who can see it all and scan in all directions. --- Providing loss-less alternatives inside alt-attributes is impossible for most images. Providing short alternatives in context is somewhat easier, but most often not necessary, or useful. Very often the only logical alt-text for an image is a repetition, or rewrite, of what's already in the text. Such a logical but repetitive alt-text doesn't add anything of value. Repetitive, rewritten or 'out of context' text adds noise, so it makes little or no sense to have any alt-text. Text - followed by a rewrite of the same or 'an out of context' text (disguised as an accessibility-improving alt-attribute) - followed by more (of the same) text, rarely ever make much sense. Georg ** 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] Web site images question
Hi John, There are perfectly valid reasons for using css to generate imagery, and perfectly valid reasons for using the img tag to do the same. I think some developers/designers go too far sometimes in trying to use css as their miracle tool to the detriment of a) the website's accessibility and b) the website's visibility. Using css background images is a perfect solution to issues such as the infamous rounded box, and adding background images which are then overlaid with text etc. However when an image is designed to be used as an image in its own right (eg in your example), then I would say CSS is definitely NOT the way to go. I would even go as far as saying that example wheelchair image DOES technically add to the content (its a visual representation of a disabled/wheelchair bound person, and an important visual clue as to the purpose of the content (what do you notice first, the wheelchair image or the text beside it?). You also need to consider what would happen if images were disabled? In your example, all that would show would be a space... not very informative, and even if you did use css to hide some text, the text would only show if css were also disabled (at least with the very common techniques). Not only that, but screen readers etc would not be able to alert a visually impaired user as to what was there. With an img tag however, you can use the alt attribute to describe the image itself which would vastly improve the accessibility (eg. An image of a wheelchair, a symbol for accessibility). While there are a few techniques floating about that claim to correct this problem (some of which have been discussed on this list), many of them are not supported all browsers, almost all of them require some kind of extra markup/css code to make them work as intended (is there really all that need to add all that extra weight?) and some again require javascript to get the thing working (javascript to show a simple image... overkill?). The img tag however, is fully supported by every single browser out there (not just FF/IE/Opera, but also mobile-embedded browsers and text-based browsers that simply show the alt attribute instead). Therefore, my advise would be that if the image is part of the content, use the img tag. If its to aid that layout, then css would probably be the answer. Thanks, David. John S. Britsios wrote: Hello everybody. I have a question: When an image is presented with one or more paragraphs of text, if the image is relevant to the text in a symbolic way, but does not technically add to the content, should it be displayed as an image within the content, or should it be rendered with CSS? For example see the images wheelchair, magnifier, human head and certificate on our web site: http://www.webnauts.net If they must be rendered with CSS, would it be semantically correct when I add in the content e.g. span class=wheelchairnbsp;/span? Thank you in advance for your kind support. Best wishes and regards, John ** 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] Web site images question
The argument you have brought up here Patrick is a fundamental reason why I treat usability and accessibility as two sides of the same coin. You are probably correct that if using a screen reader, the user would more than likely get the same information from the page, however the flow at which they get the information would not be the same as someone without visual impairment. That is the difference from making content simply accessible, to making the content accessible an usable (ie ensuring that the flow of information is as you intended). I agree with mark to an extent about not using alt text to its full potential, although I also believe the alt text should describe what the image is trying to convey, not to try and provide additional meaning... that should for title text. (eg, if the image is just a dog sitting down, then adding ... ripped poor Billy's leg off yesterday to the alt would be conveying information that the image does not give). The alt text that John has chosen for the wheelchair image is I think on the right lines of what the alt text should be. He describes what the image is, and what its purpose is A symbol for accessibility. Therefore a user who cannot see the image, can understand why the image is there and what it is trying to convey. Also, because of its position, a screen reader probably would read out the alt tag before the main text, therefore giving the same indicator to the content as the image would. Also, I do not see a difference between the usage of the images John is intending to use, and the images that you use for your photographia.co.uk homepage list. In fact you have chosen to display these as img tags without any alt text, thereby showing that these images are part of the content, yet with no fall back should the image not be viewable for some reason. Therefore, while I believe your reasoning is valid to a point, I don't believe that your solution would bring about the same level of accessibility as the img tag would. David. Patrick H. Lauke wrote: David Dixon wrote: I would even go as far as saying that example wheelchair image DOES technically add to the content (its a visual representation of a disabled/wheelchair bound person, and an important visual clue as to the purpose of the content (what do you notice first, the wheelchair image or the text beside it?). It's a visual clue that only mirrors/reinforces the text. The what do you notice first question is a red herring: if we're talking about providing equivalent content to users with screen readers or those with images turned off, do you still think that the argument what do you notice first? the ALT attribute of course holds? I'd say no, it doesn't. You also need to consider what would happen if images were disabled? In your example, all that would show would be a space... not very informative I beg to differ. As the image is only an iconographic representation of the text that's immediately next to it, a user that has images disabled still gets the exact same meaning out of the page. In this case, the purpose of the image is purely decorative - visual fluff. I would therefore have no problem with just assigning it as a background image. Patrick ** 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] Web site images question
Actually, yeah, you are completely correct. The alt text I showed was a pretty poor choice on my part. Again, I still would not have the alt text as empty in this case, as it is my impression that the images add to the surrounding text... where in the text does it say that a wheelchair is a symbol for accessibility? I would probably revise the img tag itself to read something like: img src=/images/accessibility.jpg width=100 height=89 alt=The imagery of a person on a wheelchair is generally considered a symbol for accessibility title=An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for accessibility ... or at least something along those lines. I can see why you want to leave the alt empty (or even use css to deliver the image), but I think it falls down to the context where the image is placed. If we're some background image for a header, then yes, css would most likely be the way to go (or empty alt text). But I see these particular images, not as decoration or background, but as complimentary examples of imagery associated with the content being discussed. For example, if the paragraph was talking about smoking being banned in public areas (a subject that unfortunately affects me personally), then if the image was replaced with a no smoking sign, then while the image wouldn't add to understanding of the text, is does provide a visual reference to the imagery of the subject, so alt text such as the common symbol for no smoking is the cigarette inside a red circle with a line through it (or something that effect). Thanks, David. Lachlan Hunt wrote: David Dixon wrote: you can use the alt attribute to describe the image itself which would vastly improve the accessibility (eg. An image of a wheelchair, a symbol for accessibility). No, that's a bad example of alt text. The alt text should serve the same purpose as the image, not necessarily describe it. The only cases where the alt text should describe the image is when the content is actually talking about the image itself. This case appears to be one of those edge cases where there are good arguments to include the image within the markup and others to include it within the CSS. However, it all comes down to whether or not the image is *semantically relevant* to the content, not just whether or not it is presentational. In this case, the wheelchair icon, being an iconic representation of the surrounding text, is semantically relevant to the content. However, it does not convey any additional meaning beyond that conveyed by the surrounding text, and so it should have no alternate text. The text you proposed is not suitable as alt text because it describes the image, not the purpose of the image. It would, however, be suitable content for the title attribute. You could markup the image like this: img src=/images/accessibility.jpg width=100 height=89 alt= title=An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for accessibility Here are some very useful resources that describe how to write suitable alternate text http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html http://hixie.ch/advocacy/alttext http://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art3.htm ** 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] Web site images question
I think I may have cut myself short on that last paragraph, but hopefully you get the idea of what I was attempting to explain :) I wrote (about 30 secs ago): Actually, yeah, you are completely correct. The alt text I showed was a pretty poor choice on my part. Again, I still would not have the alt text as empty in this case, as it is my impression that the images add to the surrounding text... where in the text does it say that a wheelchair is a symbol for accessibility? I would probably revise the img tag itself to read something like: img src=/images/accessibility.jpg width=100 height=89 alt=The imagery of a person on a wheelchair is generally considered a symbol for accessibility title=An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for accessibility ... or at least something along those lines. I can see why you want to leave the alt empty (or even use css to deliver the image), but I think it falls down to the context where the image is placed. If we're some background image for a header, then yes, css would most likely be the way to go (or empty alt text). But I see these particular images, not as decoration or background, but as complimentary examples of imagery associated with the content being discussed. For example, if the paragraph was talking about smoking being banned in public areas (a subject that unfortunately affects me personally), then if the image was replaced with a no smoking sign, then while the image wouldn't add to understanding of the text, is does provide a visual reference to the imagery of the subject, so alt text such as the common symbol for no smoking is the cigarette inside a red circle with a line through it (or something that effect). Thanks, David. ** 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] Pixel Perfect
Im just going to echo what Bob said. Your site will not print properly because a) your site is fixed width and is not designed to scale with smaller display areas (such as the translated size of A4 paper), and b) you do not have any style sheet that applies to printed pages, so that the fixed width will be converted to a variable width site (ready for for document printing). My advise would be to add in a print style sheet, that a) converts the page to a variable width format and b) removes non-required elements such as redundant images, headers, navigation etc. Printing a site (or converting to pdf) is generally done to be able to view the content of the page they are after, not to have a duplicate paper copy of a website. Thanks, David. Designer wrote: Bruce wrote: Yes, it isn't perfect or done yet but is in process: http://66.118.191.85/~websterk/index.php Thanks Bruce Prochnau When I print to acrobat distiller, the pdf is nothing like the web site! I wouldn't expect it to be actually, unless I'd provided a print style sheet. Did I miss it? I couldn't see one in there. Also Bruce, folk using IE with text size set to small will not be able to read a fair proportion of the text - it's miniscule! Sorry if you don't want to hear that - just trying to be helpful. ** 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] about css pop up windows
While trying not to be quite as harsh as Paul with my comments :), I have to say that I agree with everything here. The idea behind the portfolio shouldnt be look at me fellow web designers, isnt this mouseover effect cool, it should be geared towards your target audience, which by the looks of your profile, would be SME corporate customers. Therefore the flow of the site (i use that word as a kinda mixture between style and structure) would be best geared towards MDs/Managers who have little experience/knowledge of web design, but more than likely use the web on a very regular basis (or they probably wouldnt even think about looking at your site, or even thinking they need one themselves). Keep things simple, ensure your actions are consistent with what users would expect (ie, dont use those unintuitive cursors... how am i supposed to know that the help cursor actually means i can click links on one page, and oh, i cant on another page... taking your portfolio and services page as prime examples), and finally keep things clear (Georgia, while a very attractive font, isnt a) the most standard font for the web (with your fallback choices being even less standard) and b) is very difficult to read at smaller font sizes (the paragraph text looks incredibly cramped there)). Also, from a more design perspective, you might gain more from those thumbs/large porgtfolio images by creating them as cutouts of the main design, rather than sticking the whole page into 1 small image (maybe a small section of a logo/unique feature for the thumbnail, and a larger portion with the header/link/page section in the larger image... and make it obvious that they can be clicked for an example). I would try and stay clear of the take a screen screen shot and stick it in an image approach... why does the customer care that you have a nice pretty mac task bar? Anyway, I hope at least some of this helps. Thanks, David Paul Novitski wrote: At 01:19 AM 5/14/2006, Breiterstrom [Cosmin Ciobanu] wrote: Please take a look at my web site: http://www.cosmin-ciobanu.popconsulting.ro The CSS is http://www.cosmin-ciobanu.popconsulting.ro/cssfolder/mystyle.css I want you to study the portfolio page and tell me how do you think it looks. I've used Only CSS rules, no JAVA script, for the windows that appears on mouse over on the ice thumbnails. Is there a way to make that pop ups appear with some effects? Like fade in, for ex.? Can anybody help me with a sugestion? Cosmin, For me your portfolio doesn't work: when I hover over the menu of thumbnails, the larger screenshots appear in the same place and cover up the menu itself. I find this very irritating. It means that to view more than one screenshot I have to move my mouse completely out of the menu area and come back into it from another direction. You're forcing me to use a lot of extreme mouse motion for no particular reason, and I think there's something fundamentally wrong about a user interface that covers itself up while the user is trying to use it. The design is not only inconvenient, it's superfluous. You have already allocated space on the page to display a thumbnail representing each portfolio item, however you're using the same ice image for each thumbnail. That seems like a waste of space. Why not put the website screenshots into the menu in the first place? This doesn't make the hover images irrelevant -- it's OK to show a larger version of a thumbnail on hover. Your menu design seems like an especially poor choice for a web designer's portfolio: I was not impressed with your ability to design a functional user interface and, at least on this basis, I would not be likely to approach you for help on a web project. While I understand your desire to show off your abilities, I suggest you do so in a way that enhances functionality and doesn't detract from it. My recommendation is that you use screenshot thumbnails for the menu itself and, on hover, display the larger screenshots on top of the big ice cube at left. That way I could hover over different thumbnails until I found one I wanted to click on, and the thumbnail menu would remain usable throughout the selection process. Regards, Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
