On 2009/09/28 14:06 (GMT+1000) nedlud composed:
> Would iframes help at all? Are they any better, from an accessibility point
> of view, than old fashioned frames?
Most iframes on current sites are terrible. They're typically used for ads,
and a minimal HTML size is set or defaulted to that depen
I have a content management system that uses frames for layout (not my
choice). We need to improve the accessibility of the site. Short of ditching
the CMS (not going to happen any time soon), or getting the vendor to write
better code (also not likely to happen), how can we improve the
accessibili
Cole Kuryakin wrote:
[...]
One MAJOR problem with using background images for the flag buttons
is the fact that each entry could carry any one of 200+ flags. That's
a WHOLE LOT of background declarations! No matter what type of more
semantic structure I end up using for this I'm afraid I'll hav
2009/9/27 designer
> Thanks to all who replied. However, no-one said "don't do this because . .
> ."
> ??
OK, well, since you're kind of asking... ;) Don't do that because it's
horrendously non-semantic and you should be making your pages semantically
correct. You are basically adding fake c
designer wrote:
Thanks to all who replied. However, no-one said "don't do this
because . . ."
??
"...the element is styled to not exist, so it can't do anything"... ??
regards
Georg
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandar
Thanks to all who replied. However, no-one said "don't do this because . .
."
??
- Original Message -
From: designer
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:45 PM
Can anyone tell me what is wrong (apart from not being semantic) about
using:
q{
clea
Kepler -
Hey, thanks for taking so much effort for all that you've written below.
Yes, it's true, I'd like to make these entries more semantically structured
(I hadn't thought of a def list option) but I was under a nighmarish
deadline on this module of the project so just initially opted for a ta
