Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Thierry Koblentz wrote: I was talking about the user, not the designer. Most browsers do not offer a "Print Preview" option Getting off topic (so perhaps email me back off list) but: which browsers exactly? -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (ad

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Thierry Koblentz wrote: > unecessary drain their print cartgridge. INK *cartridge*! I'll let you guess. 1. English is not my native language 2. I'm a kindergarten dropout ;-) Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for htt

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >> In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print. > There is a way: 'testing', but I agree on that browsers don't do their > print-job the same way. Think Gecko is worst on print-jobs at the > moment. Hi Georg, I was talking about the user, not the desig

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Thierry Koblentz wrote: In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print. ... There is a way: 'testing', but I agree on that browsers don't do their print-job the same way. Think Gecko is worst on print-jobs at the moment. We also have no idea about print-setups around, since

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > Very true, and I for one am (paradoxically, perhaps) always the first > to complain when some quarters suggest things like "let's put a print > button or a text resize widget right on the page, because users may be > too uneducated to know how to do it themselves". However

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: As long as user-ignorance is used as an excuse for not doing a proper job at our end, then even this web design community will fail and end up preserving ignorance among ourself *and* the users. Very true, and I for one am (paradoxically, perhaps) always the first to com

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: It is also much easier to inform our visitors how they can fix things at their end, if it actually works. If you forgive the tongue in cheek tone: Patrick, no problem. Could have been me if English was my first language. I might have added some

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: It is also much easier to inform our visitors how they can fix things at their end, if it actually works. If you forgive the tongue in cheek tone: "Dear user, does the text on this page seem too big? Although most other sites you may visit on a regular basis have text that is

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Tom Livingston wrote: I guess where I am going with this is that, IMO, no one here is wrong. The _vast_ majority of users are going to see the site as intended, and those who are not happy with the text size have the ability to change it to suit them. If a user needs larger type due to low visi

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/20/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the > > default size of the text displayed in their browser? > > I'm at a loss to think of any reason how an answer to this might be > relevant to choosing whether to respect vis

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On May 19, 2005, at 6:12 PM, russ - maxdesign wrote: The font size discussion is interesting and relevant. I found this while reading about styling forms: From usability.com.au: "Also, many users find the default font size on Websites is often too small for comfortable reading. This only becomes a

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > Felix Miata wrote: > > Outside web development discussion groups, the people over 40 I've > > personally come in contact with are almost unanimous in complaining most > > web sites have text that is too small, > And from that sample, how many of those users know how

Re: [WSG] Site check - last... ADMIN WARNING

>> Yes it is. It's also quite dumb. > > Respect is rarely dumb. This is no exeption. When the defaults are > honored, everyone who cares can be a winner. WARNING Please do not let this discussion sink any further or the thread will be closed. The font size discussion is interesting and releva

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Felix Miata wrote: Outside web development discussion groups, the people over 40 I've personally come in contact with are almost unanimous in complaining most web sites have text that is too small, And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the default size of the text displa

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Tom Hamshere wrote: > Felix Miata wrote: > > Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the > > default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both: > > 1-most others have the same need, and, 2-it is your job to "fix" it for > > them. In spite of the fact t

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/19/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Hamshere wrote: > > > Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without > > degrading it for everybody else. > > Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the > default is too big for you and needs to be

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Patrick Lauke wrote: > Also, compare the default size of 1em in browsers with the default size of > all other OS text (on a plain vanilla install of WinXP, for instance, 100% > in IE 6 looks about 20% larger than any of the text you find in the Start > menu, or even the browser's own menus). So,

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Romily Jones wrote: The BBC's site is a good guide -- they did tons of usability research, ... They did, but the latest update I could find is more than 2 years old. ...not all of it made good read today, although I didn't see anything

RE: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

> Felix Miata > The assumption you made is because the > default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both: > 1-most others have the same need, and, 2-it is your job to > "fix" it for > them. In spite of the fact that it is standard web design > practice, this > is absurd, and

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Tom Hamshere wrote: > Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without > degrading it for everybody else. Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both: 1-most others have the same need, and

RE: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

The BBC's site is a good guide -- they did tons of usability research, I understand, so the odd time that I get asked by a client about the size of text on their site, this is the site I refer them to. BTW, this also looks to be the same size as that used on the WSG site. I find that 82% on the bo

Re: [WSG] Site Check

>> I'd also like if mac users tested it on safari and ie5/mac. In the 0s9 version of ie5mac the top buttons have are slightly offset from the background image. maybe only a pixel or two, so when you roll over they jump a wee bit. not much though.

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/19/05, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bingo! You just got you first complaint. True. Walked in to that one, didn't I :) Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without degrading it for everybody else. -- Tom Hamshere ***

Re: [WSG] Site Check

Other than a 1px show-though of white on your header in IE, looks good on the mac browsers. I sent you a few PDF screen caps offlist. The white issue on IE doesn't show up in the caps...happens depending on the width the browser window is. Should be a quick and easy fix. ~MD On May 19, 2005,

Re: [WSG] Site Check - brunotorres.net

apping. Screenshots available offlist if you like - just ask. A reminder to all - please add site name to Subject so we don't get a thousand posts that just say 'Re: [WSG] Site Check'. It also helps to keep threads organised! N ___ Omnivision. Web

[WSG] Site Check

Hello. I'd appreciate mush if you take a look at my weblog (http://www.brunotorres.net/) and tell me your opinions. I did some changes in the layout and want to know if others like it as I do. I'd also like if mac users tested it on safari and ie5/mac. Thanks in advance. Cheers! -- Bruno Cunha To

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:10 -0400, Michael Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Felix Miata wrote: "You might say "but the text looks too big" if I just leave it like that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*." How would you recommend solving the problem? Hi, [...] A 80% (I use 76% on the

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/17/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Hamshere wrote: > > I'd been recommended 80% as an ideal default text size by a wide > > variety of people, including, IIRC, the WAI. > > If from WAI it must be some misinterpreation. No, probably me just mis-remembering, as I said. > "Yo

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/17/05, Josef Dunne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I'd been recommended 80% as an ideal default text size by a wide > variety of people, >including, IIRC, the WAI. > > >How would you recommend solving the problem? > > I would set the font size to 62.5% in the body tag. Then I would use Ems > t

Re: [WSG] Site check

No, it's a bit old-school for me to worry about. Thanks anyway. On 5/18/05, Kvnmcwebn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > very nice- > > i found a couple minor breaks in ie5 mac "0s9" > > if you care about this i will post screen shots online. > > -Kev > > ***

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Felix Miata wrote: "You might say "but the text looks too big" if I just leave it like that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*." As idealistic as it sounds, the devil's advocate counter question: are you going to tell every single user of your site to do that in

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Felix Miata wrote: "You might say "but the text looks too big" if I just leave it like that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*." How would you recommend solving the problem? Hi, Font sizing issues are always a heated topic. If we have to get right down to the nitty-gritty of the matter,

Re: [WSG] Site check

very nice- i found a couple minor breaks in ie5 mac "0s9" if you care about this i will post screen shots online. -Kev ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some

RE: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Read this for Font-Sizing, this is the method I use: http://clagnut.com/blog/348/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting he

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Felix Miata wrote: "You might say "but the text looks too big" if I just leave it like that. Make it smaller then. But *in your browser*." As idealistic as it sounds, the devil's advocate counter question: are you going to tell every single user of your site to do that in their browser? because s

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Tom Hamshere wrote: > On 5/17/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because of your 80% "default" font size, I have to zoom at least one > > step to use those Flights selects. They're already messed up at that > > point. After I zoom once more, it's a serious mess. Depending on which >

RE: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

>I'd been recommended 80% as an ideal default text size by a wide variety of people, >including, IIRC, the WAI. >How would you recommend solving the problem? I would set the font size to 62.5% in the body tag. Then I would use Ems to set the sizes of all my fonts on the page, By setting the font-

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/17/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Hamshere wrote: > Because of your 80% "default" font size, I have to zoom at least one > step to use those Flights selects. They're already messed up at that > point. After I zoom once more, it's a serious mess. Depending on which > browser

Re: [WSG] Site check

On 5/17/05, Jacobus van Niekerk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Great site, I did not know lastminute was going standards based. Congrats! > Looking good, was also glad about the recent deal that was made. Yes, we've been working on it steadily for the last year or so. Still a way to go.

Re: [WSG] Site check

On 5/17/05, Peter J. Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One word: > > pink? > > > Sorry, I'm outta line...(although it definitely was striking)... Heh, no, no problem. It's our brand colour and has proven impossible to get rid of :) > Run your code through tidy and the W3 validators (jigsaw

Re: [WSG] Site check

On 5/17/05, Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll tell you a little secret. A popup on entering, and then every link in > site had a popup ad, and another when closed. It isn't a site I would even > consider looking at. Probably applies to most people, as we have all gotten > tired of such method

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Tom Hamshere wrote: > I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2 > accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at > http://www.lastminute.com Because of your 80% "default" font size, I have to zoom at least one step to use those Flights selects. They're alread

Re: [WSG] Site check

Peter J. Farrell wrote: Old Computer programmers never die, they just decompile. -- Tom Hamshere wrote: I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2 accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at http://www.lastminute.com Any feedback appreciated. One word: pink

Re: [WSG] Site check

al Message - From: "Tom Hamshere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:28 AM Subject: [WSG] Site check I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2 accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at http://www.lastminute.com Any fee

Re: [WSG] Site check

I like the "Iterate sexy partnerships" bit"! Lee Joshua Street wrote: p.s. whose idea was this: http://www.lastminute.com/site/main/boss_page_spreadsheet.html I laughed... :D On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hamshere wrote: Any feedback appreciated. Kind Regards, Joshua Street Websi

Re: [WSG] Site check

p.s. whose idea was this: http://www.lastminute.com/site/main/boss_page_spreadsheet.html I laughed... :D On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hamshere wrote: > Any feedback appreciated. Kind Regards, Joshua Street Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (0

Re: [WSG] Site check

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hamshere wrote: > could people please take a look at http://www.lastminute.com By default it sniffs my IP and uses geo mapping to fly me off to au.lastminute.com, which is a horrible table affair... don't know if you've got any control over that, but it's ha

Re: [WSG] Site check

Tom Hamshere wrote: I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2 accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at http://www.lastminute.com Any feedback appreciated. One word: pink? -- Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing blog:: http://blog.maestropublishing

[WSG] Site check

I know it's not perfect (particularly that there are priority 2 accessibility issues), but could people please take a look at http://www.lastminute.com Any feedback appreciated. Thanks, Tom Hamshere ** The discussion list for http://webstandar

Re: [WSG] site check/comments please

Hi Bert, you wrote: > I can only think of two reasons: > > 1. Accessibility > > Look at the page with styles disabled and > try to make sense of the links. Does it > still "work OK"? Yep! (well, I think so, anyway) > 2. Semantics > > By your own admission, it is "a list of >

Re: [WSG] site check/comments please

G'day Actually, it isn't an , that just applies to the title line. The list is simply that - a list of 's. I didn't see the point of making it any more complex than it needed to be, and it all seemed to work OK. But hey - I'm learning here, and asking for advice, so if there IS a good reason why i

Re: [WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

BTW, what OS is Jaguar? (you can answer this off-list) Mac OS X 10.2 I've checked with Safari v. 1.2.4 in OSX v.10.3.7 and it is working fine... 1.2.4 on 10.3.8 also fine -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The d

Re: [WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

tee wrote: > Hi Thierry, > I think your page has issued with Safari (Jaguar), it shuts down the > browser after 2 or 3 second of loading. I tested 4 times, same result. Hi Tee, I was going to reply off-list, but on the other hand I'd like to see someone else using Jaguar to check the page. Just to

Re: [WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

Hi Thierry, I think your page has issued with Safari (Jaguar), it shuts down the browser after 2 or 3 second of loading. I tested 4 times, same result. tee > > Jan Brasna wrote: >> Label is in Priority 2, title is enough for Priority 1. >> BTW placing a label there and hiding it via CSS does

Re: [WSG] site check/comments please

o if there IS a good reason why it should be a please do tell. Thanks, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk - Original Message - From: "Mary Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] site check/comment

Re: [WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

diona kidd wrote: > I'm using FF 1.0.1 on Fedora 3 and the links are working for me. Which > version/platform FF are you using? I'm using v. 0.8 and 1.0.2 on WinXP When you say "working", do you mean you can click on them and jump to the anchors or that you can tab through all the links in the mai

Re: [WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

Jan Brasna wrote: > Label is in Priority 2, title is enough for Priority 1. > BTW placing a label there and hiding it via CSS does the job too... Duh! LOL Thanks, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandards

Re: [WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

I'm using FF 1.0.1 on Fedora 3 and the links are working for me. Which version/platform FF are you using? On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 07:39 -0700, Thierry Koblentz wrote: Hi all, I have a WAI-AAA icon at the bottom of the pages and I'd like to know if I can leave it there or if I have a few more

Re: [WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

I'm using "label" with all my "input" elements, but the one for the search form at the top at the page. Does using the title attribute make it "accessible enough" or do I "must" use label? Label is in Priority 2, title is enough for Priority 1. BTW placing a label there and hiding it via CSS does t

[WSG] Site check please - eCommerce

Hi all, I have a WAI-AAA icon at the bottom of the pages and I'd like to know if I can leave it there or if I have a few more things to work on :-) I'm using "label" with all my "input" elements, but the one for the search form at the top at the page. Does using the title attribute make it "access

Re: [WSG] site check/comments please

Bob, Nice site. All works well in IE Mac, FF, Camino and Safari. Should the list of Contributors be a instead of ? Mary On 9 May 2005, at 12:05, designer wrote: Good day, I am upgrading a site to standards etc and would be grateful for any feedback/suggestions etc, and confirmation from MAC folk t

[WSG] site check/comments please

Good day, I am upgrading a site to standards etc and would be grateful for any feedback/suggestions etc, and confirmation from MAC folk that it works OK. It isn't quite finished (two of the contributor links don't work yet - I'm working my way through them) but most of it is in place. The site is

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

On 30/4/05 12:31 AM, "Drake, Ted C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The top nav does bizarre things when you get off the index page. On one > page, the tabs were replaced with underlined text, yet the dropdowns > continued to work. When I went deeper, the navigation was missing entirely. Thanks for

RE: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Laakso Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:19 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:29:27 -0400, Hope Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >So, I'd be very interested hear your co

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

On 29/4/05 1:30 PM, "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Seems fine on this end, although I can't for the life of me figure >> out what the b&w image is that appears to be a grasshopper? >> > > > > Haha - It's a grasshopper wearing a jail bird stripy outfit- haha.. > Actually, looks like p

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

Seems fine on this end, although I can't for the life of me figure out what the b&w image is that appears to be a grasshopper? Haha - It's a grasshopper wearing a jail bird stripy outfit- haha.. Actually, looks like people rowing - like they're supposed to be in motion. ( I think) -David *

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:29:27 -0400, Hope Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >So, I'd be very interested hear your comments. http://www.rowinghistory-aus.info/world-u23-championships/index.html Quick look in XP_SP2 at 1280 in Opera8.0 of the above page only: Seems fine on this end, although

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

On 28/4/05 8:46 PM, "Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only thing I really don't like is that when you click a link the top > menu disappears and the only way I can get it back is to click the Back > button. (I'm using IE6) If you click one of the links in the top green menu, it takes you

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

On 28/4/05 6:27 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2 errors in home page > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.rowinghistory-aus.info/world-u23- > championships/index.html Thanks for this. Just goes to show that I need to validate EACH time I make changes! Cheers Hope(

[WSG] site check please - Rowing History

TECTED] On Behalf Of Hope Stewart Sent: Thursday, 28 April 2005 1:29 PM To: Web Standards Group Subject: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History I've been working on a huge site for over a year and it still has a long way to go. Unfortunately, I had not heard about Web Standards until well afte

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

congrats, very nice design :) 2 errors in home page http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.rowinghistory-aus.info/world-u23-championships/index.html cheers Daniel http://www.gizax.it Hope Stewart wrote: I've been working on a huge site for over a year and it still has a long way to go. Unfort

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

Thanks Thierry for your detailed reply! I've implemented all your suggestions except the IE5/mac dropdowns -- I haven't had time to look at the suggested link yet, but I will. Regards, Hope On 28/4/05 2:27 PM, "Thierry Koblentz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ope Stewart wrote: >> comments. The d

Re: [WSG] site check please - Rowing History

Hope Stewart wrote: > comments. The design is very basic, but I've never claimed to be a > graphic designer! It looks nice (I'd use a darker green for body though) I think you *need* to include a skipnav link. > I have been unable to test the new pages in Opera/win and IE5/win, so > would be grat

[WSG] site check please - Rowing History

I've been working on a huge site for over a year and it still has a long way to go. Unfortunately, I had not heard about Web Standards until well after starting this site, but it's never too late! The latest section I'm about to add to the site is totally CSS and not a table in sight, except for t

Re: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de

I'd add -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guideline

Re: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de

Matthias Lotze schrieb: I've tested in several pc - browsers and on mac in IE and Safari. The Maybe these two articles provide you with the necessary solution: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/09/16/minheight_fi/ http://www.greywyvern.com/code/min-height-hack.html -- Greetings from Germany, J

Re: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de

pril 2005 5:17 PM >> To: WSG >> Subject: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de >> >> Hi there. >> >> We have recently launched http://verkehrsanwaelte.de . >> >> I've tested in several pc - browsers and on mac in IE and Safari. The &g

Re: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de

Subject: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de Hi there. We have recently launched http://verkehrsanwaelte.de . I've tested in several pc - browsers and on mac in IE and Safari. The problem in both is the lack support of min-height. I need the #container div to stretch on short

RE: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de

age- > From: Matthias Lotze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2005 5:17 PM > To: WSG > Subject: [WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de > > Hi there. > > We have recently launched http://verkehrsanwaelte.de . > > I've tested in s

[WSG] Site check -> http://verkehrsanwaelte.de

Hi there. We have recently launched http://verkehrsanwaelte.de . I've tested in several pc - browsers and on mac in IE and Safari. The problem in both is the lack support of min-height. I need the #container div to stretch on short sites to the bottom of the browser window. Anybody got an idea,

[WSG] site check please! - no frames and position-fixed

Hello all, I would really really like your feedback on this. I have now completed my investigations into emulating frames with overflow etc, and have settled instead on a very neat method which uses an expression for IE. The method is basically the one by Anne van Kesteren [1] and it's really qu

Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:54:54 +1100, Seona Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Laakso [] the fonts are much too small, that they go a little goofy on zoom in IE, Is that a great deal larger than what yo

Re: [WSG] Site Check and Mac Issues

Patrick, Looks good in Mac OSX running IE, Safari and Firefox On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:13:35 -0500, Patrick Haney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good morning everyone. I've been working on a redesign of my personal site > for a few weeks now and I'm almost at a finalized point in the layout, > h

[WSG] Site Check and Mac Issues

Good morning everyone. I've been working on a redesign of my personal site for a few weeks now and I'm almost at a finalized point in the layout, however I'm running into a few issues, most of which are on Mac browsers. The pages are both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS valid, though I haven'

RE: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of David Laakso > > And then along comes a *nit-picking bozzo,* still on the back of > the bus, > with XP_SP2, who finds that: Nit-picking is good. It helps me build better sites. Hopefully I can fix the p

Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:16:21 +1100, Seona Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *grin* Cool, thanks for the links. I'll have to check them out. I'm sure it will be much cheaper than buying a Mac. :) And then along comes a *nit-picking bozzo,* still on the back of the bus, with XP_SP2, who finds

RE: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

005 12:42 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House > > > > about Macs because I can't check there > > You can. > <http://www.browsercam.com/> > <http://danvine.com/icapture/> > > > buy a Mac as

Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

Exactly what happened to me :) Cheers Jeff Lowder Accessibility 1st Website: http://www.accessibility1st.com.au > From: Jan Brasna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:42:08 +0100 > To: > Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House >

Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

about Macs because I can't check there You can. buy a Mac as a testing machine. :) Not necessarily. BTW you'll end up with a testing PC and using Apple regularly :) -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: alphanumeric.cz | janbr

Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

All looks good now. Cheers Jeff Lowder Accessibility 1st Website: http://www.accessibility1st.com.au > From: Seona Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:20:49 +1100 > To: > Subject: RE: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House > > Hi Je

RE: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

owsers. > > Cheers > > Jeff Lowder > Accessibility 1st > Website: http://www.accessibility1st.com.au > > > > From: Seona Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: > > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:48:22 +1100 > > To: WSG List > > Subject: [W

Re: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:48:22 +1100 > To: WSG List > Subject: [WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House > > Hi guys, > > Can I have some people look over this site for me please? Especially Mac > users, since I don't have

[WSG] Site check (esp. Mac): One House

Hi guys, Can I have some people look over this site for me please? Especially Mac users, since I don't have a Mac to check it on but my client does (so I know she's going to comment on how it looks on a Mac). http://www.onehouseproductions.com Since I didn't have total control over the creation

[WSG] site check please

d'oh, normally I'm not this stupid, really :-[ here's the url: http://jellybean.uni.cc ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting h

[WSG] site check please

If it wouldn't be too much of a problem, I'd like it if someone checked my site. I've made all the pages valid code (last time I checked), but I'm not very knowledgeable about accessability issues and would like some suggestions on that. Thanks in advance, Alan Trick **

Re: [WSG] Site Check before lauch

Dennis The images below the "Contact Us" link need either: 1. border="0" added to each link or 2. add border: 0; to the css for the "imageright" class Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development & IT consultancy http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts http://www.bhatt.id.au/photos

[WSG] Site Check before lauch

My client has given me a green light to launch his redesigned site, but I'd appreciate a check from folks on different browsers and platforms. CSS and XHTML validate ... my first valid 'tableless' site ... so be kind. http://www.newdepartures.com/newdepart/index.html Thanks! If I have ever ma

Re: [WSG] Site check [www.stgauderic.net]

Mac running in 9.2 and IE 5.1.4 shows some small bugs. Attaching a screen shot of the problem areas ... specifically the slogan line and separation of menu from header. Hope this helps. <>

RE: [WSG] Site check www.stgauderic.net/en/

OK, understood. I'll try to be a lot more specific in future. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: 07 January 2005 11:49 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check www.stgauderic.net/en/ Chris T

Re: [WSG] Site check www.stgauderic.net/en/

Chris Taylor wrote: BrowserCam is great, but doesn't give you any help regarding useability - other pairs of eyes are what is needed. Before trying BrowserCam I also used to post to places like here and CSS-Discuss to get a wider range of browsers/OS tests and recommendations for fixing any CSS i

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >