> label.submitbuttons input
...
> wonder if just
> .submitbuttons input
> would work?
Yep. This allows the "submitbuttons" class to be specified on any parent
element, not just a . On some pages you could use , on others
you could use , or you could use , etc.
These kind of "open" selectors can
Why doesn't anyone push the barrow saying "Font sizes should be LARGE by
default, and designers should MAKE THE FONT SMALLER if/when they don't like
it." Why do we aim to please designers and expect users to make the
adjustments? I don't get it. But then, I skipped all the subjects on
typography a
I wouldn't classify this as off topic, it's all part of the web environment
and standards (or lack thereof) of real practical cases are all part of the
discussion!
imho.
I have heard it is possible to configure a webserver in a way that when
someone accesses a PDF/DOC (whatever file types have b
I've had some issues with validating XHTML with divs in a form. The "not
allowed here" message.
Anyone else get that?
Cheers
Jame
Ben Boyle wrote:
label.submitbuttons input
...
wonder if just
.submitbuttons input
would work?
Yep. This allows the "submitbuttons" class to be specifie
I'm probably a little late on the ball with
this one, but couldn't you escape the ? characters?
Like so:
print "<\?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"iso-8859-1\"\?>\n";
Don't see why that wouldn't work. Of course it's almost the same
thing...
never mind. :)
Beau Lebens wrote:
that's
Miles,
Generally when serving PDF type document at my place of work, we serve
them using a custom HTTP header:
header( "content-disposition: inline" );
(that's the PHP way to do it).
This works for us because we serve most of our documents as BLOBs from
the database. If you're not doing that,
While we're on the topic of text sizes,
what does everyone here think of DOM driven style-switchers? (ala
http://www.mezzoblue.com/ and http://www.zeldman.com/)?
I'm thinking that it's possible people will miss these resizing buttons.
What's the general opinion on these?
Good idea? Maybe tryin
I just visited the web site of Gramophone magazine, looking for a CD
review. I'm using Safari - the buttons on the site don't work, they're
all just # links.
I've looked in the source code and am wondering why they don't work
before I email them and let them know. Any guesses it might be a case
I've used something similar on two sites under development
(http://www.sarahboak.co.uk and http://homepage.mac.com/artistry/adc)
but have gone for the text-based link approach. I'd like to use
graphics but find that nothing really sums up the concept better than
saying "make text bigger".
On 1
Hi Jonathon,
It has dynamic menus that you're not getting in Safari.
A good illustration of not testing (or caring about) cross platform
compatibility.
This is also a good time to point out that if you use these types of dynamic
menus, you must point the initial link to a meaningful address (a p
Looks like they are using Javascript to launch links. Doesn't work in
Firebird. Venkman gives it a big thumbs down.
"Error: document.newsnav has no properties
Source File: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/inc/navnn.js.asp
Line: 68"
The JS file has an ASP extension.
Gotta love those spacer gifs.
Chee
It's broken. The menu uses Javascript to dynamically create fly-out
menus. It doesn't work in my Mac/Safari 1.1 nor Win/Firebird 0.7. It
does work in Win/IE 6
Without delving, I would hazard a guess that IE specific JS statements
are disabling the menu.
Cheers,
Ben
Jonathan Baldwin wrote:
I j
On the topic of drop down menus, i've found Ben Boyle's menus to be extremely useful:
http://inspire.server101.com/js/mb/mb.html
I think Ben's a member of this list, too.
The menus are built with plaint text, list items, CSS and a little javascript and seem
to work very well cross browser, in
Interesting article on using fixed width design for sites:
http://www.notestips.com/80256B3A007F2692/1/TAIO-5TT34F
He makes a good point:
"Limiting the page width is about maximising readability. The more
words there are on a line, the further the eye has to travel back to the
beginning, and
It is a debate raging around the web at present. There are other options
that solve this problem:
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/em/
Russ
>
> Interesting article on using fixed width design for sites:
> http://www.notestips.com/80256B3A007F2692/1/TAIO-5TT34F
>
> He makes a good point
Can I just say something???
yes.
It has nothing to do with the article itself.
I really can't stand urls like http://www.notestips.com/80256B3A007F2692/1/TAIO-5TT34F
The only way you can access them are via a search engine or book mark, no one will
actually remember a url like this, it is not a
Taco Fleur wrote:
Can I just say something???
yes.
It has nothing to do with the article itself.
I really can't stand urls like http://www.notestips.com/80256B3A007F2692/1/TAIO-5TT34F
The only way you can access them are via a search engine or book mark, no one will
actually remember a url like
russ weakley wrote:
It is a debate raging around the web at present. There are other options
that solve this problem:
FWIW, a few weeks ago I created a layout with EMs as base unit. I've set
min- and max-widths for better readability.
http://www.webproducer.at/flexible-layout
Tonico
--
Tonico
> The only way you can access them are via a search engine or book mark,
no one will actually remember a url like this, it is not
> accessibile!
"accessible" means that the content can be navigated, read and understood
by the largest number of users.
For me personally, a URL can be as cryptic as
Hey Taco
>Is this something for "Standards" or out of scope?
Russ has this idea that there are 4 pillars of web standards:
- validity
- semantics
- separation of presentation & content
- accessibility
To my mind that last one generally refers to people with disabilities &
people using dodgy har
I think that even if the page name is cryptic that the directory
structure should be built on logic - often you can guess one or two
levels of the directory structure and really focus in on your area of
interest. Surely this improves ease of navigation and therefore
accessibility?
As for the book
Now for the classic: What if you're in a internet cafe and you don't remember the url?
Personally I *try* and keep the url clean and easy to remember
[domain] / [object/function] / [key/id]
-Original Message-
From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 12 December 2003 10:
Hey Mark,
I'm glad to see you could put to words what I could not.
I totally agree with you, I like how you brought the status codes in the picture, it
has been something I started working on at some stage, but like most personal projects
I'd let it get dusty.
---
Yes! I really think
I agree. I've long advocated easy to remember URLs because, although
most of "us" do as Gary says and get URLs directly from email, I've
observed that a *lot* of users don't know that they can copy URLs from
the browser so type them out when passing them on, or do it verbally,
so it is importan
I don't suppose we're actually 'serving' the PDF or DOC as such, in that we only link
to the file. As we have no control over the header of the file, the user's OS will
handle it however it is configured to. Herein lies the problem...
-Original Message-
From: Bradley Wright [mailto:[E
That's fine for power users, but 99% of users can't navigate up and
down directories, I would guess. As an experiment, imagine a site with
no navigation, but all pages were accessible by typing in the url of,
at least, the enclosing directory. How many people would be able to do
it - even havin
> Now for the classic: What if you're in a internet cafe and you don't
remember the url?
My response to that is that the Internet does not support "portability" of
your personal configuration information properly.
This is what I think needs to be addressed - not what a URL actually is or
isn't.
If I had a dollar for everytime that I had given some a www-less URL verbally and
they've just entered www. blah out of habit, I'd be a millionaire!
Ubergeek:
"Ok, enter the URL 'news.google.com'"
N00b:
[enters www.news.google.com]
Ubergeek:
"No, no no, no WWW!"
N00b:
"news.google.com, withou
I hope it's not stupid, but how about the ol' "Right-click" and "Save as"?
I haven't followed this whole post, but I know it annoys the hell out of me when I
click a link and it opens up a new window and starts adobe acrobat (in the browser),
starts loading the file, and consumes all my system
Just some examples:
2 I actually type in from memory pretty often:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/
http://www.macromedia.com/coldfusion/ (which actually redirects to
/software/coldfusion/ - very nice)
and an interesting concept - each item/object has a unique keyword - tack
.html on the end and its
If you are using Apache you could force a download for these file types
instead of opening the file. When the user clicks on the link the
download box will pop up.
This'd be my preference...
Cheers
James
Miles Tillinger wrote:
I don't suppose we're actually 'serving' the PDF or DOC as su
Hi Gary,
you always have wise words, so I'd like to know what it is and why you are expecting?
--
Over time, I am expecting we will find that the URL itself doesn't matter as much as
it is made to at the moment.
*
The discussion li
Any
more info on this?
Doesn't it work the same as sending proper headers?
-Original Message-From: James Ellis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, 12 December 2003
11:04 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG]
OT: Opening documents in _blank windowIf you are using
A
"If you are using Apache you could force a download for these file types
instead of opening the file. When the user clicks on the link the download
box will pop up."
Same thing can be done with CF & /
Cheers
Mark
--
Mark Stanton
Technical Director
Gruden Pty Ltd
Tel: 9956 638
If you force a user to save the file locally instead of
opening it in the manner in which their browser is set up to handle it you're
taking away their control of default behaviours. I really recommend against
this. Let the browser handle it. If they have only the Acrobat Reader, a
PDF will
You could always tell them to enter
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In Internet Explorer, that'd really freak them out.
http://www.secunia.com/internet_explorer_address_bar_spoofing_test/
Now tell me that IE is a secure browser...
CHeers
James
Miles Tillinger wrote:
If I had a dollar for everytime tha
> Over time, I am expecting we will find that the URL itself doesn't
matter as much as it is made to at the moment.
I was trying to say that URL's/URI's are not really for humans.
The URN (Uniform Resrouce Name) is what we are actually talking about.
This is a specific form of a URI that is pers
If you force a user to save the file locally instead of opening it in the
manner in which their browser is set up to handle it you're taking away their
control of default behaviours. I really recommend against this. Let the browser
handle it. If they have only the Acrobat Reader, a PDF
will
You and me both. My .mac homepage address has no www - but people
automatically ask if I've missed it off when I tell them it.
I suppose if the web were more forgiving then it wouldn't matter if you
typed www or not. Like getting the post code wrong or missing it off -
takes a little longer to g
Of course, if you're on a Mac and use iSync, then your URLs move from
computer to computer when you log in and, if you have to use a PC,
they're stored on a web page for you, updated each time you
synchronise. A simple thing, but truly marvellous, and built in to the
OS.
Most URLs are autofill
We must remember the origin of the "Home Page". This was the page that your
old Unix shell account browser saved their bookmarks to (the two I used to
use were "lynx" and I believe the other was simply "www"). This page was (by
default) the index document in your account directory
(whatever.com/use
>>
Anyway what I am talking about includes all the little things that give a
site real "polish", things like:
- guessable/memorable URLs,
- site structure (logical connection of content),
- use of hyperlinks in the text,
- googlability or search engine friendliness
- tabbing between elements
- f
do people still use bookmarks?
For myself, only rarely. I recently read a post on a search engine list
(I-Search, very good if you're looking for something on the topic) where it
was suggested that people do not bookmark/remember URLs as often these days
because it's so straightforward to just go
Yes my firebird links toolbar looks like:
- AClientName
- a few links to tools relating to a client's stuff
- Surf
- links to various surf & weather reports
- Boards
- various discussion boards
- To Read
44 matches
Mail list logo
