On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:49:38 +1000, Gary Menzel wrote:
This looks very kewl - but, while I could cut and paste the stylesheet
into the Edit CSS window for FireFox, I could not get the bookmarklets
to work.
Hi Gary,
I found that you can't use a local style sheet for web-based pages.
So I made
I'm really thrilled to have launched my third xhtml site today. This one's
been nearly a year in the making, and it used old table-based layout
techniques at the start, and Ive had to build my own chopping cart, content
management system, and it's on its third go-round now even as it's opened.
I hope you are after honest opinions?
Personally I think the background in any of the buttons is to much and will make it
difficult to read for some people with disabilities.
On the front-page I think there is a lot of wasted space, the top banner has a lot of
white space that could be used.
Can I order a strangulation by proxy? ;o]
--
Cameron Adams
W: www.themaninblue.com
--- Taco Fleur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you come to the Web standards meeting tonight you
will have a chance to strangle me, and so will a lot
of other people...
For $199.90 you can..
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Launched my third xhtml site!!
Can I order a strangulation by proxy? ;o]
--
Cameron Adams
W: www.themaninblue.com
---
Good on you, Mike.
You've confessed before that you're not a designer, so you've done
reasonably well given that. (This is meant to sound encouraging!)
Just some quick comments:
* Instead of the grey bullets, which take up a lot of room on your
navigation elements, how about either scrapping
Hey - building a site using XHTML 1.1 and CSS and while I have the look
right in IE, Moz is screwing a few things up. While acceptable in a visual
sense, I can see the difference and want to minimize this and do it right
Also, what in XHTML 1.1 can I use to replace the lang=en-US attribute? I
Sorry bout that J
http://www.mosincorporated.com/site2/
Hey - building a site using
XHTML 1.1 and CSS and while I have the look right in IE, Moz is screwing a few
things up. While acceptable in a visual sense, I can see the
difference and want to minimize this and do it right
Ok Michael,
Rewrite www.seowebsitepromotion.com, making it appear as is, meeting 640,
800 and 1024+, windowed of not, whilst maintaining non
collapsing/overlapping columns whose alternate sheets 1px delimiting column
borders do not break at certain resolutions in certain browsers -- and I'll
take
Alan wrote:
page at the moment but I am interested in how it looks to you
guys.
It is a starting point and compared to my early attempts quite sucessful.
I have one thing I am struggling on - perhaps some of you know a good
resource that will help me understand this concept. The text
That's like the 'make your site accessible to handhelds' argument. In the
real world, nobody is going to access my site with a handheld because it
contains no relevant data.
Bold assumption. Does that mean that you are absolutely sure that
any person who might be potentially interested in the
Nick and Cameron,
Cheers guys - now working OK.
Alan
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
Hi Rimantas,
Bold assumption. Does that mean that you are absolutely sure that
any person who might be potentially interested in the content provided
on your site won't use handheld for browsing?
No, I'm not sure; I just don't care. I have not developed the site for them.
Once again, does that
Look at papers, magazines and websites. Columns, columns and columns. Can
these be easily achieved using current CSS?
Yes.
Because I need to look to the future.
Well, then we see different future. I see increasing usage of handheld browsers for
which one column is the best bet so far.
You are
Mine is different one and we both have arguments for them, so let's stop
here.
Good call, Rimantas.
Have a good one,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Rimantas Liubertas
Sent: 12 May 2004 13:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG]
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 12:33 +1000, Jake Badger wrote:
It's not as though if we hadn't had tables for layout we would
have sat around doing nothing. If it hadn't been for table layout
CSS would have been developed sooner and taken up a lot faster.
Assuming that the web would have been popular
I have seen some articles on the web that say we
shouldn't care about how our web sites look as long as theyuse valid mark
up language and separate content from presentation.
Personally I want to design web sites
that:-
1) Look good in standards compliant
browsers.
2) Degrade gracefully
On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Cameron Adams wrote:
Can I order a strangulation by proxy? ;o]
I wondered why he snuck in late, after we'd done the introductions!
g
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/
Brisbane, Australia
A short report, as its bloody late and I really should go to bed.
Tonight's first WSG meeting in Brisbane was a resounding success.
Thank you Tony, for your presentation. Your details of form layout,
your apps online and the ensuing discussion were interesting and
enlightening - looking forward
Alan,
What articles are you referring to?
Andrei Herasimchuk writes some excellent posts against this kind of
attitude at his site, Design By Fire (http://www.designbyfire.com/).
See for instance the now famous Design Matters
(http://www.designbyfire.com/59.html) or Gurus v. Bloggers,
Jeremy,
Can I copy your statement, paste it in Illustrator, make it prettty bold, and
post it here at work on the bulletin board? Please?!
Too many creatives here (at where I work) don't seem to understand this
concept...
thanks,
Zulema
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
! ! b
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 00:02 +1000, Lea de Groot wrote:
A short report, as its bloody late and I really should go to bed.
Tonight's first WSG meeting in Brisbane was a resounding success.
Ditto that, and the rest. Thanks to all involved. What a wonderful thing
it is to realise that there really
What articles are you referring to?
Well there's quite a few but here's one where the basic idea is right but I
find it just a tad idealistic:-
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/not_paper/
Alan
*
The discussion list for
It's frustrating as it can be very difficult to find information about
these things via Google.
Anyways, I'm getting alot of error messages when I validate - in
particular I'm getting messages like this:
7. Line 50, column 40: cannot generate system identifier for general
entity year
td
What it's trying to say is that you need to change your '' to the 'amp;'
entity in your URL's. The XHTML validator is trying to parse year, which
isn't valid. Check out this (Section C12) for more info:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
Will Chatham
-Original Message-
From:
Can I copy your statement, paste it in Illustrator, make it
prettty bold, and
post it here at work on the bulletin board? Please?!
You could, but then you'd just show that you haven't understood
the basic premise behind his statement...as you're effectively
trying to force a certain visual
sure, go ahead.
-
Jeremy Flint
www.jeremyflint.com
!!blue wrote:
Jeremy,
Can I copy your statement, paste it in Illustrator, make it prettty bold, and
post it here at work on the bulletin board? Please?!
Too many creatives here (at where I work) don't seem to understand this
concept...
Actually, I think it was Jeff Veen who mentioned something along those
lines at SXSW. Kind of stuck with me.
-
Jeremy Flint
www.jeremyflint.com
!!blue wrote:
Jeremy,
Can I copy your statement, paste it in Illustrator, make it prettty bold, and
post it here at work on the bulletin board?
El mié, 12-05-2004 a las 17:03, Vaska.WSG escribió:
7.Line 50, column 40: cannot generate system identifier for general
entity year
td class=calndrHdra
href=?month=4year=2004a=Homelaquo;/a/td
Oi vey, wondering what I'm doing with this stuff anymore...
Can somebody shed some light
Vaska,
The answer is simple. Your URLs contain ampersands (), which are a
character which cannot be used directly in HTML. Why? Because it's
used for entities, like amp; and copy; and #8212;.
Without boring you with the details, you need to use
?month=4amp;year=2004amp;a=Home, not
Thanks, all of this is just making more stupid by the second... ;)
On 12 May 2004, at 17:15, Chatham, Will wrote:
What it's trying to say is that you need to change your '' to the
'amp;'
entity in your URL's. The XHTML validator is trying to parse year,
which
isn't valid. Check out this
Alan
That article was written in 1999 as an intervention against the printed
page paradigm and to get desinegers to transition to CSS.
While John Allsopp does have some fairly strident views on web design*
which make for good discussions, based on the criterion you set out in
your first post,
Yes, but are there any really hard statistics about what the public is
doing. We know roughly 7% don't use or diable javascript. But what
about disabling styles?
On 12 May 2004, at 16:13, Jeremy Flint wrote:
On the web, you really have NO control over your site once it is
public. Users have
Thanks Justin,
It's clear to me. But what I can't figure out is why I've never
noticed this one before? Really...I'm just amazed this hasn't crossed
my path before...
It will probably only take a couple of hours to make all the changes,
not very much in the grand scheme of things...v
On 12
On 12/05/2004, at 11:03 PM, Alan Milnes wrote:
I have seen some articles on the web that say we shouldn't care about
how our web sites look as long as they use valid mark up language and
separate content from presentation.
Personally I want to design web sites that:-
1) Look good in
It's frustrating as it can be very difficult to find information about
these things via Google.
Anyways, I'm getting alot of error messages when I validate - in
particular I'm getting messages like this:
7. Line 50, column 40: cannot generate system identifier for general
entity year
td
Yes, but are there any really hard statistics about what the
public is
doing. We know roughly 7% don't use or diable javascript. But what
about disabling styles?
rant type=unfocussed rambling
Why is that relevant? Heck, it's almost like we're going back to the
old how many % of users
That article was written in 1999 as an intervention against the printed
page paradigm and to get desinegers to transition to CSS.
Sorry if I picked a bad example - have been reading a lot the last few days!
Justin French
Thanks for the feedback and encouragement Justin.
Alan
Thanks Hugh, Cameron, Taco for your thoughts on my site. I really
appreciate your going to the trouble to look for me and let me know what you
think. This is something that normally happens across a desk in a bigger
shop, but since I'm a one-man-band, I have no one but the client to ask
about
the meaning behind my statement was more to the fact that there are a
lot of different options for people to browse the web now. its not like
5 years ago when all people were using were computers with browsers.
now people are using cell phones, palm pilots, pocket pcs, etc. there
are screen
Good evening list,
My understanding is that an image _always_ needs a description for
accessibility purposes, even if the image is there for decorative
purposes and adds no important information to the page.
Now, somebody told me that, if the image is there purely for
It seems to me that too many people confuse Design with artwork or
colours, pictures the pretty stuff.But design goes a lot further
than that. Its to do with DOES IT DO THE JOB IT'S FOR?. A designer has
to take account of the medium hes designing for.
A designer for a magazine has to
Can anyone tell me what causes the table under Latest Results not to take
the whole 100% width of the div??
http://www.gameplan.org.uk/
http://www.gameplan.org.uk/styles/gplan.css
Thanks
Alan
*
The discussion list for
I have been following this thread and this is a wonderful answer.
Nancy Johnson
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mkear
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Design Philosophy
It seems to me that
Hi Luc,
It's my understanding that if you want the page to validate and pass
some basic 508 stuff, ALT tags must be present for any images that are
included in the page markup.
I have seen before (perhaps ALA?) that if the image is decorative a
simple null would surfice as an ALT tag.
I think
Hi Alan,
Try:
table width=100%
Brian
Alan Milnes wrote:
Can anyone tell me what causes the table under Latest Results not to take
the whole 100% width of the div??
http://www.gameplan.org.uk/
http://www.gameplan.org.uk/styles/gplan.css
Thanks
Alan
If the content of the image is not anything of meaning to someone who
can't see the image, then a simple alt= would suffice as it would
validate xhtml.
if the image has some sort of text in it (for instance, a menu item),
then an alt tag needs to be present. but what if the image is surrounded
In the (odd) case i'm right, is there some spec that states that an
image always needs a description?
The http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd requires an alt
attribute for images, and the HTML DTD shows a similar requirement:
!ELEMENT img EMPTY
!ATTLIST img
%attrs;
src
Good evening list,
Tnx to all who have answered. I'm a bit clear on it now :-)
--
Best regards,
Luc
http://www.dzinelabs.com
Powered by The Bat! version 1.63 Beta/7 with Windows 2000 (build
2195), version 5.0 Service Pack 4 and using the best browser: Opera.
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:06:46 -0400, Brian Foy wrote:
I have seen before (perhaps ALA?) that if the image is decorative a
simple null would surfice as an ALT tag.
Syntactivally, this should be implemented as:
img src=thingy.jpg width=nn height=nn alt=
ie, the alt attribute should be blank - a
Hi Mike,
I'm glad to hear you did not take the comments badly. It's always good to receive
criticism, it only improves your and everyone else's work, I know it does mine.
I understand what it is like to work with a client that puts in ideas that don't work
so well, its an art to guide them
...just starting a new thread on this one so it doesn't get mixed up in
the other one (forms labels etc).
Cheers
James
James
Do you know what percentage of people browsing the net use handhelds? I
have been unable to find any statistics on it, but suspect its a very
small number.
My mode of
Sorry about this everyone, flames to my address if you want. Trying again from scratch.
Cheers
James
James
Do you know what percentage of people browsing the net use handhelds? I
have been unable to find any statistics on it, but suspect its a very
small number.
My mode of
The latest in our series of WSG Ten question interviews. This time it is
Nick Finck.
Nick talks about Digital Web, structure, web standards, liquid layouts and
blogging:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/features/nick-finck.cfm
Thanks
Russ
The Australian Museum.
Australia's first - and leading -
On 13/05/2004, at 1:21 PM, Chris Blown wrote:
The paramount problem is not actually the technique that you use, or
which way is wrong / better, rather the problem is that varying degrees
of the standards are implemented in the swag of devices that are now
able to load our content. Add to this the
i have this layout http://204.157.1.128/~wadigi/index.html which seems
to work fine in every modern browser bar ie6 . the content div seems to
drop and the right side bar nav seems to be missing as well ...
any ideas ?
*
The discussion list
i am trying to center an element in the middle of the screen using
css...
when the browser resizes it moves into the new middle.
with tables i simple make a table 100% height and width.
then put a fixed width table inside it with postition set to centre
i can only find info on centering columns
and then in finding the quirksmode url I found this!
http://vmalek.murphy.cz/
Has anyone discovered any issues with this method?
-Original Message-
From: glenn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] centering an element
www.quirksmode.org/css/centering.html
seems that you need to use a table if you want vertical alignment that is consistent
across recent browsers. I haven't been able to do it without using a table either...
HTH.
-Original Message-
From: glenn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
59 matches
Mail list logo
