Re: [WSG] newbie with popup menus question
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:06:27 -0700, Devendra Shrikhande [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Till now I have been using Fireworks to create popup menus for web sites. Just saw this, looks like there were never any replies... Devendra, if you're still listening, Fireworks menus are actually really bad, accessibility-wise and from a web standards perspective. I would highly recommend checking out the Suckerfish menus - http://www.htmldog.com/articles/suckerfish/dropdowns/ - they're simple, lightweight, search engine friendly and all round fantastic. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.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 **
[WSG] Mac IE frustrating my mind - some help would be nize
Hi all! I have been fighting now for several hours with Mac IE 5.1.4 on OS X 10.1.5. You can find the public screenshots via browserCam: http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=133206 (The first pic shows the error) I have used Mark Lynch CSS/List based navigation (http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic2/horizontal02.htm) and some basic floats. For my frustration I changed some floats to basic 2x2 table to find the error, but still the error remains. The url to project and CSS can be found via the screenshots All help is appreciated :) Yours, Antti Tuppurainen System Specialist, Timecan Finland | http://www.timecan.fi ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Standards?
Good Day everyone: I have been doing the annual maintenance/update of a Holiday Home letting site I've had for a few years, so this year I attempted to convert it all to standards. It is now XHTML1 /CSS and most of it validates. (I say most because there is a bit of Flash and some of it uses frames). I have kept a couple of 'naughty' tables (as yet) because I simply haven't managed to convert to a stable/reliable alternative, but overall I was quite pleased with it. Anyway, as I had recently installed Firefox on the PC's in the office of this holiday business, I decided to show the owner how wonderful the update was [ :-) ]. I explained about standards to this (non-technical) person and, using Firefox developer's toolbar, I showed her the abysmal results of validating the sites of her competitors, and she was obviously pleased. She seemed to understand the basis of 'standards', but after a few minutes reflection she said: I can appreciate that I am getting a 'quality' product, but from a practical point of view, what am I getting that improves my business? As far as visitors to my site are concerned there seems to be no advantage - after all, my competitor's sites may well be outdated, but they do actually WORK, so my customers don't see any benefit. Thought I'd pass this on . . . :-) Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] IE6- XML CSS white-space pre not honored
Thanks Iva,
well with xlink not honored aswell
seems like a bad idea doing XML+CSS directly anyway...
- Original Message -
From:
Iva
Koberg
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:09
AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] IE6- XML CSS
white-space pre not honored
BBsound wrote:
IE6 doesn't honor the CSS {white-space: pre;}
as it does with HTML.
Would any body have a work
around?I have had similar unpredictable results
with white space in CSS and IE rendering. One work around is to pretty print
(new lines and indent) your source (X)HTML as opposed to removing white space
in the source. best,Iva.
RE: [WSG] Standards?
Hi, Bob There's so many ways to argue and defend the pros of doing XHTML and CSS layout! First, it reduces bandwidth, it saves time (and therefore money ;-) in maintenance and updating, it is flexible and reusable. Take a look at http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html. There's a very good and simple exposition of why using standards are a good thing (specially a part Go get your boss, that gives you the right arguments to explain that to your bosses). Good luck! Ge Ricci -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de designer Envoy : mardi 1 fvrier 2005 10:58 : webstandards group Objet : [WSG] Standards? Good Day everyone: I have been doing the annual maintenance/update of a Holiday Home letting site I've had for a few years, so this year I attempted to convert it all to standards. It is now XHTML1 /CSS and most of it validates. (I say most because there is a bit of Flash and some of it uses frames). I have kept a couple of 'naughty' tables (as yet) because I simply haven't managed to convert to a stable/reliable alternative, but overall I was quite pleased with it. Anyway, as I had recently installed Firefox on the PC's in the office of this holiday business, I decided to show the owner how wonderful the update was [ :-) ]. I explained about standards to this (non-technical) person and, using Firefox developer's toolbar, I showed her the abysmal results of validating the sites of her competitors, and she was obviously pleased. She seemed to understand the basis of 'standards', but after a few minutes reflection she said: I can appreciate that I am getting a 'quality' product, but from a practical point of view, what am I getting that improves my business? As far as visitors to my site are concerned there seems to be no advantage - after all, my competitor's sites may well be outdated, but they do actually WORK, so my customers don't see any benefit. Thought I'd pass this on . . . :-) Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] Standards?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:57:46 -, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can appreciate that I am getting a 'quality' product, but from a practical point of view, what am I getting that improves my business? As far as visitors to my site are concerned there seems to be no advantage - after all, my competitor's sites may well be outdated, but they do actually WORK, so my customers don't see any benefit. The advantages are geared towards both the business-owner and the user: - lower bandwidth intensive/cheaper to host (probably not an issue for your particular client) and also faster-loading for the end user - easier to update/redesign in the future - more accessible (presumably, depending on what was replaced) - *perhaps* more search engine friendly (again, depends what was replaced) - forwards-compatible, browser-wise - available to a wider audience of browser-users What's not to like? :) Zeldman's book talks about each of these ideas at length. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.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] Standards?
Here is some comments she might like ;) http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000266.php http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/ Kind Regards Jacobus van Niekerk Creative Consultant web: http://www.catics.com/ | http://www.freelancecontractors.com tel: + 27 21 982 7805 This e-mail message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom or the entity to which it is addressed. All the contents and any attachments remain the property of Catics Ltd unless so stated. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from reading, copying, using or disclosing this message to others. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail or by telephoning +27 21 9827805 and thereafter delete the message. Catics Ltd does not accept liability for any personal views expressed in this message. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of designer Sent: 01 February 2005 11:58 AM To: webstandards group Subject: [WSG] Standards? Good Day everyone: I have been doing the annual maintenance/update of a Holiday Home letting site I've had for a few years, so this year I attempted to convert it all to standards. It is now XHTML1 /CSS and most of it validates. (I say most because there is a bit of Flash and some of it uses frames). I have kept a couple of 'naughty' tables (as yet) because I simply haven't managed to convert to a stable/reliable alternative, but overall I was quite pleased with it. Anyway, as I had recently installed Firefox on the PC's in the office of this holiday business, I decided to show the owner how wonderful the update was [ :-) ]. I explained about standards to this (non-technical) person and, using Firefox developer's toolbar, I showed her the abysmal results of validating the sites of her competitors, and she was obviously pleased. She seemed to understand the basis of 'standards', but after a few minutes reflection she said: I can appreciate that I am getting a 'quality' product, but from a practical point of view, what am I getting that improves my business? As far as visitors to my site are concerned there seems to be no advantage - after all, my competitor's sites may well be outdated, but they do actually WORK, so my customers don't see any benefit. Thought I'd pass this on . . . :-) Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 2005/01/28 ** 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] Standards?
Kay Smoljak wrote: On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:57:46 -, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can appreciate that I am getting a 'quality' product, but from a practical point of view, what am I getting that improves my business? As far as visitors to my site are concerned there seems to be no advantage - after all, my competitor's sites may well be outdated, but they do actually WORK, so my customers don't see any benefit. The advantages are geared towards both the business-owner and the user: - lower bandwidth intensive/cheaper to host (probably not an issue for your particular client) and also faster-loading for the end user - easier to update/redesign in the future - more accessible (presumably, depending on what was replaced) - *perhaps* more search engine friendly (again, depends what was replaced) - forwards-compatible, browser-wise - available to a wider audience of browser-users Jacobus van Niekerk wrote: Here is some comments she might like ;) http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000266.php http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/ Ok - playing devil's advocate a bit :) I think it's pretty much a waste of time explaining standards and arguing standards to someone like your client. And that's not meant as a put-down of them. Try it - watch their eyes glaze as you show how the competitors' sites don't validate. They shouldn't have to care about standards. They shouldn't have to know about standards. Their time is too short, they're too busy running their business. Just build a standards-compliant site as something you do as a matter of course. I don't see any reason not to do that. We have no more need to explain this to a client than an electrican needs to explain to me the standards they work to. I assume they are there somewhere, and I expect they will work to them. Mike ** 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] Standards?
Try it - watch their eyes glaze as you show how the competitors' sites don't validate. Of course if you talk them about it in terms of standards and validation and doctypes they are going to get bored and stop listening. The overall language and structure of Russ's article is not appropriate for client (sorry Russ) and I don't think its meant to be. Its aimed at us developers. Read that Adaptive Path article - or just read the headings: - Speed Development - Simplify Maintenance, Increase Opportunity - Open Up Access Options - Reduce Bandwidth Costs - Improve User Experience Whats there for a client not to like? I think we probably agree here - the technical detail of hows it done is your problem, not theirs. They just want to know about the end result in practical terms they can understand. -- Mark Stanton Gruden Pty Ltd http://www.gruden.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 **
[WSG] Quick h1,h2 etc question
Title: Quick h1,h2 etc question Hi, I'm sure this has been asked time and time again and is probably a daft question, but which is the proper way to use header tags? Thanks in advance for your patience and help! Jamie Is it... = 1) All headers must be used in order only, so most important headers go at the top then grade downwards with less important headers always being lower down = h1/h1 h2/h2 h2/h2 h3/h3 h4/h4 h4/h4 ..etc = Or = 2) With the exception of h1 used once, can you set the headers out loosely in the same tree structure lists are set out in? So h3 would only be used as a child (but not nested within) of an h2, h4 as a child of h3 etc? Then reading downwards through the headers, you're allowed to move backwards say from an h3, back to an h2? I'm not sure how to explain my question, but basically I think, can you define tree structures with headers? or do they have to be used in an ordered numerical hierarchy? = h1/h1 h2/h2 h3/h3 h3/h3 h2/h2 h3/h3 h3/h3 h4/h4 h4/h4 h2/h2
Re: [WSG] Standards?
They shouldn't have to care about standards. They shouldn't have to know about standards. Their time is too short, they're too busy running their business. Just build a standards-compliant site as something you do as a matter of course. I don't see any reason not to do that. We have no more need to explain this to a client than an electrican needs to explain to me the standards they work to. I assume they are there somewhere, and I expect they will work to them. Mike I'd agree with this. Standards and Best Practices are important - but if it's the only thing you can talk to your client about you might be in a bit of trouble. Clients are interested in results, in ROI and the like. Sure, you can mention standards-complientness (hey! new word) but if your whole pitch revolves around standards your client just won't be that interested. -- Jason Foss http://www.almost-anything.com.au http://www.waterfallweb.net Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia ** 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] Quick h1,h2 etc question
I can't see any problems with your second example in theory - but it's an impossible question to answer without content. Remember that (X)HTML elements are supposed to describe or explain (for want of better words) the content that they are marking up. So there aren't any rules as to how header tags should nest or be ordered, for it depends completely on how you've laid out your content. My 2 bob's worth, anyway! ;-) On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:11:57 -, Jamie Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm sure this has been asked time and time again and is probably a daft question, but which is the proper way to use header tags? Thanks in advance for your patience and help! Jamie Is it... = 1) All headers must be used in order only, so most important headers go at the top then grade downwards with less important headers always being lower down = h1/h1 h2/h2 h2/h2 h3/h3 h4/h4 h4/h4 ..etc = Or = 2) With the exception of h1 used once, can you set the headers out loosely in the same tree structure lists are set out in? So h3 would only be used as a child (but not nested within) of an h2, h4 as a child of h3 etc? Then reading downwards through the headers, you're allowed to move backwards say from an h3, back to an h2? I'm not sure how to explain my question, but basically I think, can you define tree structures with headers? or do they have to be used in an ordered numerical hierarchy? = h1/h1 h2/h2 h3/h3 h3/h3 h2/h2 h3/h3 h3/h3 h4/h4 h4/h4 h2/h2 -- Jason Foss http://www.almost-anything.com.au http://www.waterfallweb.net Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia ** 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] Quick h1,h2 etc question
Jamie Mason wrote: Hi, I'm sure this has been asked time and time again and is probably a daft question, but which is the proper way to use header tags? Thanks in advance for your patience and help! Depends on what you want to optimize. Tonico ** 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] Quick h1,h2 etc question
G'day Think of the headings as a collapsible outline, with sections and sub-sections, each with a heading of the *appropriate* level. Collapse it (as one can do in Word for instance) and you should see an outline made up of headings that makes sense. Each h2 belongs to a sub-section of the main h1. Each h3 belongs to a sub-sub-section under the h2. And so on. You can have multiple h2's each with multiple h3's etc. That means... Your second version. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** 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] Quick h1,h2 etc question
Have to remember that search engines will read the contents of header tags so i think best way is for heading text, titles etc. For list headings i think it would be easier to using a seperate style. The second option i think is the better way to go though, just for organization and nice and clean and structured. Thats what i think anyway :) On 01/02/2005, at 8:11 PM, Jamie Mason wrote: Hi, I'm sure this has been asked time and time again and is probably a daft question, but which is the proper way to use header tags? Thanks in advance for your patience and help! Jamie Is it... = 1) All headers must be used in order only, so most important headers go at the top then grade downwards with less important headers always being lower down = h1>/h1> h2>/h2> h2>/h2> h3>/h3> h4>/h4> h4>/h4> ..etc = Or = 2) With the exception of h1 used once, can you set the headers out loosely in the same tree structure lists are set out in? So h3 would only be used as a child (but not nested within) of an h2, h4 as a child of h3 etc? Then reading downwards through the headers, you're allowed to move backwards say from an h3, back to an h2? I'm not sure how to explain my question, but basically I think, can you define tree structures with headers? or do they have to be used in an ordered numerical hierarchy? = h1>/h1> h2>/h2> h3>/h3> h3>/h3> h2>/h2> h3>/h3> h3>/h3> h4>/h4> h4>/h4> h2>/h2>
Re: [WSG] Standards?
Hi All, Everyone has had something sensible to say, but it's interesting to play Devil's advocate with Mark's list: - Speed Development Hey - she'll be expecting me to reduce my prices next year! :-) - Simplify Maintenance, Increase Opportunity Ditto! - Open Up Access Options OK - Reduce Bandwidth Costs Not relevant - small site, with folk increasingly being on a high speed line. Here in UK (where it's called Broadband) the user pays a standard fee, no matter how much/how long he/she uses it. (that's for small/simple sites, of course) - Improve User Experience How? Speed? Broadband again - makes it MUCH less of an issue. Whats there for a client not to like? Turning that on it's head, what's left for a client to get excited about? I think we probably agree here - the technical detail of hows it done is your problem, not theirs. They just want to know about the end result in practical terms they can understand. Yeah, absolutely. That's the bottom line. Just thought I'd share the conversation for interest/provocation. Regards, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] MSN redesign
Anybody else notice that MSN.com now uses CSS? Can't say I'm impressed with the design, but with the money that Microsoft is investing to try and compete with Google, the new MSN search (and MSN.com) is going to get some serious attention. Like Yahoo's redesign, MSN's will continue to show that CSS (and standards in general) is on the rise, and something that is to be encouraged in hiring a web desginer. -- ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter ** 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] IE layout issues
Hi Darren, In addition to what was said by other guys, a few general comments: (1) Home and Products links in the right menu point to the same page. I think it is confusing. (2) Cursor shape should change when hovered over the link to the current page to create appearance that it is not clickable. (3) Links in the footer are almost invisible. Also, they should change in color, or background, or underline when hovered over. (4) Default font is quite small. Difficult to read. On Home page you have about 1/3 of the screen empty. There is plenty of space to make font bigger. Cheers, Irina. [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:08:16 +1300, Darren Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list-o-geeks, I've recently designed (and partially built) an online store. Its in its 'soft launch' phase as there are some issues with IE. None of the developers (including me) have a windows machine available to test on IE, etc... Would you guys mind having a look at http://champion.net.nz and let me know of any massive differences between firefox and IE (possible solutions would be a god-send!) The style sheet I'm worrying about is: http://champion.net.nz/default.css Thanks in advance. Darren ps - i'm aware of actual bugs in the cart/store etc. Those are being sorted before the css issues. pps - i'm lazy, I know... ** 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] MSN redesign
I just found Doug Bowman's well-written blog entry about it. http://tinyurl.com/5xyey ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter on 2/1/2005 12:49 PM john said the following: Anybody else notice that MSN.com now uses CSS? Can't say I'm impressed with the design, but with the money that Microsoft is investing to try and compete with Google, the new MSN search (and MSN.com) is going to get some serious attention. Like Yahoo's redesign, MSN's will continue to show that CSS (and standards in general) is on the rise, and something that is to be encouraged in hiring a web desginer. ** 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] Standards?
Hey Bob Hey - she'll be expecting me to reduce my prices next year! :-) Yeah well these two ways to approach it - give her more for less because of the efficiency gains hope you benefit in terms of greater customer respect/loyalty or stuff around doing things the hard way so you can spend enough yours to give her a big bill. Each to their own :) Not relevant - small site, with folk increasingly being on a high speed line. Here in UK (where it's called Broadband) the user pays a standard fee, no matter how much/how long he/she uses it. (that's for small/simple sites, of course) You haven't used dial up in a while yet have you? What percentage of your users would you say are on broadband vs dial up at the moment? And in two years? - Improve User Experience How? Speed? Broadband again - makes it MUCH less of an issue. No I think this is talking about general usability improvements. Case in point - today I was sitting in a meeting room, with the sun streaming in, demoing an app on a projector to some collegues - I couldn't read the stuff up on the screen properly so I bumped the font size - everything still looked worked ok. The sites I was building 3 years ago were not that flexible. Turning that on it's head, what's left for a client to get excited about? A lot IMHO. Yeah, absolutely. That's the bottom line. Just thought I'd share the conversation for interest/provocation. No worries mate - enjoy a good civil arguement (especially when I'm right :) -- Mark Stanton Gruden Pty Ltd http://www.gruden.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] Standards?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:44:21 -, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Reduce Bandwidth Costs Not relevant - small site, with folk increasingly being on a high speed line. Here in UK (where it's called Broadband) the user pays a standard fee, no matter how much/how long he/she uses it. (that's for small/simple sites, of course) On large sites this is very important. See Throwing tables out of the window on stopdesign.net or if you have cheap hosting and get slashdotted, you'd survive a little longer ;D - Improve User Experience How? Speed? Broadband again - makes it MUCH less of an issue. But still smaller pages seem to be more responsive. Even on broadband I can see the difference, especially when table-based layouts jump while loading. Various sorces say that broadband users are only 30-50% of net population. -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] MSN redesign
Great, glad to see Microsoft getting out the closet and embracing web standards! Now lets hope they upgrade all the other MS sites. If so, I'll start to believe in MS again, as a forward thinking company, that works with us and not against. Kind Regards Jacobus van Niekerk Creative Consultant web: http://www.catics.com/ | http://www.freelancecontractors.com tel: + 27 21 982 7805 Anybody else notice that MSN.com now uses CSS? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 2005/01/28 ** 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] Quick h1,h2 etc question
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lea de Groot Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:18 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Quick h1,h2 etc question On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:11:57 -, Jamie Mason wrote: 2) With the exception of h1 used once, can you set the headers out loosely in the same tree structure lists are set out in? This is the way I use it. I think option 1) would be very inefficient - documents just aren't structured like that. warmly, Lea -- ** Or you could refer to the specs (mostly to restate the issue not resolve it): A heading element briefly describes the topic of the section it introduces. Heading information may be used by user agents, for example, to construct a table of contents for a document automatically. And just to interject an element of contention there is this as well: Numbered sections and references HTML does not itself cause section numbers to be generated from headings. This facility may be offered by user agents, however. Soon, style sheet languages such as CSS will allow authors to control the generation of section numbers (handy for forward references in printed documents, as in See section 7.2). Some people consider skipping heading levels to be bad practice. They accept H1 H2 H1 while they do not accept H1 H3 H1 since the heading level H2 is skipped. The discussion centers around whether or not each page should have an h1, can there be more than one h1 per page, and should skipping be tolerated? It's a fun Gordian knot. drew ** 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] Standards?
Return Receipt Your RE: [WSG] Standards? document : was Juli Waddell/OTPPB received by: at: 02/01/2005 08:33:40 AM ** 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] MSN redesign
sarcasm Nice of them to continue support for Mac IE. /sarcasm mike 2k:)2 marqueeblink e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk /marquee/blink ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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] MSN redesign
I like it, but it leaves room to improve. They are a large company and even I can do better than that. It is nice to see that they are using standards though, not enough sites do that. On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:31:30 -, Mike Foskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sarcasm Nice of them to continue support for Mac IE. /sarcasm mike 2k:)2 marqueeblink e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk /marquee/blink ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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 ** -- Anthony Timberlake Owner - StaticHost Internet Services http://www.statichost.co.uk http://www.spikeradio.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] avoid Skip link in search results?
I don't like putting Skip to main content or Skip to navigation link, because they can be seen in search results. I thought about replacing it with or something that won't contain keywords and won't go in the way in search results, but that probably is a killer for screen readers. Do you know a good way to place this link? -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] avoid Skip link in search results?
Kornel Lesinski wrote: I don't like putting Skip to main content or Skip to navigation link, because they can be seen in search results. I thought about replacing it with or something that won't contain keywords and won't go in the way in search results, but that probably is a killer for screen readers. Do you know a good way to place this link? I put the skip link after the tagline if needed. Company Name - Tagline Skip to content. Tonico ** 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] avoid Skip link in search results?
I dont bother with them either Kornel. I know they seem to be the best option for screenreaders. although I have found it is and would be best to simply keep your navigation short and quick. That of course depends on the type of website. But is it really necessary to have a million links in the header. Also last time this was brought up, someone mentioned putting the navigation LAST and Absolute positioning it to the top...? I dont remember who said that. The problem you are mentioning shoudlnt be a problem with any of the more advanced search engines, because they show the snippet that matches the search result... So unless they searched for Skip To Content. They wont see that little snippet. Cheers Kornel Lesinski wrote: I don't like putting Skip to main content or Skip to navigation link, because they can be seen in search results. I thought about replacing it with or something that won't contain keywords and won't go in the way in search results, but that probably is a killer for screen readers. Do you know a good way to place this link? -- Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neester.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.3 - Release Date: 31/01/2005 ** 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] Kaosweaver Complete CSS Menu - accessible or not?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.kaosweaver.com/extensions/details.php?id=76 Hi I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this extension and whether it is fully accessible etc as it looks like it could be quite a time saver. Hi Helen, I'm biased on this, but I'd like to point out what I think is the best feature of this menu re: accessibility. This CSS menu allows the use of tabs images as background-images for the list items, so it is possible to increase or decrease text-size and have the Tabs expand or contract to always fit the size of the navigation links. Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates compatible NN4.7 - | CSS Popups | CSS Tabs | CSS Dropdown Menus | Articles and Tutorials | ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Quick h1,h2 etc question
Title: Quick h1,h2 etc question Hi, I'm sure this has been asked time and time again and is probably a daft question, but which is the proper way to use header tags? Thanks in advance for your patience and help! Jamie Is it... = 1) All headers must be used in order only, so most important headers go at the top then grade downwards with less important headers always being lower down = h1/h1 h2/h2 h2/h2 h3/h3 h4/h4 h4/h4 ..etc = Or = 2) With the exception of h1 used once, can you set the headers out loosely in the same tree structure lists are set out in? So h3 would only be used as a child (but not nested within) of an h2, h4 as a child of h3 etc? Then reading downwards through the headers, you're allowed to move backwards say from an h3, back to an h2? I'm not sure how to explain my question, but basically I think, can you define tree structures with headers? or do they have to be used in an ordered numerical hierarchy? = h1/h1 h2/h2 h3/h3 h3/h3 h2/h2 h3/h3 h3/h3 h4/h4 h4/h4 h2/h2
[WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default state of a group of radio buttons is? Let me use a current, specific example. In a form I'm writing I have one set of radio buttons. The current options are 'Home', or 'Agency'. The radio button is meant to designate what type of mailing address the customer has provided. Right now I've got neither option being defaulted to. I know that radio buttons should have exactly one option chosen at all times, but in this case it doesn't make sense to add a third option of 'None', or have the group default to one option or the other. How should I handle this? Should I bite the bullet and have the options default to one of the options (both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past)? Or maybe I should go to a drop down list with three options? 1. '-', 2. 'Home', 3. 'Agency' Your feedback is appreciated. Chris. ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
I think it's the good old checked=checked attribute that you add in your default radio button's code. HTH Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris W. Parker Sent: 01 February 2005 19:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default state of a group of radio buttons is? Let me use a current, specific example. In a form I'm writing I have one set of radio buttons. The current options are 'Home', or 'Agency'. The radio button is meant to designate what type of mailing address the customer has provided. Right now I've got neither option being defaulted to. I know that radio buttons should have exactly one option chosen at all times, but in this case it doesn't make sense to add a third option of 'None', or have the group default to one option or the other. How should I handle this? Should I bite the bullet and have the options default to one of the options (both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past)? Or maybe I should go to a drop down list with three options? 1. '-', 2. 'Home', 3. 'Agency' Your feedback is appreciated. Chris. ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
Oops, sorry I didn't really read your question thoroughly. Surely an e-mail address will be either a personal or a business address. Personally I'd set the default to personal as this seems to me the most likely option. Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris W. Parker Sent: 01 February 2005 19:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default state of a group of radio buttons is? Let me use a current, specific example. In a form I'm writing I have one set of radio buttons. The current options are 'Home', or 'Agency'. The radio button is meant to designate what type of mailing address the customer has provided. Right now I've got neither option being defaulted to. I know that radio buttons should have exactly one option chosen at all times, but in this case it doesn't make sense to add a third option of 'None', or have the group default to one option or the other. How should I handle this? Should I bite the bullet and have the options default to one of the options (both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past)? Or maybe I should go to a drop down list with three options? 1. '-', 2. 'Home', 3. 'Agency' Your feedback is appreciated. Chris. ** 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] Re: MSN redesign
But at least it looks like they were. It is better than that crowded horrible page that they used to have. On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:55:56 +0100, Raffaella Biscuso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Timberlake Scrive: I like it, but it leaves room to improve. They are a large company and even I can do better than that. It is nice to see that they are using standards though, not enough sites do that. They are not using real standards: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1uri=http%3A//www.msn.com/ http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2warning=2uri=http %3A//www.msn.com/ -- Raffaella Biscuso ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Anthony Timberlake Owner - StaticHost Internet Services http://www.statichost.co.uk http://www.spikeradio.org ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
Iain Gardiner mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:04 PM said: Oops, sorry I didn't really read your question thoroughly. Surely an e-mail address will be either a personal or a business address. Personally I'd set the default to personal as this seems to me the most likely option. By mailing address I meant: postal mail. And by both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past I meant: Neither option is generally chosen more than the other. Chris. ** 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] Re: MSN redesign
Actually, it's kind of ironic that they would even consider trying to use standards when those very standards are so poorly executed on their own product(s). Maybe there's hope...I just won't hold my breath. I'm sure after this experience, they'll add a few of their own new standards buried deep in the OS, just like they always do. No sense in playing fair now... wayne -- Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
I think this is like FAQs - my FAQ is never there. Likewise, pre-set a control to option A and I'm equally likely to want option B. IMHO pre-setting options for the user (unless they're VERY obvious) is like making assumptions about them. That said, RFC1866 says 'CHECKED' is optional but then says At all times, exactly one of the radio buttons in a set is checked. If none of the INPUT elements of a set of radio buttons specifies 'CHECKED', then the user agent must check the first radio button of the set initially. Does anybody know why one button has to be checked at all times in a circumstance like Chris referred to? Thanks Rowan Quoting Iain Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Oops, sorry I didn't really read your question thoroughly. Surely an e-mail address will be either a personal or a business address. Personally I'd set the default to personal as this seems to me the most likely option. Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris W. Parker Sent: 01 February 2005 19:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default state of a group of radio buttons is? Let me use a current, specific example. In a form I'm writing I have one set of radio buttons. The current options are 'Home', or 'Agency'. The radio button is meant to designate what type of mailing address the customer has provided. Right now I've got neither option being defaulted to. I know that radio buttons should have exactly one option chosen at all times, but in this case it doesn't make sense to add a third option of 'None', or have the group default to one option or the other. How should I handle this? Should I bite the bullet and have the options default to one of the options (both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past)? Or maybe I should go to a drop down list with three options? 1. '-', 2. 'Home', 3. 'Agency' Your feedback is appreciated. Chris. ** 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 ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] standards in local government
Hi All, I was surprised to find a local government web site (English) using standards and accessibility: http://www.oldham.gov.uk/ It doesn't quite validate, but it's a determined start! Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
With radio buttons, no value is passed to the form's action page unless one of the options is selected. This will normally cause an error in the processing page unless special consideration is given to this possibility.Normally if there are radio buttons on the form, it is best to ensure that at least one option is selected.CheersMike KearAFP Webworks Pty LtdWindsor, NSW, Australiahttp://afpwebworks.comIndustrial strength coldfusion, .asp, .asp.net, php hosting from A$15/month - Original Message From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgTo: "wsg@webstandardsgroup.org" wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)Date: 01/02/05 20:56I think this is like FAQs - my FAQ is never there. Likewise, pre-set a controlto option A and I'm equally likely to want option B.IMHO pre-setting options for the user (unless they're VERY obvious) is likemaking assumptions about them.That said, RFC1866 says 'CHECKED' is optional but then says "At all times,exactly one of the radio buttons in a set is checked. If none of the INPUTelements of a set of radio buttons specifies 'CHECKED', then the user agentmust check the first radio button of the set initially."Does anybody know why one button has to be checked "at all times" in acircumstance like Chris referred to?ThanksRowanQuoting Iain Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Oops, sorry I didn't really read your question thoroughly. Surely an e-mail address will be either a personal or a business address. Personally I'd set the default to personal as this seems to me the most likely option. Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris W. Parker Sent: 01 February 2005 19:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default state of a group of radio buttons is? Let me use a current, specific example. In a form I'm writing I have one set of radio buttons. The current options are 'Home', or 'Agency'. The radio button is meant to designate what type of mailing address the customer has provided. Right now I've got neither option being defaulted to. I know that radio buttons should have exactly one option chosen at all times, but in this case it doesn't make sense to add a third option of 'None', or have the group default to one option or the other. How should I handle this? Should I bite the bullet and have the options default to one of the options (both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past)? Or maybe I should go to a drop down list with three options? 1. '-', 2. 'Home', 3. 'Agency' Your feedback is appreciated. Chris. ** 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 The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help** Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2 ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
Or pass hidden parameters onto the action page ... these then can be over ridden if the radio is selected From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike KearSent: Wednesday, 2 February 2005 2:51 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) With radio buttons, no value is passed to the form's action page unless one of the options is selected. This will normally cause an error in the processing page unless special consideration is given to this possibility.Normally if there are radio buttons on the form, it is best to ensure that at least one option is selected.CheersMike KearAFP Webworks Pty LtdWindsor, NSW, Australiahttp://afpwebworks.comIndustrial strength coldfusion, .asp, .asp.net, php hosting from A$15/month - Original Message From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgTo: "wsg@webstandardsgroup.org" wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)Date: 01/02/05 20:56I think this is like FAQs - my FAQ is never there. Likewise, pre-set a controlto option A and I'm equally likely to want option B.IMHO pre-setting options for the user (unless they're VERY obvious) is likemaking assumptions about them.That said, RFC1866 says 'CHECKED' is optional but then says "At all times,exactly one of the radio buttons in a set is checked. If none of the INPUTelements of a set of radio buttons specifies 'CHECKED', then the user agentmust check the first radio button of the set initially."Does anybody know why one button has to be checked "at all times" in acircumstance like Chris referred to?ThanksRowanQuoting Iain Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Oops, sorry I didn't really read your question thoroughly. Surely an e-mail address will be either a personal or a business address. Personally I'd set the default to personal as this seems to me the most likely option. Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris W. Parker Sent: 01 February 2005 19:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default state of a group of radio buttons is? Let me use a current, specific example. In a form I'm writing I have one set of radio buttons. The current options are 'Home', or 'Agency'. The radio button is meant to designate what type of mailing address the customer has provided. Right now I've got neither option being defaulted to. I know that radio buttons should have exactly one option chosen at all times, but in this case it doesn't make sense to add a third option of 'None', or have the group default to one option or the other. How should I handle this? Should I bite the bullet and have the options default to one of the options (both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past)? Or maybe I should go to a drop down list with three options? 1. '-', 2. 'Home', 3. 'Agency' Your feedback is appreciated. Chris. ** 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 The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] QueenBee site check please!!!
Good Day All, I'm developing a new site and was wondering if you guys could take a look at the initial layout. It's a bit more complicated than I tend to do with xhtml/css and I'm wondering how it's holding up so far. I welcome any feedback. Thanks! Mani Sheriar Sheriar Designs | www.ManiSheriar.com 925|914.0741 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] QeenBee Site Check Please!!! (WITH URL)
Lol, I'm tired. Sorry guys!! Here it is ... http://www.manisheriar.com/queenbee Mani Sheriar Sheriar Designs | www.ManiSheriar.com 925|914.0741 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] border order
Hi There,
Just use a background image for the nav border. I made one that was
760x20 with no repeat, but it could even be 1x1 and repeat y. Just
position it at the bottom.
You can look at the page here:
http://www.manisheriar.com/wsg/borderOrder/
Here's the code:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml;
head
titleBorder Order/title
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
/
style type=text/css media=screen
/* this is the ul */
#navlist {float:left;width:760px;padding:4px 0;margin:0;font: bold 12px
Verdana, sans-serif;background:#EBEBEB url(bottomBorder.gif) no-repeat
bottom;}
#navlist li {display:inline;list-style:none;margin:0;padding:0;}
#navlist li a:link, #navlist li a:visited {color:#737577;padding:3px
0.5em;margin-left:3px;border-bottom:none;text-decoration: none;}
#navlist li a:hover {color:#fff;background:#737577;
border-color:#BCBEC0;}
#navlist li a#current {color:#A11D55;border:1px solid
#BCBEC0;background:#fff;border-bottom:2px solid #fff;}
/style
/head
body style=background:#fff
ul id=navlist
li id=activea href=# id=currentHome/a/li
lia href=#News amp; Media/a/li
lia href=#Members/a/li
lia href=#Products amp; Services/a/li
lia href=#About PIR/a/li
lia href=#FAQ/a/li
/ul
/body
/html
Mani Sheriar
Sheriar Designs | www.ManiSheriar.com
925|914.0741
**
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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
IIRC though, while RFC 1866 says exactly one the checked attribute is optional in W3C guidelines. HTML 4.01 (and thus also the XHTML 1 series) state: [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#radio] If no radio button in a set sharing the same control name is initially on, user agent behavior for choosing which control is initially on is undefined. So if you leave them both undefined, some UAs will select the first, some will select neither. I can't see many doing anything else. It's not standards aversion and I can't see why that's not ok. HTML4.01 spec goes on to say that authors should ensure one is selected by default but I'm not sure why you need consistant behavior in this case. If worst comes to worst, just have whichever one comes first in the page checked=checked. You'll be inconveniancing roughly half the people no matter which is checked by default. If neither are then it's the same inconvenience for everyone. I guess I'm saying that I'd consider this a moot point - check whichever you'd like and the user will deal with it. Regards, mjec On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:54:31 +1100, Wybrow, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or pass hidden parameters onto the action page ... these then can be over ridden if the radio is selected From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Kear Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2005 2:51 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) With radio buttons, no value is passed to the form's action page unless one of the options is selected. This will normally cause an error in the processing page unless special consideration is given to this possibility. Normally if there are radio buttons on the form, it is best to ensure that at least one option is selected. Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Pty Ltd Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com Industrial strength coldfusion, .asp, .asp.net, php hosting from A$15/month - Original Message From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Date: 01/02/05 20:56 I think this is like FAQs - my FAQ is never there. Likewise, pre-set a control to option A and I'm equally likely to want option B. IMHO pre-setting options for the user (unless they're VERY obvious) is like making assumptions about them. That said, RFC1866 says 'CHECKED' is optional but then says At all times, exactly one of the radio buttons in a set is checked. If none of the INPUT elements of a set of radio buttons specifies 'CHECKED', then the user agent must check the first radio button of the set initially. Does anybody know why one button has to be checked at all times in a circumstance like Chris referred to? Thanks Rowan Quoting Iain Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Oops, sorry I didn't really read your question thoroughly. Surely an e-mail address will be either a personal or a business address. Personally I'd set the default to personal as this seems to me the most likely option. Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris W. Parker Sent: 01 February 2005 19:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default state of a group of radio buttons is? Let me use a current, specific example. In a form I'm writing I have one set of radio buttons. The current options are 'Home', or 'Agency'. The radio button is meant to designate what type of mailing address the customer has provided. Right now I've got neither option being defaulted to. I know that radio buttons should have exactly one option chosen at all times, but in this case it doesn't make sense to add a third option of 'None', or have the group default to one option or the other. How should I handle this? Should I bite the bullet and have the options default to one of the options (both options will probably be chosen an equal amount of times, as has been the case in the past)? Or maybe I should go to a drop down list with three options? 1. '-', 2. 'Home', 3. 'Agency' Your feedback is appreciated. Chris. ** 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
Re: [WSG] standards in local government
Hi, I was even more surprised to find an entire Australian government department website not only uses an effective table-free design, not only has a website which is at least partially accessible, not only does it collapse well when styling is removed, it is also XHTML 1.0 conformant! http://www.dfat.gov.au/ Incredible. Unfortunately they've got *one* CSS error. Ahh well, they're not doing too shabbily... Regards, mjec On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:05:31 -, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I was surprised to find a local government web site (English) using standards and accessibility: http://www.oldham.gov.uk/ It doesn't quite validate, but it's a determined start! Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- http://mine.mjec.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 **
RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
Michael Cordover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:51 PM said: IIRC though, while RFC 1866 says exactly one the checked attribute is optional in W3C guidelines. [snip] I guess I'm saying that I'd consider this a moot point - check whichever you'd like and the user will deal with it. Sounds good to me. Thanks! Chris. ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
There are reasons why you might not want to select a 'default' on radio buttons. It can distort your data.For example, if you have option 1 checked as the default, and a user forgets to choose one of the options, they're selecting option 1 anyway. This may be erroneous data. (Or it may not matter in which case, do whatever you like). For example in a survey, if youindicate any default answers, you are automatically slanting the results, and if someone doesnt make a choice to a question, they wont get a warning popup, instead they will have a selection of your default entered. How will you know which of the results are where users have selected option 1, and which are where they have forgotten to give an answer at all?That's not to say you shouldn't use default answers. I'm saying you shouldn't always use defaults just because the 'normal' practice is to do so. If the radio button gathers important data, another practice could well be to offer no defaults, but instead show a warning or some kind if the user doesnt select one or the other and force them to choose before you process the rest of the form.CheersMike KearAFP Webworks Pty LtdWindsor, NSW, Australia Http://afpwebworks.comIndustrial Strength hosting - coldfusion, .asp, .asp.net, php from AUD$15/month - Original Message From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgTo: "wsg@webstandardsgroup.org" wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)Date: 01/02/05 22:53IIRC though, while RFC 1866 says "exactly one" the checked attributeis optional in W3C guidelines.HTML 4.01 (and thus also the XHTML 1 series) state:[http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#radio]If no radio button in a set sharing the same control name isinitially "on", user agent behavior for choosing which control isinitially "on" is undefined.So if you leave them both undefined, some UAs will select the first,some will select neither. I can't see many doing anything else. It'snot standards aversion and I can't see why that's not ok. HTML4.01spec goes on to say that authors should ensure one is selected bydefault but I'm not sure why you need consistant behavior in thiscase.If worst comes to worst, just have whichever one comes first in thepage checked="checked". You'll be "inconveniancing" roughly half thepeople no matter which is checked by default. If neither are thenit's the same "inconvenience" for everyone.I guess I'm saying that I'd consider this a moot point - checkwhichever you'd like and the user will deal with it.Regards,mjecOn Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:54:31 +1100, Wybrow, Mark[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or pass hidden parameters onto the action page ... these then can be over ridden if the radio is selected From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Kear Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2005 2:51 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) With radio buttons, no value is passed to the form's action page unless one of the options is selected. This will normally cause an error in the processing page unless special consideration is given to this possibility. Normally if there are radio buttons on the form, it is best to ensure that at least one option is selected. Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Pty Ltd Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com Industrial strength coldfusion, .asp, .asp.net, php hosting from A$15/month - Original Message From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To: "wsg@webstandardsgroup.org" wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Date: 01/02/05 20:56 I think this is like FAQs - my FAQ is never there. Likewise, pre-set a control to option A and I'm equally likely to want option B. IMHO pre-setting options for the user (unless they're VERY obvious) is like making assumptions about them. That said, RFC1866 says 'CHECKED' is optional but then says "At all times, exactly one of the radio buttons in a set is checked. If none of the INPUT elements of a set of radio buttons specifies 'CHECKED', then the user agent must check the first radio button of the set initially." Does anybody know why one button has to be checked "at all times" in a circumstance like Chris referred to? Thanks Rowan Quoting Iain Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Oops, sorry I didn't really read your question thoroughly. Surely an e-mail address will be either a personal or a business address. Personally I'd set the default to personal as this seems to me the most likely option. Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris W. Parker Sent: 01 February 2005 19:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?) Hello, Not sure if this is off topic or not, but let me know if it is. I'm wondering what the suggested default
Re: [WSG] QueenBee site check please!!!
Hey Mani, Looks nice, good balance and the colours mix nicely. I think the one thing that looks a bit odd is the space for text between the advert on the right and the middle section. The text seems quite squashed but i guess it all depends on whats being placed there. Good work -Karl Brightman Freelance web developer On 02/02/2005, at 4:02 AM, Mani Sheriar wrote: Good Day All, I'm developing a new site and was wondering if you guys could take a look at the initial layout. It's a bit more complicated than I tend to do with xhtml/css and I'm wondering how it's holding up so far. I welcome any feedback. Thanks! Mani Sheriar Sheriar Designs | www.ManiSheriar.com 925|914.0741 ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:24:35 -, Mike Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example in a survey, if you indicate any default answers, you are automatically slanting the results, and if someone doesnt make a choice to a question, they wont get a warning popup, instead they will have a selection of your default entered. How will you know which of the results are where users have selected option 1, and which are where they have forgotten to give an answer at all? Good surveys need don't know/prefer not to answer for every question and that might be a good default. -- regards, Kornel Lesiski http://browsehappy.pl ** 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] standards in local government
---BeginMessage--- Ahem... http://www.salford.gov.uk http://www.salford.gov.uk :) All UK local government sites have a requirement to be AA rated for accessibility, so expect to see a lot more of them in the near future. Antony Antony Golding Principal e-Government Services Officer Salford City Council E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: 0161 793 2232 -Original Message- From: designer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 01/02/2005 21:05 To: webstandards group Cc: Subject: [WSG] standards in local government Hi All, I was surprised to find a local government web site (English) using standards and accessibility: http://www.oldham.gov.uk/ It doesn't quite validate, but it's a determined start! winmail.dat---End Message--- DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail Thank you.
Re: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
I'm a bit baffled by this question -- in a way it's not about CSS or HTML or standards at all. If you want to get good data from your form, and you have two radio buttons, then neither should be checked by default. Your CGI script or whatever should do the checking and return the form with you must select a button to proceed. But should the browser really auto-select radio buttons for the user if none is selected? That seems like a very strange decision to me, and wouldn't allow your script to check the form as above. So that argues that you should use a different kind of control, for instance a SELECT menu. The value of none can be the default, and your script can chuck an error if it sees none submitted. Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488 Senior Developer, ABC Online http://www.abc.net.au/ ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
Perhaps, Kornel, but in that case how to you tell the difference between responses where people preferred not to say/didn't know (i.e. an answer to the question), and where people didn't answer the question or didnt notice it?There are cases where a default is a bad thing, and you need to be able to handle forms with no answer, rather than providing a default. In another example, providing a default may slant your responses in favour of the default, because respondents think that's the answer you're wanting. Ever-obliging they tend to give the answer they think the questioner wants.--CheersMike KearWindsor, NSW, AustraliaCertified Advanced ColdFusion DeveloperAFP Webworkshttp://afpwebworks.comColdFusion, PHP, ASP, ASP.NET hosting from AUD$15/month - Original Message Good surveys need "don't know/prefer not to answer" for every question andthat might be a good default.--regards, Kornel Lesiñskihttp://browsehappy.pl Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2 ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
John, If you want to get good data from your form, and you have two radio buttons, then neither should be checked by default. Your CGI script or whatever should do the checking and return the form with you must select a button to proceed. the difference between a radio button set and checkboxes is (going way back to Mac UI guidelines in the 80s) is that a radio button group always has a value, and the values are mutually exclusive (you can't check two radio buttons in the same group), whereas checkboxes in a group can all be on, all be off, or any combination of on and off. It's a long time since I have done some intensive forms work, but IIRC, browsers generally managed this for you if you set up your radio button sets properly. I know, its strictly off topic, but its about conventions, which are a kind of standard john John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
At 11:36 AM +1100 2/2/05, John Allsopp wrote: John, the difference between a radio button set and checkboxes is (going way back to Mac UI guidelines in the 80s) is that a radio button group always has a value [snip -- I did know the difference between checkboxes and radio buttons!] If you're saying that a set of radio two or more buttons must always be shown with at least one pre-selected, i.e. as soon as the page loads, one is already selected, then there are only two options for the original poster to get good information from their form: 1) Three radio buttons, one of them pre-selected for the value nothing or incorrect input -- the user is encouraged to select one of the other two and an error given by the script if they don't 2) A select menu, with one option pre-selected for nothing as above. The first seems kind of illogical to me, and the users will be more used to the second. Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488 Senior Developer, ABC Online http://www.abc.net.au/ ** 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] Unicode-bidi and direction
Some searching revealed these: http://www.htmlref.com/reference/appb/css_unicode-bidi.htm states support is: CSS2 IE 5, 5.5, 6 Nav 6, 7 No Opera support http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/properties/intl/unibidi.htm http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/properties/intl/direction.htm http://www.htmldog.com/reference/cssproperties/unicode-bidi/ 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/ http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav Maxine Sherrin wrote: Just wondering: does anyone here have any experience with these two properties? I've got a handle from the specs how you actually use them, but, are they in fact supported in any browsers such as Opera, Firefox or Safari (or any others of course, but I'm kind of assuming that with IE the answer is no. Thx Maxine http://westciv.typepad.com/standards/ ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
John, [snip -- I did know the difference between checkboxes and radio buttons!] I was almost certain you did :-) If you're saying that a set of radio two or more buttons must always be shown with at least one pre-selected, i.e. as soon as the page loads, one is already selected, then there are only two options for the original poster to get good information from their form: Well, by convention, that is what radio buttons should do. 1) Three radio buttons, one of them pre-selected for the value nothing or incorrect input -- the user is encouraged to select one of the other two and an error given by the script if they don't 2) A select menu, with one option pre-selected for nothing as above. If there are 4 or fewer responses, that is where radio buttons have traditionally been recommended. For more, popup menus. I'd suggest a radio button with no response or some such, which is selected, and then the other two The first seems kind of illogical to me, and the users will be more used to the second. Given this limitation of radio buttons, I wonder why it has not turned up in UI discussion much. I've never seen it as an issue before (althoough I do see it as one in this instance) j John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ ** 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] double space after period
Apologies for being so late on this (been rather busy at work). The double-space after a full-stop (period) thing is simply a notational convention that sprang out of the typing pools of the 1950s. It has nothing to do at all with grammar, and is in fact actively discouraged as practise in the modern age. Many old school secretaries who may have come through 'secretarial school' swear by it, but it's a very out-of-date practise confined to old school corporate documents. Anyone insisting on it now as 'grammatically correct' simply doesn't know what they're talking about. Cheers, Kevin Futter On 23/1/05 10:23 PM, Iain Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It certainly has nothing to do with grammar, it's more a presentation convention that has evolved with type. As for a solution, maybe the CSS property 'white-space: pre' would work? Iain -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Leading accessibility/usability companies in Sydney/NSW?
Hi I'd appreciate it if anyone on the list who has worked with leading accessibility/usability companies in Sydney/NSW could email me contact details for these companies off-list thanks -- 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/ http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
I hesitantly suggest a good place for this discussion would be on Justin French's Interface list. http://lists.indent.com.au/mailman/listinfo/interface Cheers Chris Blown ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Brisbane Meeting CHANGE OF PLAN
Hi group :) The proposed presentation for the February meeting is some of the technical aspects of CSS a title invented by the good people at WSG to account for my slackness ;) The presentation I will be giving is Site in an Hour Studying the workflow of CSS development. I will be presenting the creation of a simple, yet highly usable/accessible interface using CSS, XHTML and a dash of smoke and mirrors via the DOM. We will start at the layout stage planning how to chop up an existing layout (photoshop) and create it in CSS using the minimal amount of (hopefully) semantic mark-up. We will take it all the way to completion (time permitting). Each decision along the way will be discussed amongst the group and proposals for other methods of solving the same problems will be noted; from which two layouts will be presented to the web as a whole my original version and the collaborative version created on the night. Both will be accompanied by a run down on the key decisions and compromises and the thought processes behind those. I'm hoping to chair a group discussion, rather than do the whole 'one way presentation' deal. I don't want to stand up and say 'this is how I do [whatever], therefore you should do the same'; I want to get shouted down by determined CSS freaks and semantics trolls. In other words bring it on! Then we all learn something new! ;D Hope to see you there :) Andrew. P.S The now obligatory S5 presentation will go online the afternoon following the presentation. P.P.S -- We're hitting the Pig n' Whistle afterwards - piking out is not an option ;) http://leftjustified.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 **
Re: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
Well I got involved in it because (i thought) someone said at the beginning of this thread that it was only valid markup if a set of radio buttons had one and only one 'checked' item.My point was that regardless of the validity of the code, it is sometimes invalid communications/user interface to have one and only one 'checked' item at all times. I said, and still hold to the view, that sometimes a form has to be presented with none of the radio buttons 'checked'.That's the relevance to standards - i.e. that if it's only standard if there is a default radio button and never valid if none of them are 'checked' then the standard is wrong and ought to be changed.CheersMike KearWindsor, NSW, AustraliaCertified Advanced ColdFusion DeveloperAFP Webworkshttp://afpwebworks.comColdFusion, PHP, ASP, ASP.NET hosting from AUD$15/month - Original Message From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgTo: "WSG" wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)Date: 02/02/05 03:56I hesitantly suggest a good place for this discussion would be on JustinFrench's Interface list.http://lists.indent.com.au/mailman/listinfo/interfaceCheersChris Blown Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2 ** 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] Default state of radio buttons. (Maybe OT?)
That's the relevance to standards - i.e. that if it's only standard if there is a default radio button and never valid if none of them are 'checked' then the standard is wrong and ought to be changed. I heartily agree, Mike. Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488 Senior Developer, ABC Online http://www.abc.net.au/ ** 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] IE layout issues - Closed
hey all, Thanks for the help, everyone! I'm now slowly ironing out the issues. :) Cheers Darren Darren Wood wrote: I've recently designed (and partially built) an online store. Its in its 'soft launch' phase as there are some issues with IE. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
