Re: [WSG] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:19:02 +, Ian Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Had I been doing it with HTML Transitional or similar, I would have displayed a second page of results as follows: ol start=11liFirst result/li liSecond.../li ... /ol Do you have any suggestions as to how I could achieve a similar effect with XHTML Strict? I suggest to ignore specs and continue using start attribute, because -- as you see -- specs are wrong. Start belongs to content, and not (only) presentation. You may create your own DTD if you care about validation. -- 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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
See, I'd say a table or a definition list. I think I'm one of the
very few people who actually supports the loss of the start=
attribute.
An ordered list means there is an order, *not* that there is anything
particular assocated with that order. So, think about it in terms of
set theory, if you will. An unordered list is like a set: {1, 2, 3}
which is the same as {3, 1, 2}. An ordered list, like an ordered set
- (1,2,3) which is distinct from (3, 1, 2). But a definition list is
like a mapping:
{ (1, 1), (2, 5), (3, 6) } which, in set theory, is just a subset of
{1, 2, 3} x {1, 5, 6}.
Apologies to those amongst you who don't do set theory. It'd be
better with diagrams. But the point is that if you want a starting
attribute in an ordered list you're actually setting up an assocation
between the number and the content of the list item. So you need a
definition list. Because an ordered list is just a way of defining a
relationship between the parts of the ordered list, not between the
parts of the ordered list and something outside.
So, i'd go with dl. My two cents.
Regards,
mjec
--
http://mine.mjec.net/
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:53:32 -, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:19:02 +, Ian Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had I been doing it with HTML Transitional or similar, I would have
displayed a second page of results as follows:
ol start=11liFirst result/li
liSecond.../li
...
/ol
Do you have any suggestions as to how I could achieve a similar effect
with XHTML Strict?
I suggest to ignore specs and continue using start attribute,
because -- as you see -- specs are wrong.
Start belongs to content, and not (only) presentation.
You may create your own DTD if you care about validation.
--
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] Another plea for help: FF1.0 render problem
Your problem occurs when you have the border-top: 0; after the border
statement.
Is this a Gecko bug, I wonder?
I doubt it, more likely that border-top:0; is incorrect use of the
shorthand property.
'border-top' is supposed to receive 3 values, border-top-width is what
you would use to set the height to 0.
While it doesn't state either way in the W3C docs, it is my belief
that using '0' for a shorthand property which expects strings (eg: 3px
solid gray; as opposed to :1.5em 2em 1em 4em; for padding, margin or
border-width) is a practice worthy of stearing clear.
border:none; does the same thing, but in a string format.
Much like you could use 'none' as the sole value of the list-style
shorthand property.
Personal preference, but you wouldn't have lost any sleep if you had
used 'none' in the first place ;)
You should also note that using a shorthand declaration without
declaring all values will reset the undeclared values to their
defaults. Here's an example from the CSS2 Rec.:
BLOCKQUOTE {
border-color: red;
border-left: double;
color: black
}
In the above example, the color of the left border is black, while
the other borders are red. This is due to 'border-left' setting the
width, style, and color. Since the color value is not given by the
'border-left' property, it will be taken from the 'color' property.
The fact that the 'color' property is set after the 'border-left'
property is not relevant.
That's another thing you wouldn't have to worry about if you used
border:none; instead of border:0;
hth,
Andrew.
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] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joey
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 8:11 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
Hi Drew,
I removed the 45% margin from #right but this still never worked:
This is what i did:
*
Before:* #right{width:45%; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0; margin:0 0 0
45%;}
*After:* #right{width:45%; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0; margin:0;}
Does anyone have any ideas on how to solve this? I dont want to resort to
tables to get a 50% 50% 2 column stretching layout.
Im a novice with CSS/XHTML, but i feel im picking it up fast, but this
simple layout i cant seem to do.
Cheers,
Josef
--
That's what happens when you rush an answer on Friday as you head out the
door and don't read the list on weekends. This code produces a red and a
green box which are side by each and have your 50px margin. What I did is
eliminate the width on main and make both boxes float. Rule of thumb: if you
have a width you need a float.
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/transitional.dtd;
html
head
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1
titleUntitled Document/title
style type=text/css
#main{padding:0 50px 0 50px; margin:0;}
#left{width:50%; background-color:#FF; padding:0; margin:0;
float:left;}
#right{width:50%;float:left; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0;
margin:0 0
0 0;}
.next{clear:both;}
/style
/head
body
div id=main
div id=leftnbsp;br/div
div id=rightnbsp;br/div
div class=next/div
/div
pText in the first element outside the boxes and their container./p
/body
/html
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
**
[WSG] Browser Checks
This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what particular people use and if there is a common thinking. Just curious, Cheers Paul ** 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] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
Below is the CSS for a two column layout, modify as you wish but follow the
same basic coding.
Also if you visit A List Apart's web site their are many articles with code
and tutorials for doing most any kind of layout and much more. Also the
W3C.org site has the standards with illustrations for CSS and XHTML. Is
there a particular reason you are using XHTML? Most of us use HTML 4.01
standard for marking up web pages along with CSS of course.
Sincerely
Dr. W. Fred Butts PhD Computer Sciences
The markup:
body {
margin:0px;
padding:0px;
font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
color:#333;
background-color:white;
}
h1 {
margin:0px 0px 15px 0px;
padding:0px;
font-size:28px;
line-height:28px;
font-weight:900;
color:#ccc;
}
p {
font:11px/20px verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
margin:0px 0px 16px 0px;
padding:0px;
}
#Contentp {margin:0px;}
#Contentp+p {text-indent:30px;}
a {
color:#09c;
font-size:11px;
text-decoration:none;
font-weight:600;
font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
}
a:link {color:#09c;}
a:visited {color:#07a;}
a:hover {background-color:#eee;}
#Header {
margin:50px 0px 10px 0px;
padding:17px 0px 0px 20px;
/* For IE5/Win's benefit height = [correct height] + [top padding] + [top
and bottom border widths] */
height:33px; /* 14px + 17px + 2px = 33px */
border-style:solid;
border-color:black;
border-width:1px 0px; /* top and bottom borders: 1px; left and right
borders: 0px */
line-height:11px;
background-color:#eee;
/* Here is the ugly brilliant hack that protects IE5/Win from its own
stupidity.
Thanks to Tantek Celik for the hack and to Eric Costello for publicizing it.
IE5/Win incorrectly parses the \} value, prematurely closing the style
declaration. The incorrect IE5/Win value is above, while the correct value
is
below. See http://glish.com/css/hacks.asp for details. */
voice-family: \}\;
voice-family:inherit;
height:14px; /* the correct height */
}
/* I've heard this called the be nice to Opera 5 rule. Basically, it feeds
correct
length values to user agents that exhibit the parsing error exploited above
yet get
the CSS box model right and understand the CSS2 parent-child selector.
ALWAYS include
a be nice to Opera 5 rule every time you use the Tantek Celik hack
(above). */
body#Header {height:14px;}
#Content {
margin:0px 50px 50px 200px;
padding:10px;
}
#Menu {
position:absolute;
top:100px;
left:20px;
width:172px;
padding:10px;
background-color:#eee;
border:1px dashed #999;
line-height:17px;
/* Again, the ugly brilliant hack. */
voice-family: \}\;
voice-family:inherit;
width:150px;
}
/* Again, be nice to Opera 5. */
body#Menu {width:150px;}
- Original Message -
From: Trusz, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
:
:
: -Original Message-
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
: Behalf Of Joey
: Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 8:11 AM
: To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
: Subject: Re: [WSG] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
:
: Hi Drew,
:
: I removed the 45% margin from #right but this still never worked:
:
: This is what i did:
: *
: Before:* #right{width:45%; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0; margin:0 0
0
: 45%;}
: *After:* #right{width:45%; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0; margin:0;}
:
: Does anyone have any ideas on how to solve this? I dont want to resort to
: tables to get a 50% 50% 2 column stretching layout.
:
: Im a novice with CSS/XHTML, but i feel im picking it up fast, but this
: simple layout i cant seem to do.
:
: Cheers,
:
: Josef
:
: --
:
: That's what happens when you rush an answer on Friday as you head out the
: door and don't read the list on weekends. This code produces a red and a
: green box which are side by each and have your 50px margin. What I did is
: eliminate the width on main and make both boxes float. Rule of thumb: if
you
: have a width you need a float.
:
: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/transitional.dtd;
: html
: head
: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1
: titleUntitled Document/title
: style type=text/css
: #main{padding:0 50px 0 50px; margin:0;}
:#left{width:50%; background-color:#FF; padding:0; margin:0;
: float:left;}
: #right{width:50%;float:left; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0;
: margin:0 0
: 0 0;}
: .next{clear:both;}
: /style
: /head
:
: body
:
: div id=main
: div id=leftnbsp;br/div
: div id=rightnbsp;br/div
: div class=next/div
: /div
: pText in the first element outside the boxes and their container./p
:
: /body
: /html
:
: 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] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
Hi Fred,
thanks for that, ill give it a try soon and let you know how it all
goes. As for the HTML 4.01 comment, i think actual the majority of CSS
developers would use XHTML 1.0, as HTML 4.01 is out dated and has
deprecated elements nowadays, that dont conform with current web
standards. I suggest you move over to XHTML 1.0 plus many more user
agents understand XHTML. Anybody else wish to comment on this, cause i
always assumed CSS went hand in hand with XHTML 1.0.
Cheers again Fred
Josef
Fred Butts wrote:
Below is the CSS for a two column layout, modify as you wish but follow the
same basic coding.
Also if you visit A List Apart's web site their are many articles with code
and tutorials for doing most any kind of layout and much more. Also the
W3C.org site has the standards with illustrations for CSS and XHTML. Is
there a particular reason you are using XHTML? Most of us use HTML 4.01
standard for marking up web pages along with CSS of course.
Sincerely
Dr. W. Fred Butts PhD Computer Sciences
The markup:
body {
margin:0px;
padding:0px;
font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
color:#333;
background-color:white;
}
h1 {
margin:0px 0px 15px 0px;
padding:0px;
font-size:28px;
line-height:28px;
font-weight:900;
color:#ccc;
}
p {
font:11px/20px verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
margin:0px 0px 16px 0px;
padding:0px;
}
#Contentp {margin:0px;}
#Contentp+p {text-indent:30px;}
a {
color:#09c;
font-size:11px;
text-decoration:none;
font-weight:600;
font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
}
a:link {color:#09c;}
a:visited {color:#07a;}
a:hover {background-color:#eee;}
#Header {
margin:50px 0px 10px 0px;
padding:17px 0px 0px 20px;
/* For IE5/Win's benefit height = [correct height] + [top padding] + [top
and bottom border widths] */
height:33px; /* 14px + 17px + 2px = 33px */
border-style:solid;
border-color:black;
border-width:1px 0px; /* top and bottom borders: 1px; left and right
borders: 0px */
line-height:11px;
background-color:#eee;
/* Here is the ugly brilliant hack that protects IE5/Win from its own
stupidity.
Thanks to Tantek Celik for the hack and to Eric Costello for publicizing it.
IE5/Win incorrectly parses the "\"}"" value, prematurely closing the style
declaration. The incorrect IE5/Win value is above, while the correct value
is
below. See http://glish.com/css/hacks.asp for details. */
voice-family: "\"}\"";
voice-family:inherit;
height:14px; /* the correct height */
}
/* I've heard this called the "be nice to Opera 5" rule. Basically, it feeds
correct
length values to user agents that exhibit the parsing error exploited above
yet get
the CSS box model right and understand the CSS2 parent-child selector.
ALWAYS include
a "be nice to Opera 5" rule every time you use the Tantek Celik hack
(above). */
body#Header {height:14px;}
#Content {
margin:0px 50px 50px 200px;
padding:10px;
}
#Menu {
position:absolute;
top:100px;
left:20px;
width:172px;
padding:10px;
background-color:#eee;
border:1px dashed #999;
line-height:17px;
/* Again, the ugly brilliant hack. */
voice-family: "\"}\"";
voice-family:inherit;
width:150px;
}
/* Again, "be nice to Opera 5". */
body#Menu {width:150px;}
- Original Message -
From: "Trusz, Andrew" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
:
:
: -Original Message-
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
: Behalf Of Joey
: Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 8:11 AM
: To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
: Subject: Re: [WSG] 2 Column Symetrical Stretching Layout?
:
: Hi Drew,
:
: I removed the 45% margin from #right but this still never worked:
:
: This is what i did:
: *
: Before:* #right{width:45%; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0; margin:0 0
0
: 45%;}
: *After:* #right{width:45%; background-color:#00FF00; padding:0; margin:0;}
:
: Does anyone have any ideas on how to solve this? I dont want to resort to
: tables to get a 50% 50% 2 column stretching layout.
:
: Im a novice with CSS/XHTML, but i feel im picking it up fast, but this
: simple layout i cant seem to do.
:
: Cheers,
:
: Josef
:
: --
:
: That's what happens when you rush an answer on Friday as you head out the
: door and don't read the list on weekends. This code produces a red and a
: green box which are side by each and have your 50px margin. What I did is
: eliminate the width on main and make both boxes float. Rule of thumb: if
you
: have a width you need a float.
:
: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
: "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/transitional.dtd"
: html
: head
: meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"
: titleUntitled Document/title
: style type="text/css"
: #main{padding:0 50px 0 50px; margin:0;}
:#left{width:50%; background-color:#FF; padding:0; margin:0;
: float:left;}
: #right{width:50%;float:left;
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
G'day Paul wrote: This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what particular people use and if there is a common thinking. Really depends on the audience, the client, etc but I usually draw the line at 5th generation browsers (MSIE5+, Opera 5+, Netscape 6/7, Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, etc) Having said that... if you use structured, valid (x)HTML and CSS, people who for some reason still use an antique browser should still be able to use the site. HTML is not print. Pixel perfection is not achievable in an uncontrolled environment. That's my general approach anyway and I'm not too fussed about IE5.0 unless logs show a lot of visitors use it (as long as it's still usable). Matters little to me if the site does not *look* quite the same, as long as it's usable. Make it valid and accessible. Don't add ##kB of CSS hacks, nested tables, spacer images and deprecated elements/attributes to make the site pixel perfect for 1 visitor a month who uses an antique browser. Percentage? Again, depends on the intended audience. If you're in the business of selling computers, would you ignore a small percentage of visitors with old browsers (on old computers)? What if you were selling software that can only be operated by expert users with the latest equipment? Different audience. 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] Browser Checks
Paul wrote: This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I you want to sell something, then you may want to include any browser that helps you do just that. - You may start by including all standard-compliant browsers by default-- no matter the purpose of a site, and give older browsers what they can manage-- limited by the time you want to spend on the job. - Dead browsers are dead, thus should be excluded by default - no matter how many who still use them. Users of dead browsers are probably aware of what to expect, and we can't make their software rise from the dead anyway. - I personally couldn't care less about which browser people choose for surfing. It's their choice to make, and I never read stats. I think that's a pretty general answer to a general question. I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what particular people use and if there is a common thinking. I like to include any browser - even though I haven't got the slightest interest in 'selling' anything. I think any site on the web should be 'open to the public', and it doesn't hurt trying to make them so. I often use a text-only browser, like Lynx, myself, but my preference is the latest versions (at any time) of Opera. Just curious, Me too, Georg ** 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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
See, I'd say a table or a definition list. I think I'm one of the very few people who actually supports the loss of the start= attribute. I'd go with Michael, on both points. Table would be fine, but definition list is probably better. And the start attribute is bad because the first item in an ordered list is always, well, the first item! All this talk of writing your own DTD is a bit nuts if you ask me. The standards are in place for a reason. Patrick --- Vivabit Ltd., London http://vivabit.co.uk @media 2005 http://www.atmedia2005.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] Aligning bullets
Title: Message My bullets are lining up at the bottom of the li ( see: http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php) ? Is there a property I can set to align:top ? Paul
[WSG] Nothing too flashy
Hi, Can some direct me in creating a flash replacement content . The idea is to us css to display the default scroll bar in i-frame type scolling div. If the flash scrolling text box, with custom sroll bar does not load or plug-in is diabled. CK __ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** 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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Use Javascript. Insert the content with innerHTML. ** 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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
The Bo$$ wrote: Use Javascript. Insert the content with innerHTML. How accessible...and semantic! Write valid code, so you pass automated validators, then use JS to basically mess it up in whatever way you like? Sorry, but that's hardly the point of web standards, imho. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
Zachary,
The only problems I see on you page is, that you are using redudant tabindex
tags and letters instead of numbers for you accesskeys.
About http://webxact.watchfire.com/ no need to worry!
That is the only tool of all I know and that I do not use.
Stick for automatic evaluations with Cynthia Says, WAVE and with some care
with Bobby.
Off topic: What are all those Meta Tags for?
Regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
On my website, http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/, I use CSS background
images instead of the img tag. So, I have hyper linked
background-images, if that makes sense, and they have no actual link
text. Watchfire's WebXACT (http://webxact.watchfire.com/) accessibility
validator is giving me an error with WAI Priority 2, Checkpoint 13.1. I
understand why I am getting the error, but I am not sure of the best way
to correct it, as I do not want text covering up the images.
Any suggestions?
= Sample Code of my link =
a href=http://place.com/; title=Link Title
style=display:block;width:80px;height:15px;background-image:url('img.png');
/a
==
-- Zachary Hopkins
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
Zachary,
Me again. I also do not see your reason using a text-only version. It is
absolutely redudant! You did a too good work, to hang on your page a
text-version.
Also you are using CDATA sections which are not recommended due to poor
browser support (even some newer browsers fail to properly support it) and
due to other complications.
Your new window does not open on your privacy policy page to send you an
email, when JavaScript is disabled.
Have a look here to see how to solve this:
http://www.webnauts.net/new_window.html
Regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
On my website, http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/, I use CSS background
images instead of the img tag. So, I have hyper linked
background-images, if that makes sense, and they have no actual link
text. Watchfire's WebXACT (http://webxact.watchfire.com/) accessibility
validator is giving me an error with WAI Priority 2, Checkpoint 13.1. I
understand why I am getting the error, but I am not sure of the best way
to correct it, as I do not want text covering up the images.
Any suggestions?
= Sample Code of my link =
a href=http://place.com/; title=Link Title
style=display:block;width:80px;height:15px;background-image:url('img.png');
/a
==
-- Zachary Hopkins
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
- I got the link text figured out.It just didn't link my hyperlinks w/
background images not having any link text.
- Redundant tabindex tags? (O.o)?
- What's wrong with letters?
- The meta tags hold keywords, page descriptions, author info, page
rating, time between search bot re-indexing, etc, etc
--Zachary
John Britsios wrote:
Zachary,
The only problems I see on you page is, that you are using redudant tabindex
tags and letters instead of numbers for you accesskeys.
About http://webxact.watchfire.com/ no need to worry!
That is the only tool of all I know and that I do not use.
Stick for automatic evaluations with Cynthia Says, WAVE and with some care
with Bobby.
Off topic: What are all those Meta Tags for?
Regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
On my website, http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/, I use CSS background
images instead of the img tag. So, I have hyper linked
background-images, if that makes sense, and they have no actual link
text. Watchfire's WebXACT (http://webxact.watchfire.com/) accessibility
validator is giving me an error with WAI Priority 2, Checkpoint 13.1. I
understand why I am getting the error, but I am not sure of the best way
to correct it, as I do not want text covering up the images.
Any suggestions?
= Sample Code of my link =
a href=http://place.com/; title=Link Title
style=display:block;width:80px;height:15px;background-image:url('img.png');
/a
==
-- Zachary Hopkins
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
- Redundancy is key. I want no one left out, whether they have the
latest and greatest, oldest and moldiest, cell phone, PDA, whatever!
- CDATA is bad? How does it degrade?
- The contact links have been fixed to meet Priority 1 checkpoint 6.3
and Priority 2 checkpoint 10.1.
--Zachary
John Britsios wrote:
Zachary,
Me again. I also do not see your reason using a text-only version. It is
absolutely redudant! You did a too good work, to hang on your page a
text-version.
Also you are using CDATA sections which are not recommended due to poor
browser support (even some newer browsers fail to properly support it) and
due to other complications.
Your new window does not open on your privacy policy page to send you an
email, when JavaScript is disabled.
Have a look here to see how to solve this:
http://www.webnauts.net/new_window.html
Regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
On my website, http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/, I use CSS background
images instead of the img tag. So, I have hyper linked
background-images, if that makes sense, and they have no actual link
text. Watchfire's WebXACT (http://webxact.watchfire.com/) accessibility
validator is giving me an error with WAI Priority 2, Checkpoint 13.1. I
understand why I am getting the error, but I am not sure of the best way
to correct it, as I do not want text covering up the images.
Any suggestions?
= Sample Code of my link =
a href=http://place.com/; title=Link Title
style=display:block;width:80px;height:15px;background-image:url('img.png');
/a
==
-- Zachary Hopkins
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
[WSG] Webnauts Net Accessibility, Usability and SEO forums online
Dear WSG members!Sincea few daysnow, our Accessibility, Usability and SEO forums are online.Therefore we would kindly like to inivite you to drop by, and we hope you will support us with your membership/contribution, promoting Accessibility, Usability and Search Engines issues.The forums may be found here: http://www.webnauts.net/phpBB2/index.phpFor the Webnauts Net TeamMy kindest regards,John S. Britsioshttp://www.webnauts.net
Re: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
Zachary,
About Tabindex Tags read here:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/keyboardusageandtabindex/62
About Accesskeys problems using letters read here:
http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38
Sure there are some problems using numbers too, but not as with letters:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37
Even though I still use accesskeys on my site.
About your Meta Tags, you just spoil your SEO. From all that stuff you only
need the title, description, keywords and the robots.
Besides, make your JavaScript and CSS external.
Kind regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
- I got the link text figured out.It just didn't link my hyperlinks w/
background images not having any link text.
- Redundant tabindex tags? (O.o)?
- What's wrong with letters?
- The meta tags hold keywords, page descriptions, author info, page
rating, time between search bot re-indexing, etc, etc
--Zachary
John Britsios wrote:
Zachary,
The only problems I see on you page is, that you are using redudant
tabindex
tags and letters instead of numbers for you accesskeys.
About http://webxact.watchfire.com/ no need to worry!
That is the only tool of all I know and that I do not use.
Stick for automatic evaluations with Cynthia Says, WAVE and with some
care
with Bobby.
Off topic: What are all those Meta Tags for?
Regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
On my website, http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/, I use CSS background
images instead of the img tag. So, I have hyper linked
background-images, if that makes sense, and they have no actual link
text. Watchfire's WebXACT (http://webxact.watchfire.com/) accessibility
validator is giving me an error with WAI Priority 2, Checkpoint 13.1. I
understand why I am getting the error, but I am not sure of the best way
to correct it, as I do not want text covering up the images.
Any suggestions?
= Sample Code of my link =
a href=http://place.com/; title=Link Title
style=display:block;width:80px;height:15px;background-image:url('img.png')
;
/a
==
-- Zachary Hopkins
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
**
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] Nothing too flashy
While you could just nest the iframe in the object as fallback (is that valid nesting? Unsure about iframes..), fallback content often doesn't work due to users having the flash plugin but having flash content blocked by a browser plugin. Another way to do it would be to use a flash detection script like this one: http://www.skyzyx.com/scripts/flash.php I haven't looked through it, but Ryan writes good code so I imagine it's detection method would include physically adding a flash object to the DOM and then checking it exists -- it wouldn't exist if a browser plugin was blocking flash. So here's how you would use that: - iframe is in source. - If flash is detected, grab the iframe using JS and replace it with the flash object. Simple, eh? :) hth, Andrew. 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] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
Zachary,
You are right. As I wrote in my previous mail, I use accesskeys. And mainly
for the reason you mentioned.
PDA, Mobile, etc devices. But I use numbers for accesskeys.
Kind regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
- Redundancy is key. I want no one left out, whether they have the
latest and greatest, oldest and moldiest, cell phone, PDA, whatever!
- CDATA is bad? How does it degrade?
- The contact links have been fixed to meet Priority 1 checkpoint 6.3
and Priority 2 checkpoint 10.1.
--Zachary
John Britsios wrote:
Zachary,
Me again. I also do not see your reason using a text-only version. It is
absolutely redudant! You did a too good work, to hang on your page a
text-version.
Also you are using CDATA sections which are not recommended due to poor
browser support (even some newer browsers fail to properly support it)
and
due to other complications.
Your new window does not open on your privacy policy page to send you an
email, when JavaScript is disabled.
Have a look here to see how to solve this:
http://www.webnauts.net/new_window.html
Regards,
John S. Britsios
http://www.webnauts.net
- Original Message -
From: Zachary Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: [WSG] WAI checkpoint 13.1 Help
On my website, http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/, I use CSS background
images instead of the img tag. So, I have hyper linked
background-images, if that makes sense, and they have no actual link
text. Watchfire's WebXACT (http://webxact.watchfire.com/) accessibility
validator is giving me an error with WAI Priority 2, Checkpoint 13.1. I
understand why I am getting the error, but I am not sure of the best way
to correct it, as I do not want text covering up the images.
Any suggestions?
= Sample Code of my link =
a href=http://place.com/; title=Link Title
style=display:block;width:80px;height:15px;background-image:url('img.png')
;
/a
==
-- Zachary Hopkins
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
**
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] Re: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Ian, Why not switch to XHTML Transitional for the page that you want to use the start= attribute on? I outline this technique on my website. You don't have to be using PHP to do this, you can simply cut and paste the correct DTD. http://loadaveragezero.com/vnav/labs/PHP/DOCTYPE.php Doug ** 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: XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Douglas wrote: Why not switch to XHTML Transitional for the page that you want to use the start= attribute on? Thanks for that, Douglas. Unfortunately my client has accessibility guidelines that insist the pages are built in XHTML Strict. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Chopstix Media http://www.chopstixmedia.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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:07:39 +1100, Michael Cordover
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An ordered list means there is an order, *not* that there is anything
particular assocated with that order. So, think about it in terms of
set theory, if you will. An unordered list is like a set: {1, 2, 3}
which is the same as {3, 1, 2}. An ordered list, like an ordered set
- (1,2,3) which is distinct from (3, 1, 2). But a definition list is
like a mapping:
{ (1, 1), (2, 5), (3, 6) } which, in set theory, is just a subset of
{1, 2, 3} x {1, 5, 6}.
Apologies to those amongst you who don't do set theory. It'd be
better with diagrams. But the point is that if you want a starting
attribute in an ordered list you're actually setting up an assocation
between the number and the content of the list item. So you need a
definition list. Because an ordered list is just a way of defining a
relationship between the parts of the ordered list, not between the
parts of the ordered list and something outside.
Interesting, but I don't agree :)
IMO list items are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on, and this makes sense
as long as all list items are together, but sometimes you need to split
the list (for example when you display 10 results per page),
so then start makes sense.
There are some usability problems:
WAI says that document must make sense without stylesheets.
From a users point of view:
1. a
2. b
3. c
is very different from:
11. a
12. b
13. c
I don't think that definition list can replace that either.
dt11/dtddFoo/dd
Foo does not define 11.
It's just supposed to be 11th element of some list.
--
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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Hi,
Patrick wrote:
How accessible...and semantic! Write valid code, so you pass automated
validators, then use JS to basically mess it up in whatever way you
like? Sorry, but that's hardly the point of web standards, imho.
Indeed. At the moment I'm trying to use a definition list but I'm not
getting very far. I've got the following markup:
dldt99./dtdda href=Article title/a/dd
dt100./dtdda href=Article title/a - span
class=newNEW/span/dd
/dl
And the following css:
dt { float:left; }
dd { margin:4px 8px; }
This looks fine in firefox, but with IE 6 (Windows XP) the contents of the
first dt are appearing slightly raised in comparison to the contents of the
following dd. The other dts and dds are being displayed fine...
All the best,
--
Ian Fenn
Chopstix Media
http://www.chopstixmedia.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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Kornel Lesinski wrote: I don't think that definition list can replace that either. dt11/dtddFoo/dd Foo does not define 11. It's just supposed to be 11th element of some list. However, the spec is soo vague with regards to the true semantics of DL, that the above use seems, if not ideal, at least passable. If you consider the W3C example of marking up a dialog with DL, you could also argue that a speaker's lines don't define the speaker (unless we want to get metaphysical about define). In short, I'd class this as another one of those cases where the restrictive options provided by (X)HTML can't always be used to unequivocally mark up real world content... -- Patrick H. Lauke _ redux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Ian Fenn wrote:
dt { float:left; }
dd { margin:4px 8px; }
This looks fine in firefox, but with IE 6 (Windows XP) the contents of the
first dt are appearing slightly raised in comparison to the contents of the
following dd. The other dts and dds are being displayed fine...
doesn't work all the time, but as a general rule: when you have this
type of inconsistencies, try and be very specific with regards to all
margins and paddings. Otherwise, you're leaving the ones you don't
specify up to the rendering engine's default, which may well vary from
browser to browser.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.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] Aligning bullets
Trying to align bullets and get some sort of consistency across the various browsers is hard, as each browser positions them in slightly different ways. One option is to use background images. This gives you two advantages over standard html bullets: 1. you can use any sort of bullet you like - as you control the image. 2. you can place it exactly where you want and it will be much more consistent across all css supporting browsers. Most importantly, you can do this without polluting the content with presentation items (like inline images). More here in a step by step tutorial: http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listutorial/introduction.htm Or all steps combined: http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listutorial/master.htm HTH Russ My bullets are lining up at the bottom of the li ( see: http://www.speakupnow.ca/wu/audiovideo.php ) ? Is there a property I can set to align:top ? Paul ** 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] Browser Checks
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:57:06 +0800, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really depends on the audience, the client, etc but I usually draw the line at 5th generation browsers (MSIE5+, Opera 5+, Netscape 6/7, Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, etc) You can totally ignore Opera 5 and 6. 92% of Opera users have version 7 or 8. Same with Netscape 6 - only 4% of Netscape users. (stats from ranking.pl) -- 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] Browser Checks
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:03:30 -0330, Paul wrote: This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I pick the set I think will work for the proposed audience, and test across that. Its pretty broad, but doesnt include V4-- browsers without string data. Once the site is live, I look at the stats, but I take the percentage from visits, not page views, ie I want to catch those people who leave at the first page because it looks awful. Then I may re-evaluate. A browser has to get above about 2.5% before I will consider doing extra work to support it, and often a lot higher than that if there is a small audience. I suppose that is the reverse of your question - I decide how far I will go, rather than where I will stop :) HIH Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web Design Brisbane, 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] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11
Hi there, ol start=11liFirst result/li liSecond.../li ... /ol My two cents: use this method. It's one of those times that the standards are too strict without providing a robust alternative (more the fault of browsers than standards, though). I would support the idea of using Transitional on those pages, taking a very clear case to the client based on *the best result for the user*. If they are serious about doing the right thing by their users they should be open to discussing an approved dispensation for that specific use. At the end of the day, my guess is a user with serious accessibility needs would rather the page actually worked than have it break but conform to the perfect standard. The other argument is that in terms of semantics, the results set is one long list. The semantic meaning of each point is a certain order in those results (regardless of the fact the list has been split into smaller pages for ease of use). For that reason I'd avoid using a table or definition list. I guess this really sums up a sort of pragmatic fallback approach: when pure standards fail, go with the solution that works and is the best actual result for the user. If the client refuses to budge on the standard, I guess you're dealing with Cargo Cult Standards and you'll have to use a DL or table (probably a table, semantically a little dubious but at least it gives structure :)). Hope this helps. h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** 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] Browser Checks
This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what particular people use and if there is a common thinking. Given that you have a university client... 1) Find out what is in their standard desktop install right now, AND also what will be in their next release. That way you'll get an idea of how the standard install is skewing the stats. eg. you might find a disproportionate amount of IE5.5 or Netscape 6 users, since that's what everyone on campus is using. The good news is that standard installs can be updated - that's why you do them. 2) Universities have to support everyone to some extent, although there are still limits. The key term I'd use (for any client) is supported via graceful degradation - don't say a browser is unsupported, since that sounds negative. Instead use @import and other tricks to make sure old browsers get an absolutely vanilla - but functional - version of the site. Voila. supported. 3) If you're looking at % of market, rank each browser in terms of incoming or outgoing. A new browser with a 5% share is very different from an ancient browser with its last 4% trailing away. That will help. 4) Watch out for obscured browsers - Opera for instance is set to identify as IE6, which makes it a major pain to get real stats if your browser sniffer doesn't see past that. Similarly, some versions of Safari will identify as Mozilla in many stats setups (it has a long and strange ID string). You might also want to collate/collapse the many variations of Firefox and Mozilla - both tend to fragment really badly so to get a real idea you have to add all the bits up. Hope that helps. h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** 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 WSG Meeting tomorrow night
For anyone who missed the update, Andrew Krespanis has refined his presentation and has something really good for us - entitled Site in an Hour Studying the workflow of CSS development, Andrew is going to involve audience participation to build a site from scratch. *I'm* not missing this one! There are still a couple of empty seats, so if you do want to come, please RSVP to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ASAP - not much time left now! See you tomorrow night! (Folks flying in from overseas or interstate are most welcome ;)) Full details at http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event27.cfm warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot WSG Core member ** 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] accessible bar charts
I was wondering if you anyone had tried the Standards Schmandards technique on making accessible bar charts. http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/02/06/14- accessible-bar-chart I am intrigued by the idea and wondered what people thought. I'd be interested in getting a reaction from a screen reader user. Sincerely, Justin Justin Thorp Principal; Web Developer Accessibility Specialist MyCapitalWeb.com LLC 3016 S. Deerfield Lansing, MI 48911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog - http://thinkthentype.blogspot.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] accessible bar charts
I've created stacked bar charts (vertical and horizontal) in CSS without images. Entirely visual using empty divs. Also provided is a plain text description of the chart for visual and non-visual users (which we all are). Unfortunately they are behind a login so can't show you any code but quite easy to create with floated blocks etc. Cheers James On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:58:52 -0500, Justin Thorp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering if you anyone had tried the Standards Schmandards technique on making accessible bar charts. http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/02/06/14- accessible-bar-chart I am intrigued by the idea and wondered what people thought. I'd be interested in getting a reaction from a screen reader user. Sincerely, Justin Justin Thorp Principal; Web Developer Accessibility Specialist MyCapitalWeb.com LLC 3016 S. Deerfield Lansing, MI 48911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog - http://thinkthentype.blogspot.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 ** ** 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] Browser Checks
Hi Altough others may use other standards, I for one don't care all that much about browser percentage. HTML 4 exists more then 10 years now and users with browsers that don't understand HTML 4 can't be all that interested in your site anyway. So with this in mind, I set my doctype to 4.01 transitional and use the w3c validator to check that my code and css is 100% compliant Making sure your code is compliant is more important then hunting down a few pixel displacements between browsers. If your code is compliant then just about every browser out there will be able to generate it with a 90% accuracy regarding design and 100% accuracy regarding content.echo opened $what; With love Andy --- Registered Linux user number 379093 --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
