date:20050621

Hi again,

Live Headers came to the rescue.  Turns out my wordpress install
wasn't setting the get_option('html_type')  var.  So when wordpress
was building the header information is was passing NULL as the mime
typenot optimum.

I just hard coded my desired content type in wp-blog-header.php 

EOT

D

On 6/22/05, Darren Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kia Ora,
> 
> I've just relaunched my website and it was all going quite well until
> i tried to look at it in Opera (8.0.2).  it displays the home page
> perfectly, but the moment I click on any link it tries to download the
> page as application/octec-stream...what the?!  Does this have
> something to do with XHTML and parsing it as text/html?  So confused.
> 
> The site is here:
> www.dontcom.com
> 
> This may be off-topic so please send replies to me off-list and I'll
> recap the findings once its sorted.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> Darren
> **
> 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] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi there!]

2005-06-21 Thread heretic

> requirement; I have said that if they want an accessible site written in CSS
> they can't have it looking exactly the same in older browsers that don't
> support CSS 2.0 unless I use 'old skool' presentation techniques. Has anyone
> else run into this problem? I suspect there are plenty of people, I'd be
> interested to hear what thoughts others had on this subject. 

I use a wording trick when dealing with this issue: I say "very old
browsers are supported via graceful degradation". Supported is a
positive word and doesn't imply that the site will "break" in old
browsers.

The other thing is to get some idea of browser usage in your target
market. If your site - for whatever reason - has a huge proportion of
users with an old browser, it will be worth putting more effort into a
nicer degradation for that browser.

But I would sacrifice future-robust design for the sake of supporting
old and busted browsers. Roads are not optimised for horse and cart,
after all.

h

-- 
--- 
--- 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] Strange font-family behavior on Mac

2005-06-21 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh



On 22 Jun 2005, at 8:58 am, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

Apps still need to be coded specifically to take tap straight into OS 
X's improved Quartz rendering, as far as I know.




IE Mac 5.23 was a release to update the hooks to use the OS level 
rendering/smoothing. It doesn't do as good a job as 
Safari/Omniweb/Opera/Firefox, but the difference is hard to notice, 
except (maybe) at smaller font-sizes (10px or less), or when the 
browser has to do some interpolation on the fly to (like bolding out 
the font, when no bold glyphs are available). In the latest case, IE 
Mac has some problems compared to Safari.
It is also possible that IE calls the OS 9 version of Geneva, if 
Classic is installed on that machine. I never investigated that in IE - 
old Mozilla browsers (1.0-1.3) used to do that as well. That can affect 
the font-smoothing.


That said, all browsers on my Powerbook use the same font in the URL 
mentioned by the OP, namely Geneva, as specified by the inline styles. 
Because of me setting a minimum font size in some browsers (Opera, 
Firefox, Safari, those that I actually use), the text looks slightly 
bigger there.


And in the case of Verdana, it can look very different at smallsmall 
font-sizes like 10px or less, as far as I remember. I don't have that 
font installed on my machines anymore.


(eg: adding another sans-serif font-family that renders better on IE 
Mac and Firefox Mac when the font-size is about 10px)?


Geneva renders fairly well, although I never see it at 10px (minimum 
font-size set).
'Lucida Grande' is a very good font for use on OS X. Its equivalent is 
Lucida Sans Unicode on Win 2k or XP


---
BTW - if someone could send me a screenshot (png) of the above test box 
on XP, it would be nice. (with smooth type on/off). Thanks in advance.


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh


**
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] weird behaviour in opera and IE...sometimes

Kia Ora,

I've just relaunched my website and it was all going quite well until
i tried to look at it in Opera (8.0.2).  it displays the home page
perfectly, but the moment I click on any link it tries to download the
page as application/octec-stream...what the?!  Does this have
something to do with XHTML and parsing it as text/html?  So confused.

The site is here:
www.dontcom.com

This may be off-topic so please send replies to me off-list and I'll
recap the findings once its sorted.

Thanks in advance
Darren
**
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] Proper use of


Gledhill, Scott wrote:


I also agree not to use   |   but find it much easier to control
look and feel if you make a small image of the divider


Yup, also a valid method of course. One thing to keep in mind: using an 
image won't resize the divider if the font size is changed, while a 
border will take its cue from its element's height.



This way you have total control over the look and spacing of the divider
(way more than the text method AND the border method) and when styles are
turned off it looks like a normal list without the text "|" symbol hanging
about!


...and screenreader users, for instance, won't hear stuff like "item: 
latest works *vertical bar*"


--
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] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%


Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote:

So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to set the 
initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is this 
just a matter of style and preference?


Two things:

* IE has a problem resizing font sizes properly if the topmost size is 
set in ems, but has no trouble with percentages. Setting the body in % 
(or even the HTML element itself) will fix this problem. You can set 
your base size to 100%, and then safely use ems for anything below that;
* from what I remember, Opera has some rounding problems when 
calculating font sizes that make it display text just a shade smaller 
than other browsers; this is the reason for the additional 1 percent, 
resulting in 101% (I think even 100.1% would do the trick, not sure...I 
don't normally bother with this infinitesimal difference, to be honest)


--
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] Proper use of

2005-06-21 Thread Gledhill, Scott

-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2005 11:26 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Proper use of  

Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote:

> Here's what I tend to do:
>  
> 
> accesskey="1">Latest Works | 
>Read A Chapter | 
> accesskey="3">Buy The Book
> 
>  
> Is there a better (best practices) way to do this?

---

I also agree not to use   |   but find it much easier to control
look and feel if you make a small image of the divider (this is very minimal
size and reused across a whole site) and apply this bg image to the  as
a background image on the left... then to get rid of the first one you just
need to create a "first" class that cancels out the first bg image.

This way you have total control over the look and spacing of the divider
(way more than the text method AND the border method) and when styles are
turned off it looks like a normal list without the text "|" symbol hanging
about!

scott gledhill
**
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] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%

personally I always use the default font sized provided by css...if I
need it bigger then I use em values.  here's an example:

body {
  font: small Arial, sans-serif;
}

p { 1em; }
h1 {2em; }
h2 {1.8em; }
etc...

That way you know that the font will _always_ be readable.  Even if
you start off with xx-small you know that every browser will (read
should) render it at a readable size.  Avoid scaling fonts sizes
down...always scale them up.

HTH
D

www.dontcom.com

On 6/22/05, Cole Kuryakin - x7m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
> I've just gotten comfortable using ems for font sizing in my projects by
> starting out with font-size=1em within the body tag. Now I'm seeing that
> some people are using font-size = 101% in the body tag. I seem to remember
> someone saying that using "1em" in the body tag makes some versions of IE
> flinch - which of course I'd rather avoid. 
>   
> So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to set the
> initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is this
> just a matter of style and preference? 
>   
> Cole
**
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] Proper use of

2005-06-21 Thread Glenn


Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote:

I tend to use   alot when it comes to seperating horizontal menu 
items with a pike "|". while this gives me what I want visually, I've 
always been sort of intuitively uncomfortable with this technique for 
some reason.
 
Here's what I tend to do:
 

   accesskey="1">Latest Works | 
   Read A Chapter | 
   accesskey="3">Buy The Book


 
Is there a better (best practices) way to do this? The only way I can 
think of accomplishing the same effect is by surrounding the "|" with 
a span class which would pad-out the left and right sides of the pike, 
like this: |.
 
But if I take that approach, that would be alot of spans within my nav 
items.
 
Interested in anyone weighing in on this topic.
 
Cole


you could put a right margin on the anchor tag and a right padding on 
the li tag?


Glenn

**
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] Proper use of


Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote:


Here's what I tend to do:
 

   accesskey="1">Latest Works | 
   Read A Chapter | 
   accesskey="3">Buy The Book


 
Is there a better (best practices) way to do this?


Don't use any extra characters like   and | but simply assign a 
right-hand border to the list item and an additional class on the last 
one to suppress it - or the opposite (left-hand border, with a class on 
the first one). You can now control padding and margin to suit your needs.


--
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] Proper use of

2005-06-21 Thread tee

I have the same dilemma and always feel uncomfortable about it. Yesterday I
accidentally 'discover' that by adding few pixel of padding in the <.li> or
<.li a> does the trick.

tee
> 
> I tend to use   alot when it comes to seperating horizontal menu items
> with a pike "|". while this gives me what I want visually, I've always been
> sort of intuitively uncomfortable with this technique for some reason.
> 
> Here's what I tend to do:
> 
> 
>   accesskey="1">Latest Works | 
>   accesskey="2">Read A Chapter | 
>   accesskey="3">Buy The Book
> 
> 
> Is there a better (best practices) way to do this? The only way I can think of
> accomplishing the same effect is by surrounding the "|" with a span class
> which would pad-out the left and right sides of the pike, like this:  class="padPike">|.
> 
> But if I take that approach, that would be alot of spans within my nav items.
> 
> Interested in anyone weighing in on this topic.
> 
> Cole
> 

**
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] font-size =1em (in the body) vs. font-size = 101%

2005-06-21 Thread Cole Kuryakin - x7m




I've just gotten comfortable using ems for font sizing in my 
projects by starting out with font-size=1em within the body tag. Now I'm seeing 
that some people are using font-size = 101% in the body tag. I seem to remember 
someone saying that using "1em" in the body tag makes some versions of IE flinch 
- which of course I'd rather avoid.
 
So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to 
set the initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is this 
just a matter of style and preference?
 
Cole

[WSG] Proper use of

2005-06-21 Thread Cole Kuryakin - x7m




I tend to use   alot when it comes to seperating 
horizontal menu items with a pike "|". while this gives me what I want 
visually, I've always been sort of intuitively uncomfortable with this 
technique for some reason.
 
Here's what I tend to do:
 
   Latest 
Works |Read A 
Chapter |Buy 
The Book
 
Is there a better (best practices) way to do this? The only 
way I can think of accomplishing the same effect is by surrounding the 
"|" with a span class which would pad-out the left and right sides of the pike, 
like this: |.
 
But if I take that approach, that would be alot of spans 
within my nav items.
 
Interested in anyone weighing in on this topic.
 
Cole

Re: [WSG] Strange font-family behavior on Mac


Kevin Futter wrote:


As far as I'm aware font smoothing is handled by the OS in OS X, and apps
are hands-off in this regard.


Apps still need to be coded specifically to take tap straight into OS 
X's improved Quartz rendering, as far as I know.


--
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] Strange font-family behavior on Mac

2005-06-21 Thread Kevin Futter

On 22/6/05 6:52 AM, "Patrick H. Lauke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Marcello Cerruti wrote:
>> I have the same strange problem that you can see on this Apple site  page:
>> http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso
>> If you look at the left side column with IE (Mac) or Firefox (Mac)  the
>> font is different from the one that you can see on Safari, iCab,
>> OmniWeb, Opera, and on all the Windows browsers as well.
> 
> Not having a Mac, I can't test this, but: could it not just be the fact
> that (stab in the dark) Safari and co use a better font smoothing
> algorithm than FF and IE?

As far as I'm aware font smoothing is handled by the OS in OS X, and apps
are hands-off in this regard.

K

-- 
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
**

Re: [WSG] Strange font-family behavior on Mac

2005-06-21 Thread Nick Gleitzman

On 21 Jun 2005, at 9:43 PM, Marcello Cerruti wrote:

I have the same strange problem that you can see on this Apple site
page:

http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso
If you look at the left side column with IE (Mac) or Firefox (Mac) the
font is different from the one that you can see on Safari, iCab,
OmniWeb, Opera, and on all the Windows browsers as well.

The font family involved are:
Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
which are the same of that Apple page, the only difference is that on
Apple site the styles are inline styles and the left bar is in a table
cell.

For starters, the Apple site uses Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;>. Are you sure your font-family is not
different - Verdana as the primary font, not Geneva?

Apart from that, the only difference I can see between Safari and
IE5/Mac is that the 10px font in the LH list of links is anti-aliased
('smoothed') in Safari, but not in Explorer. Safari takes advantage of
OS X's rendering engine to provide smooth fonts; IE is old enough that
it doesn't.

The minimum size font that is smoothed by apps that can do so is set
via System Prefs > Appearance > 'Turn off text smpoothing for font
sizes [...] and smaller'. From memory, the default setting is 10px; I
have mine set to 8px, so check this setting, also.

Just another example of how sites render differently acros different
browsers.

N
___
Omnivision. Websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.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] Reminder: Auckland Geeks

Just a reminder to all the Aucklanders in da house - tonight is the
informal WSG get together at the  The Belgian Beer Café in Takapuna (
136 Hurstmere Road) from around 7pm.

Looking forward to meeting some other local web standards geeks!  Yay.

Darren
**
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] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi ther e!]

2005-06-21 Thread wayne

Hi Patrick

Thanks for such an insightful reply. I have looked at the spec and as I
thought, we agreed on IE (5.5/6.0) and FF on Mac and Windows. I guess I
am going to have to write an email explaining my position. 

Cheers

W

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drake, Ted C. 
Sent: 21 June 2005 21:48
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi
ther e!]

Hi Patrick
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. It's easy to get lost in the arguments of
whether or not to support an outdated browser and forget that sometimes
our
obligations are more personal. It's important to remember what you
promised
the client. 
Ted

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:38 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi
there!]

wayne wrote:

> It's for a design agency who is now 
> saying that this is a requirement;

And that's the crux of the argument: if the project documentation 
clearly states that the site must work and look same/similar even in 
older browsers, then that's what you've got to deliver. I always make a 
point of clarifying exactly, even before taking on a job, what minimum 
spec I'm developing for. Based on that, you make your choice:

a) IE5+, Netscape6+, etc: CSS driven layout, minimal styles fed to older

browsers; site is still usable and accessible in old user agents, just 
not pretty;
b) must support Netscape4.x (even in terms of look and feel): clean 
table based "holder", most of the rest still done via CSS;

  I have said that if they want an
> accessible site written in CSS they can't have it looking exactly the 
> same in older browsers that don't support CSS 2.0 unless I use 'old 
> skool' presentation techniques.

Keep in mind that even in the days before this whole CSS-driven layout 
renaissance, it was possible to create fairly accessible sites. 
Table-based layout does not necessarily mean that accessibility has to 
take a back seat. Sure, you *should* use CSS, and only *should* use 
tables for tabular data, but if you don't, then WCAG 1.0 still has a few

tips and then sends you on your merry way.

> Has anyone else run into this problem? I 
> suspect there are plenty of people, I'd be interested to hear what 
> thoughts others had on this subject.

As I mentioned above, it comes down to clearly stating client/agency 
expectations. The project documentation needs to be crystal clear about 
what platforms/browsers the site needs to work under, and on which it 
has to also LOOK good. Whether you then choose to go for CSS-driven or 
table-based is strongly influenced by these factors. And even layout 
tables can be accessible, if used wisely and sparingly.

-- 
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
**
**
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] Strange font-family behavior on Mac


Marcello Cerruti wrote:

I have the same strange problem that you can see on this Apple site  page:
http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso
If you look at the left side column with IE (Mac) or Firefox (Mac)  the 
font is different from the one that you can see on Safari, iCab,  
OmniWeb, Opera, and on all the Windows browsers as well.


Not having a Mac, I can't test this, but: could it not just be the fact 
that (stab in the dark) Safari and co use a better font smoothing 
algorithm than FF and IE?


--
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] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi ther e!]

2005-06-21 Thread Drake, Ted C.

Hi Patrick
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. It's easy to get lost in the arguments of
whether or not to support an outdated browser and forget that sometimes our
obligations are more personal. It's important to remember what you promised
the client. 
Ted

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:38 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi
there!]

wayne wrote:

> It's for a design agency who is now 
> saying that this is a requirement;

And that's the crux of the argument: if the project documentation 
clearly states that the site must work and look same/similar even in 
older browsers, then that's what you've got to deliver. I always make a 
point of clarifying exactly, even before taking on a job, what minimum 
spec I'm developing for. Based on that, you make your choice:

a) IE5+, Netscape6+, etc: CSS driven layout, minimal styles fed to older 
browsers; site is still usable and accessible in old user agents, just 
not pretty;
b) must support Netscape4.x (even in terms of look and feel): clean 
table based "holder", most of the rest still done via CSS;

  I have said that if they want an
> accessible site written in CSS they can't have it looking exactly the 
> same in older browsers that don't support CSS 2.0 unless I use 'old 
> skool' presentation techniques.

Keep in mind that even in the days before this whole CSS-driven layout 
renaissance, it was possible to create fairly accessible sites. 
Table-based layout does not necessarily mean that accessibility has to 
take a back seat. Sure, you *should* use CSS, and only *should* use 
tables for tabular data, but if you don't, then WCAG 1.0 still has a few 
tips and then sends you on your merry way.

> Has anyone else run into this problem? I 
> suspect there are plenty of people, I'd be interested to hear what 
> thoughts others had on this subject.

As I mentioned above, it comes down to clearly stating client/agency 
expectations. The project documentation needs to be crystal clear about 
what platforms/browsers the site needs to work under, and on which it 
has to also LOOK good. Whether you then choose to go for CSS-driven or 
table-based is strongly influenced by these factors. And even layout 
tables can be accessible, if used wisely and sparingly.

-- 
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
**
**
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] HTML-Structure feedback - powerplay.solutionpark.ch


Michael Vogt wrote:


http://powerplay.solutionpark.ch/test/calendar.html


Just a few things that jumped at me, without looking to deeply into the 
code:


* presentational IDs such as  are a bad choice. IDs and 
classes should be chosen based on the function of that piece of markup, 
not its appearance;
* very weird navigation with the dl...you have some empty (spacer?) 
elements there like   - what's that then? if you want space, 
shouldn't you use CSS? same goes for the arrows on some of the other 
s; generally, the structure of that navigation is odd;
* the caption on that calendar is not a caption at all; it's a sub 
navigation; don't mark it up as a table caption, make it a separate 
element (an ordered or, at a stretch, unordered list seems most natural 
to me)

* the table could do with clearly defined  and  sections

En schoene,

P
--
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] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi there!]


wayne wrote:

It’s for a design agency who is now 
saying that this is a requirement;


And that's the crux of the argument: if the project documentation 
clearly states that the site must work and look same/similar even in 
older browsers, then that's what you've got to deliver. I always make a 
point of clarifying exactly, even before taking on a job, what minimum 
spec I'm developing for. Based on that, you make your choice:


a) IE5+, Netscape6+, etc: CSS driven layout, minimal styles fed to older 
browsers; site is still usable and accessible in old user agents, just 
not pretty;
b) must support Netscape4.x (even in terms of look and feel): clean 
table based "holder", most of the rest still done via CSS;


 I have said that if they want an
accessible site written in CSS they can’t have it looking exactly the 
same in older browsers that don’t support CSS 2.0 unless I use ‘old 
skool’ presentation techniques.


Keep in mind that even in the days before this whole CSS-driven layout 
renaissance, it was possible to create fairly accessible sites. 
Table-based layout does not necessarily mean that accessibility has to 
take a back seat. Sure, you *should* use CSS, and only *should* use 
tables for tabular data, but if you don't, then WCAG 1.0 still has a few 
tips and then sends you on your merry way.


Has anyone else run into this problem? I 
suspect there are plenty of people, I’d be interested to hear what 
thoughts others had on this subject.


As I mentioned above, it comes down to clearly stating client/agency 
expectations. The project documentation needs to be crystal clear about 
what platforms/browsers the site needs to work under, and on which it 
has to also LOOK good. Whether you then choose to go for CSS-driven or 
table-based is strongly influenced by these factors. And even layout 
tables can be accessible, if used wisely and sparingly.


--
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: Re: [WSG] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread Jeff

I would check your web logs to answer this question. Using a program such as
Web Trends to generate reports, you can then tell where your traffic is coming
from and what your web site visitors are using browser wise.

Jeff
>
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/06/21 Tue PM 03:07:41 EDT
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Hi there!
>
>

Thanks!

Jeff

http://www.patandjeff.com
*

*
Visit http://www.websites4199.com for an alternative to high development prices!

Visit http://www.milliondollarsites.net if you just got to spend the big bucks
and brag about it.

Hi Erica--

I'm new to the whole Web design thing, but to answer your question, I would say No. Granted that's just my opinion, but the way I see it, time marches on and so does the Web.

regards,

On Tue Jun 21 13:18 , 'Erica Jean' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:

Hi there guys, I'm new :) My name is Erica and I'm a 21 year old graphic design student (only 2 more years to go! Yay!)

I have a question though, and it's something that I've really been trying to put a lot of thought into.

When building sites using the web standards, the stone-age browsers (Netscape and IE 4 are the two that I'm talking about specifically), are there really enough people out there with browsers that old that we should hack our CSS/etc to make things look okay to them?

How exactly would you do that, anyway? If you're not using any design markup in your actual html document, and those browsers can't read CSS - do you make another site specifically for them? Do you create a page that asks for them to upgrade their browser?

I can justify going back to IE 5.5, and even IE 5.0 to an extent... but is it really worth our time to go all the way back to the 4.0 browsers?

Thanks for your opinions!

-Erica Jean

**
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] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi there!]

2005-06-21 Thread wayne

Hi 

I am having a similar problem with a site
I am developing. I have tried to make it XHTML and CSS compliant. The problem I
am having other than minor discrepancies between browsers is that in Safari and
IE on OSX 9.0 and maybe even some others, the whole layout goes skew-whiff. Should
I even concern myself with this? It’s for a design agency who is now
saying that this is a requirement; I have said that if they want an accessible site
written in CSS they can’t have it looking exactly the same in older
browsers that don’t support CSS 2.0 unless I use ‘old skool’ presentation
techniques. Has anyone else run into this problem? I suspect there are plenty
of people, I’d be interested to hear what thoughts others had on this
subject.

Cheers

Wayne

w: www.freelance-developer.co.ok

e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Maarten Stolte
Sent: 21 June 2005 20:51
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Hi there!

Hi,

also note that when using XHTML, say with help from Designing with Webstandards
from Jeffrey Zeldman, you can make a site that looks great in newer browsers,
and also works in older browsers...

Maarten

Erica Jean wrote: 

  Thanks to both of you for the
  links :) 

  I really appreciate it ^^ 

  ---Original
  Message---

  From: Brian Cummiskey

  Date: 06/21/05
  15:31:52

  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

  Subject: Re: [WSG]
  Hi there!

  Erica Jean wrote:

  > 

  > Is there somewhere I could
  download older browsers for testing by chance?

  http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=msie

  http://wp.netscape.com/download/archive/

  **

  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] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread Maarten Stolte

Hi,

also note that when using XHTML, say with help from Designing with
Webstandards from Jeffrey Zeldman, you can make a site that looks great
in newer browsers, and also works in older browsers...

Maarten

Erica Jean wrote:

Thanks to both of you for the links :) 

I really appreciate it ^^ 

---Original
Message---

From: Brian Cummiskey
Date:
06/21/05 15:31:52
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject:
Re: [WSG] Hi there!

Erica Jean wrote:

>
> Is there somewhere I could download older browsers
for testing by chance?

http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=msie
http://wp.netscape.com/download/archive/

**
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] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread Erica Jean







Thanks to both of you for the links :) 
 
I really appreciate it ^^ 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Brian Cummiskey
Date: 06/21/05 15:31:52
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Hi there!
 
Erica Jean wrote:
 
>
> Is there somewhere I could download older browsers for testing by chance?
 
 
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=msie
http://wp.netscape.com/download/archive/
 
 
**
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] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread Brian Cummiskey


Erica Jean wrote:

 
Is there somewhere I could download older browsers for testing by chance?  



http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=msie
http://wp.netscape.com/download/archive/


**
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] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread jason

http://browsers.evolt.org/


/ironic
//posted using Netscape 4 & webmail.

> Ah. Alright. Thank you for the clarification, and thank you for letting me
> know that Netscape 4 supports stylesheets at all. I didn't realize that
> there was any stylesheet support for NS and IE 4.
>
> Is there somewhere I could download older browsers for testing by chance?
>
> ---Original Message---
>
> From: Drake, Ted C.
> Date: 06/21/05 14:58:00
> To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
> Subject: RE: [WSG] Hi there!
>
> There are people using netscape 4. They tend to be stuck in government
> areas
> that do not allow people to update their computers or those using old
> programs that require this browser.
> It's easy to satisfy their need for content and everyone else's desire for
> pretty pages. Simply link to a basic css document that defines colors,
> sizes
>  etc.  Then import your advanced style sheets. NN4 does not recognize the
> import function.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Erica Jean
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:19 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] Hi there!
>
> Hi there guys, I'm new :) My name is Erica and I'm a 21 year old graphic
> design student (only 2 more years to go! Yay!)
>
> I have a question though, and it's something that I've really been trying
> to
> put a lot of thought into.
>
> When building sites using the web standards, the stone-age browsers
> (Netscape and IE 4 are the two that I'm talking about specifically), are
> there really enough people out there with browsers that old that we should
> hack our CSS/etc to make things look okay to them?
>
> How exactly would you do that, anyway? If you're not using any design
> markup
> in your actual html document, and those browsers can't read CSS - do you
> make another site specifically for them? Do you create a page that asks
> for
> them to upgrade their browser?
>
> I can justify going back to IE 5.5, and even IE 5.0 to an extent... but is
> it really worth our time to go all the way back to the 4.0 browsers?
>
> Thanks for your opinions!
>
> -Erica Jean
>
>
>
>
>

**
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] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread greg



Hi Erica--
I'm new to the whole Web design thing, but to answer your question, I would say No. Granted that's just my opinion, but the way I see it, time marches on and so does the Web. 
regards,
g.




On Tue Jun 21 13:18 , 'Erica Jean' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:







Hi there guys, I'm new :) My name is Erica and I'm a 21 year old graphic design student (only 2 more years to go! Yay!)
 
I have a question though, and it's something that I've really been trying to put a lot of thought into.
 
When building sites using the web standards, the stone-age browsers (Netscape and IE 4 are the two that I'm talking about specifically), are there really enough people out there with browsers that old that we should hack our CSS/etc to make things look okay to them?
 
How exactly would you do that, anyway? If you're not using any design markup in your actual html document, and those browsers can't read CSS - do you make another site specifically for them? Do you create a page that asks for them to upgrade their browser?
 
I can justify going back to IE 5.5, and even IE 5.0 to an extent... but is it really worth our time to go all the way back to the 4.0 browsers?
 
Thanks for your opinions!
 
-Erica Jean








**
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] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread Erica Jean







Ah. Alright. Thank you for the clarification, and thank you for letting me know that Netscape 4 supports stylesheets at all. I didn't realize that there was any stylesheet support for NS and IE 4.
 
Is there somewhere I could download older browsers for testing by chance?  
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Drake, Ted C.
Date: 06/21/05 14:58:00
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] Hi there!
 

There are people using netscape 4. They tend to be stuck in government areas that do not allow people to update their computers or those using old programs that require this browser.
It's easy to satisfy their need for content and everyone else's desire for pretty pages. Simply link to a basic css document that defines colors, sizes, etc.  Then import your advanced style sheets. NN4 does not recognize the import function. 
 
Ted
 
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erica JeanSent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:19 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Hi there!
 





Hi there guys, I'm new :) My name is Erica and I'm a 21 year old graphic design student (only 2 more years to go! Yay!)

 

I have a question though, and it's something that I've really been trying to put a lot of thought into.

 

When building sites using the web standards, the stone-age browsers (Netscape and IE 4 are the two that I'm talking about specifically), are there really enough people out there with browsers that old that we should hack our CSS/etc to make things look okay to them?

 

How exactly would you do that, anyway? If you're not using any design markup in your actual html document, and those browsers can't read CSS - do you make another site specifically for them? Do you create a page that asks for them to upgrade their browser?

 

I can justify going back to IE 5.5, and even IE 5.0 to an extent... but is it really worth our time to go all the way back to the 4.0 browsers?

 

Thanks for your opinions!

 

-Erica Jean

RE: [WSG] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread Drake, Ted C.









There are people using netscape 4. They
tend to be stuck in government areas that do not allow people to update their
computers or those using old programs that require this browser.

It's easy to satisfy their need for
content and everyone else's desire for pretty pages. Simply link to a
basic css document that defines colors, sizes, etc.  Then import your advanced
style sheets. NN4 does not recognize the import function. 

 

Ted

 

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Erica Jean
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:19
AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Hi there!



 


 
  
  
  Hi there guys,
  I'm new :) My name is Erica and I'm a 21 year old graphic design student
  (only 2 more years to go! Yay!)
  
  
   
  
  
  I have a question
  though, and it's something that I've really been trying to put a lot of
  thought into.
  
  
   
  
  
  When building
  sites using the web standards, the stone-age browsers (Netscape and IE 4 are
  the two that I'm talking about specifically), are there really enough people
  out there with browsers that old that we should hack our CSS/etc to make
  things look okay to them?
  
  
   
  
  
  How exactly would
  you do that, anyway? If you're not using any design markup in your actual
  html document, and those browsers can't read CSS - do you make another site
  specifically for them? Do you create a page that asks for them to upgrade
  their browser?
  
  
   
  
  
  I can justify going
  back to IE 5.5, and even IE 5.0 to an extent... but is it really worth our
  time to go all the way back to the 4.0 browsers?
  
  
   
  
  
  Thanks for your
  opinions!
  
  
   
  
  
  -Erica Jean

[WSG] Hi there!

2005-06-21 Thread Erica Jean







Hi there guys, I'm new :) My name is Erica and I'm a 21 year old graphic design student (only 2 more years to go! Yay!)
 
I have a question though, and it's something that I've really been trying to put a lot of thought into.
 
When building sites using the web standards, the stone-age browsers (Netscape and IE 4 are the two that I'm talking about specifically), are there really enough people out there with browsers that old that we should hack our CSS/etc to make things look okay to them?
 
How exactly would you do that, anyway? If you're not using any design markup in your actual html document, and those browsers can't read CSS - do you make another site specifically for them? Do you create a page that asks for them to upgrade their browser?
 
I can justify going back to IE 5.5, and even IE 5.0 to an extent... but is it really worth our time to go all the way back to the 4.0 browsers?
 
Thanks for your opinions!
 
-Erica Jean

Re: [WSG] Hiding styles from IE5?


Thanks Jan,

Great link!

Roberto
---
Jan Brasna wrote:


See 


**
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] Preventing scrolling


Hi Tatham,

Width the necessary adaptations, I think this does the trick:



Link to the article
Lots and lots of text. Lots and lots of text.




The div with the background-color set to transparent inhibits any click 
over the text or its selection. Another possibility would be to create a 
behaviour that treats the whole div as a link to the article.


Roberto

P.S.: I do not know if you received a mail I sent to you outside the 
list... Some divs have background problems at a resolution of 1400x1050.

-
Tatham Oddie wrote:


Patrick,

I'll clarify... basically on whatcanido.com.au we have article teasers -
they have to fill a particular area of the screen (and this can change on
the fly client side). We don't want the teasers to ever scroll.

So, our solution is to have the "read full article" link at between the
heading and the teaser. Then we just have a really long teaser in a div with
overflow:hidden. The bigger their window/screen/resolution, the bigger the
box, the bigger the teaser.

The accessibility side-effect is that they get a really long teaser.

We couldn't think of a better way to handle changing resolutions on the site
nicely. Any suggestions?


Thanks,

Tatham Oddie
Technical Director, Fuel Advance
www.fueladvance.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke
Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2005 6:34 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Preventing scrolling

 


Tatham Oddie
   



 

Lots and lots of content which we never expect 
to fit in the box and we just want to be cut off.

However, we only want them to be able to see what
ould fit in the box. So, we need to stop them
from being able to click in the box and use their scroll
wheel. Another way they could see all the content is 
by selecting what they can see and dragging down.

What's the best way from stopping this from scrolling?
   



Am I the only one that thinks this sort of thing goes
directly against tenets of usability and accessibility?
I'm not sure about the context, but would it not be possible
to implement some word counting / limiting on the server
(assuming this is a template for a content management
system or similar)?

Patrick

Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.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
**



 


**
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] Class Discusion: Centering a Fixed Width Layout

2005-06-21 Thread Mike Foskett

Hi Mario,

I don't know what's different, but here's the test page I used to develop it:
http://www.websemantics.co.uk/test/centered_content/

Tested as working on:
PC: IE v5, IE v6, Firefox.
Mac: IE v5.2, Safari.

The test example has no margin set on the container div.
Though I don't really think it matters whether it's stated on the body tag or 
the container.
I'd put that to personal taste or style.


mike 2k:)2
 

   e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk

 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 21 June 2005 16:11
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Mike Foskett
Subject: RE: [WSG] Class Discusion: Centering a Fixed Width Layout

Good morning Mike,

I must respectfully disagree. I'm looking at my client site in FF, Opera, 
Mozilla and Netscape as I compose this reply, and the page is left-aligned 
using "margin:0 auto" in the body rule only.

However, it center-aligns the page when placing the "margin:0 auto" in a 
container div.

body
{text-align: center;
 background: #ccc;}

#container
{margin: 0 auto;
 width: 760px;
 font: normal 12px verdana, arial, sans-serif;
 background: #fff;}

Respectfully yours,
Mario

> Hi Mario,
>
> That only occurs with IE v5.
> IE v5.5, v6, Firefox, Netscape and Opera will all centre the design. 
> The only amend required to get IE v5 to behave is to add 
> text-align:center to the body element. Then compensate for that 
> alignment in the elements
> below:
>
> * {margin:0; padding:0}
> html {height:100%; font-size:100.01%}
> body  {
>   text-align:center;
>   min-height:101%;
>   font:76.1%/130% Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif;
>   color:#000; background:#fff;
>   width:760px;
>   margin:0 auto
>   }
>
> body * {text-align:left}
> #wrapper {width:760px}
>
> (Amended from:
> http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/useful_css_snippets/#leveller)
>
> IE v5 requires all the centred content to be in a wrapper div (other 
> browsers don't).
>
> all centred content in here
>
>
> mike 2k:)2
>
> 
>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk 
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: 20 June 2005 19:32
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Cc: Mike Foskett
> Subject: RE: [WSG] Class Discusion: Centering a Fixed Width Layout
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Great set of CSS code snippets and explanations! However, there is one
> declaration that suggests using "margin: 0 auto" in the body rule, which
> supposedly center-aligns the webpage in the browser. However, testing
> reveals that it left-aligns the page, but placing this declaration in a
> container or wrapper works.
>
> Please advise...
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Mario
>
>
>> You might find this useful to look at:
>> http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/useful_css_snippets/#leveller
>> Gives light detail on why certain settings are used.
>>
>> The latest version:
>> http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/useful_css_snippets/#levelleru
>> pdate It requires text-align:center adding for IE v5 though.
>>
>> Hope it helps
>>
>> mike 2k:)2
>>
>> 
>>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk 
>>
>>
>>
>> **
>> 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.clearswift.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
> **
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> 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

RE: [WSG] Class Discusion: Centering a Fixed Width Layout

2005-06-21 Thread standards

Good morning Mike,

I must respectfully disagree. I'm looking at my client site in FF, Opera,
Mozilla and Netscape as I compose this reply, and the page is left-aligned
using "margin:0 auto" in the body rule only.

However, it center-aligns the page when placing the "margin:0 auto" in a
container div.

body
{text-align: center;
 background: #ccc;}

#container
{margin: 0 auto;
 width: 760px;
 font: normal 12px verdana, arial, sans-serif;
 background: #fff;}

Respectfully yours,
Mario

> Hi Mario,
>
> That only occurs with IE v5.
> IE v5.5, v6, Firefox, Netscape and Opera will all centre the design. The
> only amend required to get IE v5 to behave is to add text-align:center
> to the body element. Then compensate for that alignment in the elements
> below:
>
> * {margin:0; padding:0}
> html {height:100%; font-size:100.01%}
> body  {
>   text-align:center;
>   min-height:101%;
>   font:76.1%/130% Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif;
>   color:#000; background:#fff;
>   width:760px;
>   margin:0 auto
>   }
>
> body * {text-align:left}
> #wrapper {width:760px}
>
> (Amended from:
> http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/useful_css_snippets/#leveller)
>
> IE v5 requires all the centred content to be in a wrapper div (other
> browsers don't).
>
> all centred content in here
>
>
> mike 2k:)2
>
> 
>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk
> 
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: 20 June 2005 19:32
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Cc: Mike Foskett
> Subject: RE: [WSG] Class Discusion: Centering a Fixed Width Layout
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Great set of CSS code snippets and explanations! However, there is one
> declaration that suggests using "margin: 0 auto" in the body rule, which
> supposedly center-aligns the webpage in the browser. However, testing
> reveals that it left-aligns the page, but placing this declaration in a
> container or wrapper works.
>
> Please advise...
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Mario
>
>
>> You might find this useful to look at:
>> http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/useful_css_snippets/#leveller
>> Gives light detail on why certain settings are used.
>>
>> The latest version:
>> http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/useful_css_snippets/#levelleru
>> pdate It requires text-align:center adding for IE v5 though.
>>
>> Hope it helps
>>
>> mike 2k:)2
>>
>> 
>>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk 
>>
>>
>>
>> **
>> 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.clearswift.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
> **
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> 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] Hiding styles from IE5?


Hi Stefan,

An interesting article. Thank you.

Roberto

--

Stefan Lemmen wrote:


Hi Roberto,

On 6/21/05, Roberto Gorjão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


Hello all,

I would like to hide the styles of a site from I.E.5, so its pages
degrade gracefully (who ever invented this expression had a twisted
sense of humor) in this browser… I have a general styles sheet linked to
my pages, and I created another styles sheet, just for I.E.5, which I've
inserted in a conditional expression (if lte IE 5). In this last styles
sheet I reset all properties to 0, auto or inherited, using the wildcard
selector. Is there any other smarter way of hiding the styles from I.E.5 ?

Thanks.

Roberto

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**


   



Maybe this link is useful to you..

http://www.thesitewizard.com/css/excludecss.shtml

 


**
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] Hiding styles from IE5?

2005-06-21 Thread Jan Brasna


See 

--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Hiding styles from IE5?

2005-06-21 Thread Stefan Lemmen

Hi Roberto,

On 6/21/05, Roberto Gorjão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I would like to hide the styles of a site from I.E.5, so its pages
> degrade gracefully (who ever invented this expression had a twisted
> sense of humor) in this browser… I have a general styles sheet linked to
> my pages, and I created another styles sheet, just for I.E.5, which I've
> inserted in a conditional expression (if lte IE 5). In this last styles
> sheet I reset all properties to 0, auto or inherited, using the wildcard
> selector. Is there any other smarter way of hiding the styles from I.E.5 ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Roberto
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 

Maybe this link is useful to you..

http://www.thesitewizard.com/css/excludecss.shtml

-- 
Stefan Lemmen
Holland

[WSG] off topic - wordpress global problems

2005-06-21 Thread Drake, Ted C.

Hi All

Sorry about this off-topic post but I figure there are plenty of people on
this list that may be affected. I noticed this morning as I checked the
blogs that I read regularly that several are down due to database issues.
www.molly.com, photomatt, joe clark, 1976design.com, etc. 

My blog is wordpress based but is still live. Does anyone know if there is
something going around or are they all on the same host?

Once again, I apologize for the off-topic post and if you are using
wordpress, you may want to check your own blog. Comments can be sent to me
off list to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ted
www.tdrake.net (hopefully still active)
**
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] Preventing scrolling

2005-06-21 Thread Tatham Oddie

Philippe,

This is within a container which has top:200px;bottom:150px; (or so)...

Thanks,

Tatham Oddie
Technical Director, Fuel Advance
www.fueladvance.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Philippe Wittenbergh
Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2005 4:45 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Preventing scrolling

On 21 Jun 2005, at 3:04 pm, Tatham Oddie wrote:

> div
>   {
>   width: 200px;
>   height: 100%;
>   overflow: hidden;
>   }

height:100% - 100% of what ?
if the parent container has no height declared, the 100% will default 
to auto, and all the content will be visible.

what you probably want is setting some height in em/px/km/
then your overflow:hidden will have some effect.

If I'm wrong, please provide a test case (url).

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh

**
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] Preventing scrolling

2005-06-21 Thread Tatham Oddie

Patrick,

I'll clarify... basically on whatcanido.com.au we have article teasers -
they have to fill a particular area of the screen (and this can change on
the fly client side). We don't want the teasers to ever scroll.

So, our solution is to have the "read full article" link at between the
heading and the teaser. Then we just have a really long teaser in a div with
overflow:hidden. The bigger their window/screen/resolution, the bigger the
box, the bigger the teaser.

The accessibility side-effect is that they get a really long teaser.

We couldn't think of a better way to handle changing resolutions on the site
nicely. Any suggestions?
 

Thanks,

Tatham Oddie
Technical Director, Fuel Advance
www.fueladvance.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke
Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2005 6:34 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Preventing scrolling

> Tatham Oddie

> Lots and lots of content which we never expect 
> to fit in the box and we just want to be cut off.
> However, we only want them to be able to see what
> ould fit in the box. So, we need to stop them
> from being able to click in the box and use their scroll
> wheel. Another way they could see all the content is 
> by selecting what they can see and dragging down.
> What's the best way from stopping this from scrolling?

Am I the only one that thinks this sort of thing goes
directly against tenets of usability and accessibility?
I'm not sure about the context, but would it not be possible
to implement some word counting / limiting on the server
(assuming this is a template for a content management
system or similar)?

Patrick

Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.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
**

[WSG] HTML-Structure feedback - powerplay.solutionpark.ch

2005-06-21 Thread Michael Vogt

Hello everybody.

I'm preparing right now some pages for a new client. I'd be glad to
receive some feedback about the code-structure of two of them.

The nested divs for the columns are coming from a template builder
somewhere on the net, and I'm using them since. Don't know if they are
all needed as they are, but they display quite solid so far (as far as
I have seen).

The general idea is, that the user is able to fold the content of the
middle column as he likes, so only the content that is of interest for
him/her is shown. This is why the content is inside a definition list.

I'm not quite happy with the list below the calendar. Does it make
sense to do it this way?

html:
http://powerplay.solutionpark.ch/test/calendar.html
http://powerplay.solutionpark.ch/test/login2.html

css:
http://powerplay.solutionpark.ch/test/includes/academy.css
http://powerplay.solutionpark.ch/test/includes/forms.css


Any feedback is welcome.


Thanks a lot,
Michael Vogt



PS: What I still need to do is use relative sizes on some boxes and
font, to better support zooming, and the table needs a summary. I also
think the contrast of the font is too low. Also, the pages are not
completely tested on all browsers yet (I'm working with FireFox), but
should be close even on IE on Mac. Correcting these comes next.
**
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] Strange font-family behavior on Mac

2005-06-21 Thread Marcello Cerruti

I have the same strange problem that you can see on this Apple site  
page:

http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso
If you look at the left side column with IE (Mac) or Firefox (Mac)  
the font is different from the one that you can see on Safari, iCab,  
OmniWeb, Opera, and on all the Windows browsers as well.


The font family involved are: Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
which are the same of that Apple page, the only difference is that on  
Apple site the styles are inline styles and the left bar is in a  
table cell.


On my page, instead, the problem arise only in an horizontal navbar  
(list based), while the rest of the page renders the same font  
consistently (and correctly) across all the browsers (IE, Firefox and  
Safari). So only the links on the navbar are affected by this problem.


I'm sorry I can't show you the page, but the Apple page I indicated  
above has the same problem.


I have searched on the web about this bug (or behavior), but with no  
luck.

May be a too small font-size issue (10px)?

Have somebody had the same problem? And there is a way to fix it (eg:  
adding another sans-serif font-family that renders better on IE Mac  
and Firefox Mac when the font-size is about 10px)?


TIA

Marcello Cerruti
**
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] Hiding styles from IE5?