[WSG] Validate a PNG?
I'm involved in a template competition at the moment and the requirements state XHTML and CSS compliance as a specific requirement for submission to the contest. The twist is that the designs must be submitted as PNG or JPG, and as far as I know, there isn't a mechanical validation system that validates a Photoshopped layout to web standards compliance. Could this be a misunderstanding on the part of the competition hosters as to the difference between layercake designing and rapid CSS prototyping ? Thought, comments, flames all welcome ;) Lawrence -- Lawrence Meckan Absalom Media Mob: (04) 1047 9633 ABN: 49 286 495 792 http://www.absalom.biz ** 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] Safari problems
Here are the screen shots of the weirdness that is Safari 1. On mouseover too, the flower persists in displaying... http://www.janelehrer.co.uk/safarishots.html http://www.megustalatelevision.com/uwish Any ideas would be greatly appreciated ** 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] Scalable background-image?
lets rephrase the last bit of css
#image {
z-index:1;
}
#content {
z-index:2;
}
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Scalable background-image?
Another not as far as I know (but that is only as far as CSS2)
alternative is to layer content
div id=imageimage height=10em width=10em src=x.jpg //div
div id=contentLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing
elit. Cras odio leo, feugiat ut, adipiscing vitae, malesuada id,
risus. Aenean non augue. Nulla gravida mi id mauris./div
#image, #content {
position: absolute;
top: 10em;
left: 10em;
height: 10em;
width: 10em;
}
#image {
z-index:1;
}
#content {
z-index:1;
}
Which will work well for fixed layouts, ie you can fix the size in ems
of all divs with scalable background images and make use of container
divs with position: relative;
--
Nick Cowie
http://nickcowie.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
[WSG] float woes - one page fine, the other not...
Hi all, I have two near identical pages on a site. Same template, nearly the same content; same css. On one of the pages, two floated images are leaving a gap. The pages: http://artloft.com.au/studio_editions.html , where floats are behaving http://artloft.com.au/michael_leunig.html , not so good - gap between floated elements. I feel like I must have missed the obvious, but don't know what that is. This problem seems to appear across browsers and platforms. Can anyone help me here? -- Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] float woes - one page fine, the other not...
Hi, The only structural difference I see is the copyright notice at http://artloft.com.au/michael_leunig.html as a paragraph within your contents div. Try to make a separate footer div with this notice outside the contents div. Regards, Janos 2005/11/9, Andrew Ivin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi all, I have two near identical pages on a site. Same template, nearly the same content; same css. On one of the pages, two floated images are leaving a gap. The pages: http://artloft.com.au/studio_editions.html , where floats are behaving http://artloft.com.au/michael_leunig.html , not so good - gap between floated elements. I feel like I must have missed the obvious, but don't know what that is. This problem seems to appear across browsers and platforms. Can anyone help me here? -- Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] Validate a PNG?
On 9 Nov 2005, at 7:02 PM, Absalom Media wrote: ...and the requirements state XHTML and CSS compliance as a specific requirement for submission to the contest. The twist is that the designs must be submitted as PNG or JPG... Huh? Sounds to me like the organisers just don't know what they're talking about. Unless their intention is to vet designs as images, and only look at the code of shortlisted entries - ? Weird. Nick ___ 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] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML = Is it still REALLY valid?
Title: Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML = Is it still REALLY valid? Hi all, I was looking at the source of the Fisheye demo after reading about it here on WSG - hoping it would be valid. It contains it's own made up attributes which devalidate the code. So then I thought fine, I'll just take them out the source and write them in with _javascript_ onload instead, making sure it degrades well. But that's where I thought, is that REALLY valid? It'll pass at the W3C validator but my generated source is going to be invalid. Screen readers in my fairly limited understanding (sorry, I'm still young and learning :) ) don't use _javascript_ so *should* be ok right? Which groups of users would be affected by this? Respectfully, and thanks in advance. Jamie Mason Skybet.com
[WSG] Help with a javascript menu
Hi there, I wonder if anyone can help me, My site : http://mx.quirk.co.za/poohcorner.za.net/indextest2.html on my testing server, the menu displays fine in mozilla firefox, But in ie it doesnt work, im new at this.. Any advice would be appreciated. thanks Charla -- --- Charla Nicol Junior Html Coder and Mail Administrator Quirk eMarketing www.quirk.co.za 021 462 7353 084 637 2198 --- ** 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] Validate a PNG?
Nick Gleitzman wrote: On 9 Nov 2005, at 7:02 PM, Absalom Media wrote: ...and the requirements state XHTML and CSS compliance as a specific requirement for submission to the contest. The twist is that the designs must be submitted as PNG or JPG... Huh? Sounds to me like the organisers just don't know what they're talking about. That's why I asked them to clarify. It took a while to get any meaningful answer. Unless their intention is to vet designs as images, and only look at the code of shortlisted entries - ? No, unfortunately it's not this. It looks like the organisers are still thinking of design in terms of the layercake workflow, which seems to go against current trends for rapid CSS prototyping of design work. I can submit an image. The workflow for the design mustn't be rapid CSS prototyping as the workflow I use is somehow considered a rules violation, even though it ends up with a design prototype as requested. Weird. It only gets weirder the more I look at it. ;) Lawrence -- Lawrence Meckan Absalom Media Mob: (04) 1047 9633 ABN: 49 286 495 792 http://www.absalom.biz ** 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] Help with a javascript menu
2005-11-09
Thread
Marko Mihelcic - founder of mcville.net (http.//www.mcville.net)|(http://board.mcville.net)
hm try to work a bit more on the header and under the footer the diclamer text is hurting my eyes , try to add font color=black to that text cheers ! 2005/11/9, Charla Nicol | Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi there, I wonder if anyone can help me, My site : http://mx.quirk.co.za/poohcorner.za.net/indextest2.html on my testing server, the menu displays fine in mozilla firefox, But in ie it doesnt work, im new at this.. Any advice would be appreciated. thanks Charla -- --- Charla Nicol Junior Html Coder and Mail Administrator Quirk eMarketing www.quirk.co.za 021 462 7353 084 637 2198 --- ** 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] Validate a PNG?
It only gets weirder the more I look at it. ;) Could we have a link to the contest or something? -- -- C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Standards and .NET
* Don't use postback. Just give up, it's a badly implemented hack to maintain state in a webpage misusing forms and introducing complete JavaScript dependence. Just because Visual Studio makes it very easy to accidentally use it, doesn't make it ok. Just pretend it was never there. Do you mean ViewState? If so then yes turn it off unless you know what you are doing and why you are using\accessing it. Rob ** 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] Naked metadata - RDF in HTML
Thanks Jonathon. This is great, I have forwarded a link to your page to our metadata people. -- kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] Naked metadata - RDF in HTML
Some more thoughts (that send button is just too easy to press =) Would using a rel or rev attribute be more appropriate than using a class to delineate the metadata? These attributes imply a relationship whereas class does not. If you needed to get at elements containing metadata at the presentation level you could use: element[rel=dc.title] Maybe it's not too late to have that conversation on the DC.General list, or with Ian Davis? Maybe, it's just not that important? -- kind regards, Terrence Wood. ** 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] Validate a PNG?
Could it perhaps be joomla related?:o)(absalom media is responsible for several contributions to the joomla community; especially a tutorial from which myself and numerous others have greatly benefited) just workflow your design how you want to, then screencap it, and send it in (as a jpg or png, naturally).they can't disqualify you by guessing how you may have come to your design. On 11/10/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It only gets weirder the more I look at it. ;)Could we have a link to the contest or something?C Montoyardpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Help with a javascript menu
Don't you mean color : #000;? Or are you asking her to add a font tag.. Samuel Marko Mihelcic - founder of mcville.net (http.//www.mcville.net)|(http://board.mcville.net) wrote: hm try to work a bit more on the header and under the footer the diclamer text is hurting my eyes , try to add font color=black to that text cheers ! 2005/11/9, Charla Nicol | Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi there, I wonder if anyone can help me, My site : http://mx.quirk.co.za/poohcorner.za.net/indextest2.html on my testing server, the menu displays fine in mozilla firefox, But in ie it doesnt work, im new at this.. Any advice would be appreciated. thanks Charla -- --- Charla Nicol Junior Html Coder and Mail Administrator Quirk eMarketing www.quirk.co.za 021 462 7353 084 637 2198 --- ** 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] Help with a javascript menu
Hi Carla,
Add the following style after your hover as shown below.
Regards
Graham Cook
www.uaoz.com
#nav li:hover ul, #nav li.sfhover ul {
left: auto;
}
* html #nav li:hover ul,* html #nav li.sfhover ul {
margin-left: 5em;
}
**
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] Susannah Marks is out of the office
I will be out of the office starting 10/11/2005 and will not return until 11/11/2005. I am out of the office this afternoon and will be back in the office tomorrow (Friday). If you have an urgent query please call me on 027 490 5513. Otherwise I will respond to your email when I return. Thank you, Susannah Statement of confidentiality: This e-mail message and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is IN-CONFIDENCE and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. * This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by the Ministry of Health's Content and Virus Filtering Gateway * ** 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 resizing
I was just wondering what everyone's opinion of font resizing using stylesheet swapping? I'm wondering if it's still useful given that it's useless to people using screen readers, people with vision impairment will probably be more likely to us a screen magnifier, and others can use their browser's own font sizing -- command-+ and so on. I notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's new design font resizing, but offers just two font sizes: normal and bigger and only for some pages. Any thoughts? ** 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 resizing
David McKinnon wrote: and others can use their browser's own font sizing -- command-+ and so on. This last point seems to be at the root of the problem. Unfortunately there is evidence that the large majority of non-techie web users have absolutely no clue how to actually use their browser (I still shudder when I see colleagues open a browser, go to google, and *then* typing in the full URL they want to go to into google's search box). These users are blissfully unaware that they actually have a way to size their text up/down if they need to. Personally, I see this as a matter of educating the user and making browser controls more obvious (as a suggestion to the Firefox team, for instance, I proposed a fairly obvious text resizer as part of the default UI https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=472 ; IE already has a text size button, but it's not visible by default...maybe it should be?). I hate that it's again down to web developers to shoulder the burden (similar to the workarounds we have to use to make sites accessible because browser and assistive technology developers can't be bothered to properly support certain standards in a meaningful way, or make their tools fully UAAG compliant...but that's another rant). A simple way to avoid problems: don't go for microscopic text and don't use pixel values (another reason for some sites to use these size widgets: they like their pixel-perfect control, but then need to offer a way for IE users to resize their microtext). -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font resizing
I'd imagine that most people would not know that the browser supports it, so offering it up on the page could be a good idea. I'd think hard about using it though, if your site involves alot of text then it's worthwhile, but if your using it just as a gimmack to show off I'd avoid it.. David McKinnon wrote: I was just wondering what everyone's opinion of font resizing using stylesheet swapping? I'm wondering if it's still useful given that it's useless to people using screen readers, people with vision impairment will probably be more likely to us a screen magnifier, and others can use their browser's own font sizing -- command-+ and so on. I notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's new design font resizing, but offers just two font sizes: normal and bigger and only for some pages. Any thoughts? ** 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] Font resizing
From my experience there are a lot of people who have got a vision impairment, yet do not use Magnifiers or don't know how to manually change the browser font size. If you think about it - a vision impairment could be just caused by old age or even tiredness. Just because somebody has got slight difficulties reading small font doesn't mean they go off and buy themselves a Screen Magnifier. And in particular older people might not know how modify their browsers to increase the font size. Having said that - the stylesheet swapping links on websites (such as on the Sydney Morning Herald) are very often so user-unfriendly, they end up being completely useless. I mean: how many people will guess that a small A will decrease the font size on your browser, a larger A will increase it? In particular for people who do have a vision impairment, that's not the easiest functionality to detect and use. If you introduce such features, make them obvious. And if possible, write them in BIG FONT. :) That's my two cents. Cheers, Andreas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David McKinnon Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:49 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font resizing I was just wondering what everyone's opinion of font resizing using stylesheet swapping? I'm wondering if it's still useful given that it's useless to people using screen readers, people with vision impairment will probably be more likely to us a screen magnifier, and others can use their browser's own font sizing -- command-+ and so on. I notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's new design font resizing, but offers just two font sizes: normal and bigger and only for some pages. Any thoughts? ** 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] Font resizing
My sentiments exactly.But then what is the most accessible, most practical solution for allowing the user to change the font size of your site?Options include:- writing accessible, standards friendly code that can easily be either magnified or increased in size by the browser - providing a button on your pages to increase text size- having a preferences page available on your pages where they can select several different presentation options. (such as stopdesign, http://stopdesign.com/about/prefs/)- providing a (possibly unwieldy) large pair of buttons on every page, saying MAKE THIS TEXT BIGGER and make this text smaller.I suppose, like many 'how far do we take this' accessibility concepts, it is a case by case, audience by audience basis. For most of my sites, i would probably settle for the first option i listed.If i was writing a site where i knew my audience would have a large number of vision impaired readers, and i have no assumed knowledge on their part, i would probably go for a little slider option: [little]A[/little]-|[big]A[/big]...so that the further you move to the bigger 'A', the bigger the site's text is. Of course this wouldn't cater to other possible customisations like high contrast, single column, or anything else. --a--On 11/10/05, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:From my experience there are a lot of people who have got a visionimpairment, yet do not use Magnifiers or don't know how to manually change the browser font size. If you think about it - a vision impairment couldbe just caused by old age or even tiredness. Just because somebody has gotslight difficulties reading small font doesn't mean they go off and buy themselves a Screen Magnifier. And in particular older people might not knowhow modify their browsers to increase the font size.Having said that - the stylesheet swapping links on websites (such as on the Sydney Morning Herald) are very often so user-unfriendly, they end up beingcompletely useless. I mean: how many people will guess that a small A willdecrease the font size on your browser, a larger A will increase it? In particular for people who do have a vision impairment, that's not theeasiest functionality to detect and use. If you introduce such features,make them obvious. And if possible, write them in BIG FONT. :) That's my two cents.Cheers,Andreas.-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David McKinnonSent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:49 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Font resizing I was just wondering what everyone's opinion of font resizing usingstylesheet swapping?I'm wondering if it's still useful given that it's useless to people usingscreen readers, people with vision impairment will probably be more likely to us a screen magnifier, and others can use their browser's own font sizing-- command-+ and so on.I notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's new design font resizing, butoffers just two font sizes: normal and bigger and only for some pages. Any thoughts?**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] Font resizing
last week in a usability evaluation I saw my very first participant increase the font size of their own accord. No prompting what so ever. Profile: Male, 36, works in finance, uses internet every day I nearly fell off my chair. It was such a rare moment. He then right clicked a link to open it in a new window. I had to stop myself leaving the room to post to the list, it was that exciting... fortunately I have it on DVD and can watch it to my hearts content... :) -Original Message- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally, I see this as a matter of educating the user and making browser controls more obvious ** 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 resizing
In my opinion you should make it accessible to begin with, and then provide options (Or allow users to change with their browser tools) to let it suit users needs. It was amazing the positive feedback I received when I styled a RSS feed for a blog so that the blog titles were IMO really huge (Around 20pt) and the text was also huge (Around 16pt). But apparently it made it easier to use than the actual blog styled in HTML/CSS! I made the change so the blogs site was in the same format as the RSS feed with a comment on the blog about how to make the font smaller with your browser and nobody complained :-) Something to think about: Do we provide accessible content to begin with or do we provide ways for a user to make the content accessible? Lloyd On 11/10/05, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my experience there are a lot of people who have got a vision impairment, yet do not use Magnifiers or don't know how to manually change the browser font size. If you think about it - a vision impairment could be just caused by old age or even tiredness. Just because somebody has got slight difficulties reading small font doesn't mean they go off and buy themselves a Screen Magnifier. And in particular older people might not know how modify their browsers to increase the font size. Having said that - the stylesheet swapping links on websites (such as on the Sydney Morning Herald) are very often so user-unfriendly, they end up being completely useless. I mean: how many people will guess that a small A will decrease the font size on your browser, a larger A will increase it? In particular for people who do have a vision impairment, that's not the easiest functionality to detect and use. If you introduce such features, make them obvious. And if possible, write them in BIG FONT. :) That's my two cents. Cheers, Andreas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David McKinnon Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:49 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font resizing I was just wondering what everyone's opinion of font resizing using stylesheet swapping? I'm wondering if it's still useful given that it's useless to people using screen readers, people with vision impairment will probably be more likely to us a screen magnifier, and others can use their browser's own font sizing -- command-+ and so on. I notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's new design font resizing, but offers just two font sizes: normal and bigger and only for some pages. Any thoughts? ** 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] Font resizing
I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on there for the show, not to really make any difference. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David McKinnon Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 12:49 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Font resizing I was just wondering what everyone's opinion of font resizing using stylesheet swapping? I'm wondering if it's still useful given that it's useless to people using screen readers, people with vision impairment will probably be more likely to us a screen magnifier, and others can use their browser's own font sizing -- command-+ and so on. I notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's new design font resizing, but offers just two font sizes: normal and bigger and only for some pages. Any thoughts? ** 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] Font resizing
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:08:40 +1100: I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on there for the show, not to really make any difference. It this the site in question? http://www.smh.com.au/ I opened it in a 900x700 window, and could see amoung all the px sized mousetype nothing that looked like a text resizer. Where do they hide it? How are people who need it supposed to find it? That begs the question, when starting with mousetype, how is anyone who needs a resizer going to recognize if there is one there, much less how it works? If sites would simply use the user default in the first place, then few would have any use for a resizer on the page, since too big for any web designer is going to be adequate for most such people whether they know how to set their own defaults or not. -- I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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 resizing
This brings up another question I've been wondering about... how do you make it obvious that you have a link to make the layout more visible? For example, I've implemented a high-contrast link on my website (http://www.rdpdesign.com) but if someone needs a high contrast layout, would they really be able to see the link/button? -- -- C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.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 resizing
Felix, It is an option available on a per article basis I believe: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-condemns-heinous-act-of-terror/2005/11/10/1131407729630.html?oneclick=true At the top right of the article (Near the print and sponsored by HP images) is a small A and a large A. Not very useful. I am going to meet with a legally blind user today (Who still has partial sight) and I may ask them how their screen reader handles it, I wonder if it is read first or after the article and what it says. If it just says A A... *shakes head* Lloyd On 11/10/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:08:40 +1100: I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on there for the show, not to really make any difference. It this the site in question? http://www.smh.com.au/ I opened it in a 900x700 window, and could see amoung all the px sized mousetype nothing that looked like a text resizer. Where do they hide it? How are people who need it supposed to find it? That begs the question, when starting with mousetype, how is anyone who needs a resizer going to recognize if there is one there, much less how it works? If sites would simply use the user default in the first place, then few would have any use for a resizer on the page, since too big for any web designer is going to be adequate for most such people whether they know how to set their own defaults or not. -- I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] Font resizing
It is on the news story pages, but not the homepage. Strangely enough though, the small font size in the stories is bigger than the default size on the home page. Geoff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Felix Miata Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:39 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Font resizing Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:08:40 +1100: I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on there for the show, not to really make any difference. It this the site in question? http://www.smh.com.au/ I opened it in a 900x700 window, and could see amoung all the px sized mousetype nothing that looked like a text resizer. Where do they hide it? How are people who need it supposed to find it? That begs the question, when starting with mousetype, how is anyone who needs a resizer going to recognize if there is one there, much less how it works? If sites would simply use the user default in the first place, then few would have any use for a resizer on the page, since too big for any web designer is going to be adequate for most such people whether they know how to set their own defaults or not. -- I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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 resizing
The Herald (that's the right site Andreas) only supplies font resizing on some
pages. It appears to be just its news stories and it doesn't make much
difference.
Here's the context for my question. I'm reworking a design that had used pixels
for fonts and then supplied three larger stylesheets, all done with pixel
sizes, to change the font's size. I've changed all font sizes to ems with body
{font-size:76%;} as a base then 90% 100% and %110.
(The 76% follows from Owen Briggs work
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/)
Maybe those increments aren't big enough to make a difference (Sydney Morning
Herald-style)
I'm happy to keep the font resizing since most people agree it's a nice, more
obvious feature. Any thoughts on whether it's better just to have one or two
increments, rather than four and how big should the biggest be?
David
[Profile: Male, 36, works in finance uses the internet every day. (Spooky)]
On Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 02:46PM, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:08:40 +1100:
I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal
and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making
any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on
there for the show, not to really make any difference.
It this the site in question? http://www.smh.com.au/
I opened it in a 900x700 window, and could see amoung all the px sized
mousetype nothing that looked like a text resizer. Where do they hide
it? How are people who need it supposed to find it? That begs the
question, when starting with mousetype, how is anyone who needs a
resizer going to recognize if there is one there, much less how it
works? If sites would simply use the user default in the first place,
then few would have any use for a resizer on the page, since too big
for any web designer is going to be adequate for most such people
whether they know how to set their own defaults or not.
--
I can do all things through Him who gives me strength.
Philippians 4:13 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
**
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] Font resizing
So I am one of the designers at Fairfax Digital and I can tell you the links for those font resizing things are: Normal Font Large Font We have no tracking in place to monitor how many people use them, I suspect not that many. The icons themselves I cannot speak for Pete is on the list I think and can step up and enlighten you as to why they were chosen... prob at the request of our Editorial people. I can say that the functionality for the font resizing was not even touched as part of the recent design, but since seeing this thread some adjustment have been made. See you can make a change people, well done :-) Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Geoff Pack Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font resizing It is on the news story pages, but not the homepage. Strangely enough though, the small font size in the stories is bigger than the default size on the home page. Geoff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Felix Miata Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:39 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Font resizing Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:08:40 +1100: I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on there for the show, not to really make any difference. It this the site in question? http://www.smh.com.au/ I opened it in a 900x700 window, and could see amoung all the px sized mousetype nothing that looked like a text resizer. Where do they hide it? How are people who need it supposed to find it? That begs the question, when starting with mousetype, how is anyone who needs a resizer going to recognize if there is one there, much less how it works? If sites would simply use the user default in the first place, then few would have any use for a resizer on the page, since too big for any web designer is going to be adequate for most such people whether they know how to set their own defaults or not. -- I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] Font resizing
Herrod, Lisa wrote: I nearly fell off my chair. It was such a rare moment. He then right clicked a link to open it in a new window. I had to stop myself leaving the room to post to the list, it was that exciting... fortunately I have it on DVD and can watch it to my hearts content... :) Hmmm, accessibility pr0n... Novel concept. Cheers Mark ** 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 resizing
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:22:49 +1100, Andrew Coffey wrote: The icons themselves I cannot speak for Pete is on the list I think and can step up and enlighten you as to why they were chosen... prob at the request of our Editorial people. Of the few sites I have seen that implement on-screen icons for font resizing, every one has used a large and small A-icon. Indeed, if you are looking for a larger user base experience, Microsoft Office also uses similar icons. To my taste, I think the icons are improved if they have a + and a - on them, but I'm not sure that makes sense in the smh case. Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ 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] Font resizing
Andy wrote: The icons themselves I cannot speak for Pete is on the list I think and can step up and enlighten you as to why they were chosen... prob at the request of our Editorial people. er - thanks Andy ;-) I think I just borrowed the idea (for the different sized A's) off the wired.com site at the time. hey they are still there now! :) The screen real estate available on a news article page is generally very precious, and if you do want to have something like that on the page (from memory it was probably a joint design/editorial idea/request) you've got to work with a pretty small space. Agreed they arent perfect. I like news.com.au's bigger/smaller icons on their article pages : http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17199443-13762,00.html ha! so yeah, The icons are far from perfect, I think they are helpful for the reasons discussed earlier, And tomorrow is friday. pete ~~~ Peter Ottery ~ Creative Director Daemon Pty Ltd 17 Roslyn Gardens Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011 Web: www.daemon.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 **
RE: [WSG] Font resizing
Hi Andrew, Good to have you on this group - it's more productive than just complaining about stuff behind your back. :) When you said some adjustments have been made - what adjustments? I just tried it out again, but couldn't notice any difference. Personally the main adjustment I would love to see is a bigger difference between the two styles. That should be quite helpful. I understand that the real estate is precious on these kind of websites, but it might help to just put something like Change Font Size as a title above the two icons - that way people will understand immediately what it is for. Cheers, Andreas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Coffey Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font resizing I can say that the functionality for the font resizing was not even touched as part of the recent design, but since seeing this thread some adjustment have been made. See you can make a change people, well done :-) Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Geoff Pack Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font resizing It is on the news story pages, but not the homepage. Strangely enough though, the small font size in the stories is bigger than the default size on the home page. Geoff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Felix Miata Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:39 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Font resizing Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:08:40 +1100: I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on there for the show, not to really make any difference. It this the site in question? http://www.smh.com.au/ I opened it in a 900x700 window, and could see amoung all the px sized mousetype nothing that looked like a text resizer. Where do they hide it? How are people who need it supposed to find it? That begs the question, when starting with mousetype, how is anyone who needs a resizer going to recognize if there is one there, much less how it works? If sites would simply use the user default in the first place, then few would have any use for a resizer on the page, since too big for any web designer is going to be adequate for most such people whether they know how to set their own defaults or not. -- I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] Font resizing
David McKinnon wrote:
Here's the context for my question. I'm reworking a design that had
used pixels for fonts and then supplied three larger stylesheets, all
done with pixel sizes, to change the font's size. I've changed all
font sizes to ems with body {font-size:76%;} as a base then 90% 100%
and %110. (The 76% follows from Owen Briggs work
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/)
That 76% base will give me, and others who know how to set 'minimum font
size', a large enough size, as both Opera and Firefox will cascade down
the chain[1].
I set 'minimum font size = 14px' in all browsers that supports it.
Others may set 16px or even larger values.
Using a small base will always result in larger than intended font-size
in these browsers when 'min-font-size' is applied to any degree. Just
make sure there's enough room for those resulting fonts, and it will
still work at our end.
I'm happy to keep the font resizing since most people agree it's a
nice, more obvious feature. Any thoughts on whether it's better just
to have one or two increments, rather than four and how big should
the biggest be?
IE/win have 25% steps (when not affected by em-base). That should do for
font-resizing in pages/sites to. Something like 100% - 125% - 150%.
Preferably as base.
Georg
[1]http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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 resizing
I just bumped the size difference up a little, it will be live tomorrow(ish). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 4:00 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font resizing Hi Andrew, Good to have you on this group - it's more productive than just complaining about stuff behind your back. :) When you said some adjustments have been made - what adjustments? I just tried it out again, but couldn't notice any difference. Personally the main adjustment I would love to see is a bigger difference between the two styles. That should be quite helpful. I understand that the real estate is precious on these kind of websites, but it might help to just put something like Change Font Size as a title above the two icons - that way people will understand immediately what it is for. Cheers, Andreas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Coffey Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font resizing I can say that the functionality for the font resizing was not even touched as part of the recent design, but since seeing this thread some adjustment have been made. See you can make a change people, well done :-) Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Geoff Pack Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Font resizing It is on the news story pages, but not the homepage. Strangely enough though, the small font size in the stories is bigger than the default size on the home page. Geoff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Felix Miata Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:39 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Font resizing Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:08:40 +1100: I just realised how ridiculously little the difference is between normal and large font size on the Sydney Morning Herald. As if that was making any difference to the user. It's fairly obvious that that was only put on there for the show, not to really make any difference. It this the site in question? http://www.smh.com.au/ I opened it in a 900x700 window, and could see amoung all the px sized mousetype nothing that looked like a text resizer. Where do they hide it? How are people who need it supposed to find it? That begs the question, when starting with mousetype, how is anyone who needs a resizer going to recognize if there is one there, much less how it works? If sites would simply use the user default in the first place, then few would have any use for a resizer on the page, since too big for any web designer is going to be adequate for most such people whether they know how to set their own defaults or not. -- I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] Font resizing
Thanks Gunlaug,
That sounds great to me.
And thanks Andy and Pete, I'll look forward to reading the nicely-sized
news!
David
On 10/11/2005, at 4:00 PM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
David McKinnon wrote:
Here's the context for my question. I'm reworking a design that had
used pixels for fonts and then supplied three larger stylesheets, all
done with pixel sizes, to change the font's size. I've changed all
font sizes to ems with body {font-size:76%;} as a base then 90% 100%
and %110. (The 76% follows from Owen Briggs work
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/)
That 76% base will give me, and others who know how to set 'minimum
font
size', a large enough size, as both Opera and Firefox will cascade down
the chain[1].
I set 'minimum font size = 14px' in all browsers that supports it.
Others may set 16px or even larger values.
Using a small base will always result in larger than intended font-size
in these browsers when 'min-font-size' is applied to any degree. Just
make sure there's enough room for those resulting fonts, and it will
still work at our end.
I'm happy to keep the font resizing since most people agree it's a
nice, more obvious feature. Any thoughts on whether it's better just
to have one or two increments, rather than four and how big should
the biggest be?
IE/win have 25% steps (when not affected by em-base). That should do
for
font-resizing in pages/sites to. Something like 100% - 125% - 150%.
Preferably as base.
Georg
[1]http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] Naked metadata - RDF in HTML
Hi Jonathan, An interesting application of the technology, although I'm not sure that is addresses how to make it *easier* for administrators to maintain metadata records. ISSUES (Assuming the ideal solution would be a wysiwyg editing environment for non-technical content authors.) -adding DC class values to span elements is not a mark-up behaviour likely to be supported by wysiwyg editors in such a manner that it would be 'effortless' for an author, i.e. the author would typically need to edit the source code to add appropriate class values -administrators will still not entirely 'see' the metadata they've added, as it is the combination of the name and content values that creates a meaningful record, and this would only be visible at a code level -the benefit of metadata is that it can be used to classify content to a significant degree of detail *without encroaching upon the visible page content itself*. The example provided, http://research.talis.com/2005/erdf/wiki/Main/RdfInHtml , re-purposes content as metadata. If the content is edited, the record could (unintentionally) be deleted, or the content rewritten to included the records required -if metadata records are split between the head and body of a document, review would likely require a greater degree of concentration/quality assurance and/or additional supporting technologies (such as a metadata record 'viewer' that would reveal both conventional and class-based records) -etc. A custom-built CMS, as a companion to a well-supported publishing process, is still your best bet. The metadata records can be entered at the same time as the content, with values selected from a controlled vocabulary, etc. and then output either into the head or body as required. After all, it's more than just the ability to add or edit metadata records, its also the relevance of the values entered to the content, end-use of the records and the intended community. Food for thought anyway... Best regards, -- Andy Kirkwood | Creative Director Motive | web.design.integrity http://www.motive.co.nz ph: (04) 3 800 800 fx: (04) 970 9693 mob: 021 369 693 93 Rintoul St, Newtown PO Box 7150, Wellington South, New Zealand ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
