Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. "So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute." Ok smart ass, thats 1 page that has a vertical scroller because I havent resized the flash form on that 1 FRICKIN page, so there is a scroll bar, geezo From: Gunlaug Srtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemscsslist wrote: and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not.So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in orderto get to the content. Cute.Seriously, what windows/screens is that design meant to fit on? Georg-- 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] menu suggestions and problems
"I could show you a million websites with the background graphic positioned at the bottom of the content."gee, really??? now wayyy!!! I don't recall asking you for your opinon on it and I didn't ask for a site check and unless you are paying the bill for the site then I will listen to the people that are. "Why not split that background image up and do like the rest of them do?" Because they didnt frickin want that, we didnt want that type of design (which btw~ was the first one i did). We didn't want long scrolling pages, they wanted scrolling within the screen size, is that ok with you master? "The page does not fit within my browser." Well its the way they wanted it too fit, is that ok with you or should i have consulted with you first? Sorry to be an ass but I asked a question for a problem not for you to tell the people what they want. I did want to cut the bg up, i wanted to do a lot of things that i couldn't and unless you know the facts don't dictate how it "should" be done, you aren't paying for it and those "issues" have all been brought up. Your sites are a perfect example of what they didn't want, yours may make sense to you but it doesn't mean you're right. And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt itI could show you a million websites with the background graphicpositioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that backgroundimage up and do like the rest of them do? and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not.The page does not fit within my browser. And I'm using one of thosevery popular widescreen laptops that is very short vertically. So itis not a matter of preference.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Title: Dragon Way (Site Check) Hello I have developed a site for a client and all seems fine, compliant, etc. works ace in IE and FF. I dont have a MAC and client is complaining of: 1. Homepage - Text under dolls is not centred 2. Homepage - No logo showing 3. Rest of site - Top bar missing 4. Rest of site - dolls (same as 1.) 5. Slow Can anyone help, take a quick look for me? This is my first post after lurking for a while :-) http://test.dragon-way.com/ Any other comments would be ace. Thank you. Regards Ed Henderson Web Man Walking - web design usability experts t: 0131 669 8800 m: 0781 253 6964 f: 0797 062 1532 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: web-man-walking.com a: 48 Eastfield, Edinburgh, EH15 2PN New technology, old fashioned service
Re: [WSG] Dragon Way (Site Check)
On 11/25/05 12:45 AM Web Man Walking [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: I don¹t have a MAC I do. And it's Mac, not MAC. Mac is short for Macintosh. 1. Homepage - Text under dolls is not centred Seems okay in Safari. 2. Homepage - No logo showing If that's the green, phallic sort of thing, seems okay in Safari. 3. Rest of site - Top bar missing Yeah, there's no top bar in Safari. 5. Slow Slowness wouldn't be OS dependent. Slowness would be bandwidth or server dependent, or possibly too-big-of-graphics dependent, but those would affect all platforms. You probably know that. :-) I didn't find the site slow in Safari on my Mac, fwiw. Hth Rick Faaberg ** 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] menu suggestions and problems
On 11/25/05, csslist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport: http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpg Notice the height of the viewport: 536 pixels. That's 64 pixels less than 600. My laptop is a 15 widescreen. The default resolution for readable text is 1280 x 768 pixels. My browser has the title bar, menu bar, address bar, links bar, one toolbar, tabs, and the status bar at the bottom. Then there's the thick windows bar below it. That accounts for the 132 pixels of lost screen estate. Considering the popularity of browser toolbars and tabbed browsing (soon to be standard in IE7) as well as the popularity of widescreen displays (and even standard displays at 768 pixels height), I'd say this layout isn't going to work. You can take the feedback as constructive and revisit the design, or you can ignore it, but if you choose to ignore it then this isn't the list for you. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] menu suggestions and problems
And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there is nothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If the client wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Just keep in mind that the number of users that are going to use text-size large on the page is about 1 in a thousand, and they probably won't care. So I say just leave it like it is. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] menu suggestions and problems
First of all I appriciate all help I get and I can take critizism fine when I ask for it. Ok, so if we do it your way on your browser (lets just say..) to read the page you will have to scroll the screen down and so when you want a new link you will have to scroll all the way back up to do it, where as how it is now you can scroll the content and when ready to go to new link you simply move the mouse over a tad and there you are, I'm sorry but I agree with them and think that is a much better solution than an entire page scroll, especially for their target audience. And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600 so we made it to fit their needs to what their expectations are and we wanted to get away from the way their current site is (which is kinda like yours) where everything is shoved over to the left so on bigger browsers it only takes up half the screen which is fine but at least center the damn thing. And if 6 months from now their stats change and we need to do a new layout then big deal we do a new layout. Again I don't mean to be a jerk but I asked a ? to a menu problem, if I woulda asked you for a site check then your responce would have been warranted but I didn't. You need to make a site to the requirements of the audience not your personal preference. From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:31 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsOn 11/25/05, csslist wrote: its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine.This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport:http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpgNotice the height of the viewport: 536 pixels. That's 64 pixels less than 600.My laptop is a 15" widescreen. The default resolution for readabletext is 1280 x 768 pixels. My browser has the title bar, menu bar,address bar, links bar, one toolbar, tabs, and the status bar at thebottom. Then there's the thick windows bar below it. That accounts forthe 132 pixels of lost screen estate. Considering the popularity ofbrowser toolbars and tabbed browsing (soon to be standard in IE7) aswell as the popularity of widescreen displays (and even standarddisplays at 768 pixels height), I'd say this layout isn't going towork. You can take the feedback as constructive and revisit thedesign, or you can ignore it, but if you choose to ignore it then thisisn't the list for you.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] menu suggestions and problems
Then I appologize Christian, This is due like today and I'm really growchy but it's what they want and if it needs changed then we change it. I was opposed to the idea just like you are now but it's grown on me and I kinda like it. But you gotta remember we are targettting their main audience which is on 800 x 600. I have a pc xp (puke) set up here set to the specs they gave me, 800 x 600, ie6, ff with med to large fonts and actually it looks pretty good on it. This is the one i did before this one http://www.elkhornflyrods.com/store/index.cfm As you can see (well its not perfect css by any means, had a 2 week deadline) but I took 1 image cut it into 3 parts (header, body, footer) actually u can see my gradiant mistake lol and the header randomly rotates but thats just not how this one wanted it. So I know what you are saying but its just not happening on this one. I wish the menu section was a bit wide but there is no time right now to do it as there are 2 sites due and both have same layout with diff color schemes. From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:39 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer?You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there isnothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If theclient wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Justkeep in mind that the number of users that are going to use text-sizelarge on the page is about 1 in a thousand, and they probably won'tcare. So I say just leave it like it is.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] menu suggestions and problems
And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600 screen resolution != viewport size this is a common mistake among developers. I just explained to you that my screen resolution is 1280 x 768 which is much bigger than that, however my viewport size is 1257 x 536. 1257 x 536 -- notice the number less than 600 If you would explain that to your client maybe they would realize the mistake being made. once again, screen resolution != viewport size. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] menu suggestions and problems
yes I know that But you are not getting it, which is fine, you don't have too, I do. We know some or a lot of people it wont fit which is a given. But your option is to make them page scroll and mine is to window scroll so that they DON'T have to scroll all the way up to use the menu. Does that make sense too you? Ok like on your http://cheeaun.phoenity.com/weblog/ if i am using that site and am going through the about section and i read all the way to the bottom of the page and I decide to go to a different page I have to up scroll how many hundreds if not thousands of lines to do that??? Really, it's quite annoying and thats what we DIDNT want on this site, you can stay put and scrool and have immediate access to the menu without adding additional menus or floating annoying menus. anyways, im heading to bed and im sure people are sick of this threadFrom: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:08 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600screen resolution != viewport sizethis is a common mistake among developers. I just explained to youthat my screen resolution is 1280 x 768 which is much bigger thanthat, however my viewport size is 1257 x 536.1257 x 536 -- notice the number less than 600If you would explain that to your client maybe they would realize themistake being made.once again, screen resolution != viewport size.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Dragon Way (Site Check)Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 8:45 AM, Web Man Walking wrote: I don't have a MAC and client is complaining of: 1. Homepage - Text under dolls is not centred Safari - exactly the same as FF/Win IE5.2/Mac: not present 2. Homepage - No logo showing Safari - exactly the same as FF/Win IE5.2/Mac: not present 3. Rest of site - Top bar missing If, 'top bar' = logo+deities/dolls menu then Safari 1.3.1: fine IE5.2/Mac: menu and logo masthead nudged flush with the top of the page and top border of the content hidden by the masthead/missing 4. Rest of site - dolls (same as 1.) see 3. 5. Slow Safari - fine IE5.2/Mac: Slow as hell (over a minute). Definitely not a connection issue as all other browsers are fine. Something is causing IE5.2 to struggle when rendering your code. Suggest they're using IE5.2/Mac to test unfortunately. Jon Tan www.gr0w.com [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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Hello Thanks for the input... IE5.2/Mac: Slow as hell (over a minute). Definitely not a connection issue as all other browsers are fine. Something is causing IE5.2 to struggle when rendering your code. Suggest they're using IE5.2/Mac to test unfortunately. Thanks Jon. I thought I was going nuts. I have had a shot of the site on clients Mac and it is IE he is using. It does take over a minute to render the code on each page! IE5.2/Mac: not present Any ideas why these don't display? I don't have a Mac here?!?!? Code validates and seems OK to me? Am I just missing something obvious? Regards Ed Henderson Web Man Walking - web design usability experts t: 0131 669 8800 m: 0781 253 6964 f: 0797 062 1532 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: web-man-walking.com a: 48 Eastfield, Edinburgh, EH15 2PN New technology, old fashioned service ** 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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Web Man Walking wrote: IE5.2/Mac: Slow as hell (over a minute). Definitely not a connection issue as all other browsers are fine. Something is causing IE5.2 to struggle when rendering your code. Suggest they're using IE5.2/Mac to test unfortunately. Thanks Jon. I thought I was going nuts. I have had a shot of the site on clients Mac and it is IE he is using. It does take over a minute to render the code on each page! I didn't have slow loading on the pages. IE was just as fast as Safari and Firefox. What I didn't get on the opening page was the logo and link, just the dolls. Safari and FF worked fine. I checked it with Opera on XP and the dolls became a vertical list down the right hand side. Which would indicate something in the CSS, as it's an unordered list, but it's late on a Friday night here in NZ and I've been out to dinner, so sorry, I can't be more precise. IE5.2/Mac: not present Any ideas why these don't display? I don't have a Mac here?!?!? Code validates and seems OK to me? Am I just missing something obvious? They did for me, unless the same things are missing for FF and Safari Try validating the CSS as well as the code. I ran the front page through W3C and it validated both, but I got errors in CSS on the subsequent pages. What are you using as an editor? I noticed a meta I haven't seen before: meta name=MSSmartTagsPreventParsing content=true / Does that indicate FrontPage or something MS-based? Point out to your client that IE5.2 is so flakey it might as well be in sanskrit and that and smart people using Macs will be using Safari or Firefox ;-) Cheers and HTH 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 **
[WSG] Menu issue
2005-11-25
Thread
Marko Mihelcic - founder of mcville.net (http.//www.mcville.net)|(http://board.mcville.net)
I'm having some Menu issue on my site in the Internet Exlopere (grrr) :P Try to browes to some article and expaned the ajax menu - in IE it goes a bit on the main center content/article : http://www.mcville.net Cheers ** 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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
What are you using as an editor? I noticed a meta I haven't seen before: meta name=MSSmartTagsPreventParsing content=true / Does that indicate FrontPage or something MS-based? http://www.html-reference.com/META_name_MSSmartTagsPreventParsing.htm Point out to your client that IE5.2 is so flakey it might as well be in sanskrit and that and smart people using Macs will be using Safari or Firefox ;-) Will give it a shot. Thanks E. ** 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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Hi, If you tell your client to visit www.msn.com with his Mac IE5.2 browser then he'll get the message that his browser is out of date and that he should change it to another browser like FireFox or Safari. So even Microsoft tells Macusers to change to another browser than Internet Explorer. I think that's a good arguement. Maybe your client would accept a message asking the user to change to a newer browser which supports webstandard? Personally I think we should design for all browsers on all platforms, but when even the creators of IE (Microsoft) tells the audience to change to another one it's time for us to forget about IE for Mac. Regards Vincent Hasselgård On 11/25/05, Web Man Walking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are you using as an editor? I noticed a meta I haven't seen before:meta name=MSSmartTagsPreventParsing content=true /Does that indicate FrontPage or something MS-based? http://www.html-reference.com/META_name_MSSmartTagsPreventParsing.htmPoint out to your client that IE5.2 is so flakey it might as well be in sanskrit and that and smart people using Macs will be using Safari orFirefox ;-)Will give it a shot.ThanksE.**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] xhtml doctypes and charsets
Hi Everyone, I am going to delurk to ask a question :) I have been using html 4.01 transitional on my sites and have slowly branched out to xhtml. However, I remember that there has been some discussion on other lists about the 'dangers' of using xhtml. Here is what I have seen used, what would be the pluses and minuses of using this combo? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=UTF-8 / I usually use this charset: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Any links or advice would be much appreciated. Cheers Lisa ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] xhtml doctypes and charsets
Oops! Not sure what happened there...but after that doctype below the charset would be: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=UTF-8 / I usually use the charset=iso-8859-1. Hopefully that will make sense! I guess I am wondering what the current debate is about xhtml, after reading articles like this one: http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/04/08/doctype-declaration-and-content-type-headers Thanks! Lisa At 10:46 AM 11/25/2005, you wrote: Hi Everyone, I am going to delurk to ask a question :) I have been using html 4.01 transitional on my sites and have slowly branched out to xhtml. However, I remember that there has been some discussion on other lists about the 'dangers' of using xhtml. Here is what I have seen used, what would be the pluses and minuses of using this combo? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; I usually use this charset: Any links or advice would be much 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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
All sounds good. Spec does mention IE/FF but client not the best English speaker and not too attentive to details :-) Now I have some facts I can back up my points when we meet to discuss. Thanks for all your help. I hope I can repay the favour one day. E. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Tan Sent: 25 November 2005 14:30 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Dragon Way (Site Check) Web Man Walking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Jon. I thought I was going nuts. I have had a shot of the site on clients Mac and it is IE he is using. It does take over a minute to render the code on each page! yw Ed. Thought so. Code validates and seems OK to me? Am I just missing something obvious? To put it as gently as I can, yes: [1] Personally I put the user agents I design to in the job spec/quote so there re no misunderstandings later along the lines of, 'it doesn't look the sme in NN4 and FF'. [2] Consultation as to why supporting a certain agent is being depracated / depreciated if needed. E.g. Cost for extra work, audience use percentage etc. [3] Valid code doesn not mean the pages will look as you require in the browser. I'd suggest development in a standards compliant browser and cross-checking cross browser and platform _before_ showing the client in all other browsers as you go, rather than getting surprises at the end. OK that doesn't help you right now but as others have suggested, pointing out that the IE5.2- audience will make up (I'm guessing based on stats I monitor) 1% of the audience might help. The alterntive is (I assume not realistic) gettting a Mac, testing and re-writing your code. ** 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] xhtml doctypes and charsets
The Snider's Web wrote: I have been using html 4.01 transitional on my sites and have slowly branched out to xhtml. However, I remember that there has been some discussion on other lists about the 'dangers' of using xhtml. I know of no dangers with html 4.01 reformulated to proper backwards-compatible xhtml 1.0 served as text/html. That is; apart from the permanent discussion about whether or not xhtml 1.0 should be served as text/html at all, or we should stick to html 4.01 until _all_ browsers can handle anything but text/html and avoid the whole discussion. How you serve xhtml 1.0 will give you different results on a few points in browsers that can handle anything but text/html, and break the entire rendering in those that don't. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq ...may perhaps answer your question _a bit_ more complete. Georg -- 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] BOM and charset declaration in CSS
Cheers, Gene. After reading the exhaustive W3C tutorial on encoding I wound up not delcaring it in the CSS after all. I'm also using Source Edit (a free Windows hex/text editor) to delete the invisible single character entity that Notebook and other editors like to insert at the start of file. -Original Message- From: Gene Falck Paul wrote: And how do you get around the UTF-8 signature or byte order mark (BOM) that some editors add to the document? I see you already have some replies on this BOM bit. For looking over your file format (and also simply deleting the BOM) you might also try a utility like XVI32.exe which displays your file character by character along side the hex values. Anything that your editor puts before the DOCTYPE will put you into quirks mode so the BOM (and anything else the editor inserted at the beginning of the file) can and probably should be deleted. I like XVI32 a lot because I don't have a lot of files to run in batch and I was curious what was happening. ** 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] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
Hi, I've adopted the philosophy, drop down menus are a surrogate for detailed Information Architecture. Sub-navigation should be introduced on internal pages to navigate sub-sections. Before passing this along to clients as mantra, I thought seeking the advice of the participants of the list advantageous. Respectfully, Chris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
On 11/25/05, Chris Kennon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've adopted the philosophy, drop down menus are a surrogate for detailed Information Architecture. Sub-navigation should be introduced on internal pages to navigate sub-sections. Before passing this along to clients as mantra, I thought seeking the advice of the participants of the list advantageous. Respectfully, Chris Agreed. Dropdown navigation doesn't tell you as much about each section as does a complete section page. It also doesn't make navigation more convenient. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
I am with you on that. I don't feel that dropdowns are as user friendly as they could be. I think people should be directed to the information they are using by providing descriptive top level navigation, contextual linking and logical 2nd level navigation within the context of the related main subsection. Site maps and search utilities are also a good way to ensure that people will get to the info or goal. Jay Jay Gilmore Developer/Consultant Affordable Websites and Marketing Solutions for Real Small Business. SmashingRed Web Marketing P) 902.529.0651 E) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, I've adopted the philosophy, drop down menus are a surrogate for detailed Information Architecture. Sub-navigation should be introduced on internal pages to navigate sub-sections. Before passing this along to clients as mantra, I thought seeking the advice of the participants of the list advantageous. Respectfully, Chris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
Chris Kennon wrote: I've adopted the philosophy, drop down menus are a surrogate for detailed Information Architecture. Sub-navigation should be introduced on internal pages to navigate sub-sections. Agreed under the assumption that you're not referring to navigating by select box. I only say that because I had a 10 minute debate with someone who was referring to drop-downs when they meant select. :| Menus with drop down features are my idea of hyperhell and the majority of implementations are hyperdeath for screenreaders. IMO, they are often used instead of good contextual links, calls to action and invitations to action within the content proper which deliver much better usability. FWIW I think contextual links are also more 'natural' in the sense that in most cases, links from the actual content are an organic drill-down/across/up and allow users to make a series of logical steps towrds their goals. Too often I've been interested in something mentioned in the content of page but then being _forced_ to use a master drop down menu to find related information becuse there was no link from the content to quickly drill to it. Jon Tan www.gr0w.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] Positioning Image problems
I have to problems at the moment which have me stumped, both to do with positioning images. The first is at http://www.carrollwaterservices.co.uk the kinetico reinventing water image is fine when the site is initially loaded but when he goes to another page and then comes back to it not all the image is displayed and he has to refresh the page to get it all, this is working fine in FF but for some reason IE some of the image is missing. Can anyone see why this is happening as it has me stumped. The second problem is at http://www.kevinarrowsmith.co.uk/wol/greenacre.php the image to the right of the text is positioned fine in 1024*768 and higher but in 800*600 then space for the image is left but the image itself covers half the text, does anyone know why this is happening. Thanks for any help
RE: [WSG] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
Just to stop this thread from being too one-sided, I disagree. While I do agree that care should be taken, it depends on the content that is being portrayed and the levels of hierarchy involved. On a relatively simple site structure, drop-downs can serve to reduce screen clutter while allowing rapid cross-sectional navigation. In my site, I'm not implementing drop down menus, merely because I couldn't afford the time needed to fit into the design. I'm sure they will come later though. I have, however, added a breadcrumb style list to allow easy navigation back up the hierarchy. Using nested lists to represent site navigation can give more semantic information about a site in one go than having different menus on each page. If the site is simple enough to support it, the navigation menus should represent the whole site while contextual links should be indicated within the body of the page either as a menu or just inline. Stephen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Tan Sent: 25 November 2005 20:46 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus] Chris Kennon wrote: I've adopted the philosophy, drop down menus are a surrogate for detailed Information Architecture. Sub-navigation should be introduced on internal pages to navigate sub-sections. Agreed under the assumption that you're not referring to navigating by select box. I only say that because I had a 10 minute debate with someone who was referring to drop-downs when they meant select. :| Menus with drop down features are my idea of hyperhell and the majority of implementations are hyperdeath for screenreaders. IMO, they are often used instead of good contextual links, calls to action and invitations to action within the content proper which deliver much better usability. FWIW I think contextual links are also more 'natural' in the sense that in most cases, links from the actual content are an organic drill-down/across/up and allow users to make a series of logical steps towrds their goals. Too often I've been interested in something mentioned in the content of page but then being _forced_ to use a master drop down menu to find related information becuse there was no link from the content to quickly drill to it. Jon Tan www.gr0w.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] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
From: Jon Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus] Chris Kennon wrote: I've adopted the philosophy, drop down menus are a surrogate for detailed Information Architecture. Sub-navigation should be introduced on internal pages to navigate sub-sections. Agreed under the assumption that you're not referring to navigating by select box. I only say that because I had a 10 minute debate with someone who was referring to drop-downs when they meant select. :| Menus with drop down features are my idea of hyperhell and the majority of implementations are hyperdeath for screenreaders. IMO, they are often used instead of good contextual links, calls to action and invitations to action within the content proper which deliver much better usability. FWIW I think contextual links are also more 'natural' in the sense that in most cases, links from the actual content are an organic drill-down/across/up and allow users to make a series of logical steps towrds their goals. Too often I've been interested in something mentioned in the content of page but then being _forced_ to use a master drop down menu to find related information becuse there was no link from the content to quickly drill to it. In an ideal world - you have a point. But drop-down hierarchical menus can be useful if well-deployed - and they can be integrated into an accessible web site, too. The web comes in shades of gray. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Re: University textbook or other resources?
I've been asked if there are useful university-focused textbooks or other resources suitable for teaching accessible web design. As Lloyd and Matthew mentioned Joe Clark's Building Accessible Websites, New Riders Publishing, 2002 is well worth considering. I have been using it for the web accessibility classes that I teach. The Clark book does not assume the reader understands the basics of web accessibility. I specifically chose it because of that and because it goes beyond simply repeating the party line from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) or Section 508. That is one of the purposes of the classes - to not just read the specifications, but actively engage them. Challenge, dissect, understand, and learn what makes the most sense. Also Joe put the whole book online[1] so if students don't want to purchase it for the class they don't have too. However, the soft cover version of the online book has screen shots and images. The online version does not. The Web Design Reference [2] is a huge online mega-reference (over 3,000 links) of information and articles about web design and development that you might find useful. It has a full section on books [3] as well as online resources (accessibility, CSS, usability, web standards, and many related topics are covered). You might also find the Web Design Update Newsletter [4] helpful. It is a plain text email digest that typically goes out once a week as an adjunct to the site. All the Best, Laura [1] http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/ [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ [3] http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/books#access [4] http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdevlist ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ ** 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] Class
Hi all, I am a bit confused about: style. Take the following statement: body style=margin-top; 200px From my reading, I understand that this html element, style has been deprecated. Is this true or have I misinterpreted the information? Second, how would I go about replacing this html version of style into a proper CSS rule to use in my document? Hope I have made myself clear explaining my confusion! Thanks for the help. Stephen Kortz ** 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] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
Hi, When you say contextual linking you’re referring to sub-navigation appropriate to each sub-section? C On Nov 25, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Jon Tan wrote: IMO, they are often used instead of good contextual links, ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[WSG]_Re:_University_textbook_or_other_resources??=
There are two magazines out of the UK that sometimes offer tutorials that you can use in the classrom. One is called WebDesigner and the other is called Practical Web Projects http://www.paragon.co.uk/wd/index.htm http://www.paragon.co.uk/pwp/index.htm If you want to teach web design from a standards perspective, there are three books listed in the right hand column of my blog at http://www.netmix.com/wordpress, along with other books that I singled out from Amazon that might be useful to you. One is Jeffrey Zeldman's Designing with Web Standards. I also recommend starting to look into Open Source products, like Typo3, Mambo and other Open Source Content Management systems. Web designers need to learn how to design around open source module macros. For example, Movable Type, Wordpress and other blog systems are all open source CMS tools. A web designer is going to need to think about how to create templates based on the functionality of these CMS systems. The ones I mentioned are php/mySql, but there are other that are Java, ASP and JSP as well. A good resource to get open source CMS tools is opensourcecms.com. I have yet to find a book that teaches you how to actually think about design, fontography and layout, then bring you into HTML production, then bring you along into database integration. Since all these methods are disparate from each other, but depend on each other, most books usually focus on how to's rather than to think creatively. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but believe me, I've been looking. In the local Barnes Noble, there have been many books published that you can find in the Graphic Design section, which showcase high end web design. That may also be a place to look as well. Tony Z. Laura Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/26/2005, 01:04:35 AM: I've been asked if there are useful university-focused textbooks or other resources suitable for teaching accessible web design. As Lloyd and Matthew mentioned Joe Clark's Building Accessible Websites, New Riders Publishing, 2002 is well worth considering. I have been using it for the web accessibility classes that I teach. The Clark book does not assume the reader understands the basics of web accessibility. I specifically chose it because of that and because it goes beyond simply repeating the party line from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) or Section 508. That is one of the purposes of the classes - to not just read the specifications, but actively engage them. Challenge, dissect, understand, and learn what makes the most sense. Also Joe put the whole book online[1] so if students don't want to purchase it for the class they don't have too. However, the soft cover version of the online book has screen shots and images. The online version does not. The Web Design Reference [2] is a huge online mega-reference (over 3,000 links) of information and articles about web design and development that you might find useful. It has a full section on books [3] as well as online resources (accessibility, CSS, usability, web standards, and many related topics are covered). You might also find the Web Design Update Newsletter [4] helpful. It is a plain text email digest that typically goes out once a week as an adjunct to the site. All the Best, Laura [1] http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/ [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ [3] http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/books#access [4] http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdevlist ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ ** 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] Casual Friday[Drop-Down Menus]
Hi, Never mind! I knew them as breadcrumbs. C On Nov 25, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, When you say contextual linking you’re referring to sub-navigation appropriate to each sub-section? C On Nov 25, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Jon Tan wrote: IMO, they are often used instead of good contextual links, ** 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
Stephan,
I do not know if it desprecated but if you want to use it you can add
the following to your CSS declarations:
body { margin-top; 200px; }
however you may want to go with
body { margin-top: 12em; }
so it scales with fluid designs (or use percentages).
Jim
On 11/25/05, Stephen Kortz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am a bit confused about: style. Take the following statement: body
style=margin-top; 200px From my reading, I understand that this html
element, style has been deprecated. Is this true or have I misinterpreted
the information?
Second, how would I go about replacing this html version of style into a
proper CSS rule to use in my document?
--
__
Bugs are, by definition, necessary.
Just ask Microsoft!
www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)
www.arionshome.com (Personal)
www.freexenon.com (Consulting)
__
Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox
http://www.getfirefox.com
Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
http://www.maccaws.org/
Web Standards Project
http://www.webstandards.org/
Web Standards Group
http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
http://www.gawds.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] Class
Hi Stephen,
You wrote:
I am a bit confused about: style. Take the following statement: body
style=margin-top; 200px From my reading, I understand that this html
element, style has been deprecated. Is this true or have I misinterpreted
the information?
I see this part has been answered clearly enough for
your use in line with the style attribute. The style
attribute was apparently included before the current
emphasis on separating content from presentation--the
fact that it is considered bad practice does not, of
course, keep you from using it as a quick-and-dirty
way to try out ideas while you are developing a page,
though.
Second, how would I go about replacing this html version of style into a
proper CSS rule to use in my document?
I think you may also need the basic format to use in
adding your style rules. I amost always set up mine
in the HEAD section of the document at first (also
not a best practice in most cases for what you put
out on the web) for convenience in working:
style type=text/css
.aclassname
{
arule;
anotherrule;
}
/style
This will work in most browsers while you are in
the development stage but you will most likely
want to turn it into a separate style sheet for
actually uploading it to a server. That can be
done by cutting out the code between the style
and /style tags and saving it as whatever.css
(of course, you have to upload it to the server
too); then amend your style element to read:
style href=whatever.css type=text/css /
/style
That assumes you upload the whatever.css to the
same folder as your .htm file (When you get more
than a few files you may want to separate .htm
files from .css files, though, but perhaps that
can wait until further along on your learning
curve.) and also that you do not need to hide
your CSS from old browsers or from some user
agent that reacts badly to something in your
style rules.
Regards,
Gene Falck
[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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
On 25/11/2005, at 9:29 PM, Mark Harris wrote: Point out to your client that IE5.2 is so flakey it might as well be in sanskrit and that and smart people using Macs will be using Safari or Firefox ;-) No, IE5.2 is the browser of choice for OS9 (and I assume lower! :( ) users. I don't think they have much of an alternative. Of course, the numbers are probably getting pretty low now... warmly, 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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
On 26/11/2005, at 1:25 PM, Mark Harris wrote: I only started using a Mac on OSX so I didn't know that. Will Firefox run on OS9? Good question. http://www.mozilla.org/download.html says: Looking for software for Mac OS 9? Due to the lack of developer interest, build machines, compilers and testing resources, the last Mozilla.org Mac OS 9 build is Mozilla 1.2.1. I don't know how old that is, but its obviously not the current one! warmly, 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] Dragon Way (Site Check)
Lea de Groot wrote: On 26/11/2005, at 1:25 PM, Mark Harris wrote: I only started using a Mac on OSX so I didn't know that. Will Firefox run on OS9? Good question. http://www.mozilla.org/download.html says: Looking for software for Mac OS 9? Due to the lack of developer interest, build machines, compilers and testing resources, the last Mozilla.org Mac OS 9 build is Mozilla 1.2.1. I don't know how old that is, but its obviously not the current one! http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.2.1/ says 2 years. -- 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 **
