Re: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Medi a

On 2/1/06, Herrod, Lisa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's no need to judge people. Everyone has a choice to work the way they want to. It may not be the best, or your way, but you don't know their reasons and they may be trying their best. And yet, in many other industries, I was doing my best

Re: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Medi a

On 2/1/06, Herrod, Lisa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If not, at least it's less competition for you! :) I wish. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for

RE: [WSG] [Fixed div elements] - Having troubles with IE

Bret! That is exactly what am I talking about. I applaud your skill, but not your memory :) I am trying to pick away at your css to figure out how you got it working but so far I have had no luck. I will most likely create a new page away from the code I have no to see if

Re: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

On 01/02/06, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a far-from-guru-status Web Standards supporter/coder (I try) I have witnessed, on this list and on another css-specific list, quite a bit of condescending and 'forced-opinion' type of replies. It doesn't make for a nice atmosphere

RE: [WSG] list's with header text

hi, for a vertical navigation bar with multiple headings like this: div class=navcontainer h3Buncrana Town/h3 ul lia href=#Business Directory/a/li lia href=#Accomodation Directory/a/li . /ul h3Community/h3 ul lia href=#Groups/a/li

Re: [WSG] list's with header text

I would use: ul id=nav-bananas li h3Buncrana Town/h3 ul lia href="" Directory/a/li lia href="" Directory/a/li /ul /li li h3Community/h3 ul lia href=""> lia href=""> /ul /li /ul Where 'bananas' is replaced with a semantically suitable name such as main for main navigation or supp

RE: [WSG] list's with header text

ok thanks, just to clarify a point: what odds that the ul id have a semantically suitable name-beside making sense to people working in the code after me? -thanks again kvnmcewbn ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See

[WSG] Accessible drop down menu

Hello all, Got another question today which I can't seem to find any new information on. Was wondering with Ajax and some of these new methods coming out, is there a way of creating an accessible drop-down menu that doesn't use scripting? As in, can we have a drop-down menu that

Re: [WSG] Accessible drop down menu

One option would be to use Javascript to submit using onchange, then hiding the submit button in a nosript tag for those who don't have jscript turned on. Does anyone have a better idea? Hi Paul, Don't know if its exactly what you are after but i did a little script a while ago that turns a

[WSG] IE7 Now what?

I have downloaded IE7 Beta 2 and I have looked at a couple of my sites. I have found some problems (never mind how slow the programs is). I use some * html hacks and some display: inline block tricks to emulate tables in IE's 6 and lower. Are there resources for ways to fix these hacks that

[WSG] Re: Moral High-horse

James Bennett wrote: And yet, in many other industries, I was doing my best would be considered a completely unacceptable response from a contractor who failed to adhere to the standards of that industry. If, for example, a construction firm puts up a skyscraper that doesn't adhere to building

Re: [WSG] Accessible drop down menu

Hi Richard, Thanks for that one, that will definitely come in handy in the future and I've got it bookmarked. Unfortunately though, in this instance the design won't permit me to have a list of links as it would be far too long to fit, so a select box is preferable. Really useful though,

Re: [WSG] list's with header text

Exactly for that point; IMHO decribing the content rather than the presentation makes your markup easier to read, style and manage by whomever - users, coders, accessibility tools, browsers, search engines, and yourself, this is why web standards are so important. Some interesting reading on

Re: [WSG] Accessible drop down menu

Richard Stephenson wrote: Don't know if its exactly what you are after but i did a little script a while ago that turns a list of links into a select box that acts as a jumpmenu that loads a new url onchange. If the user has no js they just get the list of links.

Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/ie7beta_patch_glitch/You should think twice before installing any Microsoft Better products. On 01/02/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have downloaded IE7 Beta 2 and I have looked at a couple of my sites. I have found some problems (never

Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

could the new IE 7 beta 2 or beta 1 , can they be installed on Service pack 1 ? - coz I don't have SP2 jet :S :) 2006/2/1, Miles Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/ie7beta_patch_glitch/You should think twice before installing any Microsoft Better products. On

Re: Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

Thanks, but I fail to see what this has to do with the Beta 2 version. The Beta 2 version is installed on top of IE 6 and acts as it should so far. I am assuming that they have fixed any issues with Beta 1 before releasing a public beta. I have uninstalled it and all works fine in IE6 but what

Re: [WSG] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts on my question? --ZacharyOn 1/30/06, Hopkins Programming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all! I re-did my website (http://www.hopkinsprogramming.net/) a while back in an effort to update its look and improve the quality of the coding behind it. Right now,

[WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

The advantages of this solution: - It uses semantic markup. - It degrades nicely (hidden elements are visible in script-disabled UAs). - DTs do not appear as links without script support. - It does not use inline event attribute (onclick()). - It does not require A elements in the markup. - It is

RE: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

Nice work Thierry. I'm going to add this one to the library. I know there are plenty of hide/show examples out there. This one has a nice combination of clean code and attention to accessibility. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

[WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

Hello, Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ... Thanks! Roberto Santana ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

Roberto Santana wrote: Hello, Which unit is better for web site font size? em px % ... Better is like beauty-- it's in the eye of the beholder. http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize ** The discussion list for

Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in Safari. Stephen On 1 Feb 2006, at 17:58, Thierry Koblentz wrote: The advantages of this solution: - It uses semantic markup. - It degrades nicely (hidden

[WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

Hi All, I have just read Matthew Levine's interesting piece, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail and I wondered if anyone has ever seen a similar thing done with padding as well (i.e., same effect as with a padding : 25px all around)? I've searched and not found anything . . . I

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to measure size of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font sizes.Minh"Joseph R. B. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's my understanding that "em" is the

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

Minh D. Tran wrote: My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to measure size of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font sizes. Minh pt is for PRINT media, not screen.

Re: [WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

Just a note that this 'holy grail' needs to be revisited for IE 7... At 06:52 AM 2/02/2006, you wrote: Hi All, I have just read Matthew Levine's interesting piece, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail and I wondered if anyone has ever seen a similar thing done with padding as well

Re: [WSG] Re: Moral High-horse

Lachlan wrote: The problem is that many people see the issue as what will happen if Idon't follow standards?; whereas the questions they should be asking are what are the benefits of following standards?, how mucheasier/faster is it to develop with standards?, etc. If the whole matter were

Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

Stephen Stagg wrote: Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in Safari. Hmm. You're right. All I see is a blank page in Safari (Panther). -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with

Re: [WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

Ray Cauchi wrote: Just a note that this 'holy grail' needs to be revisited for IE 7... Ray, I might be speaking out of turn, but premature consternation over IE7 could cause an unwarranted panic :-) It's a beta. -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is

Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

Thierry Koblentz wrote: Stephen Stagg wrote: Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in Safari. You're right, I get a blank page in Safari. Very weird. I know it worked with the previous version (using

Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

Stephen Stagg wrote: Is it just me, or does this example NOT work at all with safari? The technique may be the dog's wotsits but the page is just blank in Safari. You're right, I get a blank page in Safari. Very weird. I know it worked with the previous version (using document.wrtie()), but

[WSG] Firefox being naughty

Guys and Gals, Perhaps you can help me with this mystery. I built this site over a year ago http://holidayrealty.com, and recently Firefox (I'm using 1.5 (could be the issue)) has stopped displaying my background image on the main content (on subpages only) and is instead just making the

Re: [WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

Designer wrote: Hi All, I have just read Matthew Levine's interesting piece, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail and I wondered if anyone has ever seen a similar thing done with padding as well (i.e., same effect as with a padding : 25px all around)? I've searched and not found

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

--- Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: html { font-size:100.01%; } body { font-size: 1em; } // this is a bug fix for browser compatibility Why do you need this? I don't use font-size hacks in my CSS yet my fonts look exactly the same in all browsers. Francesco Francesco Sanfilippo

Re: Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

Microsoft has newsgroups for identifying and reporting bugs. I blogged a for/against thing on IE7 preview beta 2 after having played with it for a morning, http://joahua.com/blog/2006/02/01/ie7-beta-2 , and discovered a zoom bug that doesn't play nice with CSS backgrounds. Bug is here:

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

On 2/1/06, Francesco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: html { font-size:100.01%; } body { font-size: 1em; } // this is a bug fix for browser compatibility Why do you need this? I don't use font-size hacks in my CSS yet my fonts look exactly the

Re: [WSG] Re: Moral High-horse

Paolo Dodet wrote: Lachlan wrote: The problem is that many people see the issue as "what will happen if I don't follow standards?"; whereas the questions they should be asking are "what are the benefits of following standards?", "how much easier/faster is it to develop

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

On 01/02/06, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Minh D. Tran wrote: My personal preference has always been pt. I've looked at many professional source codes and alot of them uses px or % to measure size of items (divs, img, etc), em for positioning, and pt for font sizes. pt is for

Re: [WSG] Firefox being naughty

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: Perhaps you can help me with this mystery. I built this site over a year ago http://holidayrealty.com, and recently Firefox (I'm using 1.5 (could be the issue)) has stopped displaying my background image on the main content (on subpages only) and is instead just

Re: [WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

Al That was my point - when a structure such as Thierry's works in the current Beta of IE7, I would prefer to use it over a 'holy grail' that breaks (ref: http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_3.html) Sure its a Beta, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will all change for the final

Re: [WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

Al That was my point - when a structure such as Thierry's works in the current Beta of IE7, I would prefer to use it over a 'holy grail' that breaks (ref: http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_3.html) Sure its a Beta, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will all change for the final

Re: Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 dumping ground for IE7 bugs -- —pd—

RE: [WSG] [Fixed div elements] - Having troubles with IE

Andrew, You could also look at this - the code explains what's happening. http://www.homebass.info/fixedPosTest/ Grant That is exactly what am I talking about. I applaud your skill, but not your memory :) I am trying to pick away at your css to figure out how you got it

Safari issue SOLVED! - was Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

It seems that adding the rel attribute to the link element through the DOM makes Safari go ballistic. Using the style element instead appears to do the trick. A new version of the script should be uploaded later today. Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

Re: [WSG] Firefox being naughty

On Feb 1, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: Guys and Gals, Perhaps you can help me with this mystery. I built this site over a year ago http://holidayrealty.com, and recently Firefox (I'm using 1.5 (could be the issue)) has stopped displaying my background image on the main

Re: [WSG] Holy Grail - with padding!

From: Ray Cauchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al That was my point - when a structure such as Thierry's works in the current Beta of IE7, I would prefer to use it over a 'holy grail' that breaks (ref: http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_3.html) Sure its a Beta, but that doesn't necessarily

Re: [WSG] Article: DL + DOM = cool FAQ page

Al Sparber wrote: Is it something I should know about Safari and the method used here? I'm not sure except that createElement is kind of fashionable but document.write is *much* more straightforward ;-) I agree, but the DOM police scares me... ;-) Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com (wondering why

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:13:13 -0500: px obviously gives you the most control as the designer, The control is illusory as to users with modern browsers, since they have the power to zoom and set a minimum font size, in addition to the power to disregard your styles

Re: [WSG] Which unit is better for web site font size?

Christian Montoya wrote Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:10:40 -0500: For the record, most browsers default text size is 16px = 1em = 100%. That's most, not all. While as a practical matter this is true, technically it isn't true. Some browsers have a default size in px, but others, including all versions

Re: [WSG] Re: Moral High-horse

Jay wrote: I don't know how this is true as we can only really know our role within a small portion of the www community within society. I see your point and I can't but agree, partly because I didn't really stated clearly what my point was, this in the first place, and secondly because... yeah,

[WSG] Safari frameset link tabbing bug

Hi, Id like to alert people to a bug I have found in Safari (1.2 and 2.0 and maybe more thats all I have access to). When using framesets (I know we have a good reason that we have to use them OK?) and navigating by keyboard: The first link in a frame is skipped if both frames have

Re: [WSG] Web Standards Shetland Ponies

Some people write as if there were a club, a them and us, people who get it and people who don't, and never the twain shall meet. My original post was not meant to seperate 'standardistas' from the rest of the industry. It's just that I thought Standards Were the Way Things Were Done by

[WSG] Background-Image download order

Hello Everyone, We are in final testing for a largish site that uses a large amount of background images for navigation and various graphical effects (as all CSS-based sites do). We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are downloading last and as such the white text is

Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

Thats a big call Ted. Ill be happy to see that back of IE6 as much as anyone but I think it will be well into next year before IE7 overtakes IE6, even if they do roll it into XP SP3. Your right tho... We need to start planning for it. On 02/02/06, Ted Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

Todd Baker wrote: We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable untill the background arrives You're assuming the background image will arrive. What happens if someone has images turned off? You should specify

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

So you're saying that if images are disabled in the browser you navigation becomes invisible? Can you add a background color so the nav is readable before the images load? Alex On 2/2/06, Todd Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Everyone, We are in final testing for a largish site that uses

Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

Todd Baker wrote: Thats a big call Ted. Ill be happy to see that back of IE6 as much as anyone but I think it will be well into next year before IE7 overtakes IE6, even if they do roll it into XP SP3. Your right tho... We need to start planning for it. On 02/02/06, Ted Drake [EMAIL

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

For the navigation, you can put all your nav images into the one file so that they all load at once, then use background-position to make them sit in place. As for making things readable before the background images download, how about setting a background colour as well? That way if users have

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

On 02/02/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're assuming the background image will arrive. What happens if someone has images turned off? You should specify a background colour as well. Yes indeed we are adding a background colour that its close to the graphic. Is there any

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

Todd Baker wrote: On 02/02/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're assuming the background image will arrive. What happens if someone has images turned off? You should specify a background colour as well. Yes indeed we are adding a background colour that its close to the graphic.

Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

You should seriously consider how you are doing your CSS right now and how you should begin planning for the not so distant future of IE6 being the minority browser. Microsoft wants to ditch IE6. IE7 will be part of a service pack upgrade to xp and as part of the fabled vista platform. Just

Re: [WSG] Web Standards Shetland Ponies

I wanted to understand why this happened. Is standards only really something a small contingent of geeky developers go for? I think it's fair to say that standards developers are still the minority, but that doesn't make them wrong. What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

On 02/02/2006, at 9:59 AM, Todd Baker wrote: We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable untill the background arrives .. almost last. The list that drives this is right at the topm of the source code. I've

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

Is there any logic I can apply (ordering CSS etc) that will affect the order the browser requests and downloads background images? Bear this in mind, too - some browsers will call *all* images specified with the background property in your CSS file, whether they're needed for that page or

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

Nick Gleitzman wrote: Boring, but multiple CSS files, one for each page, containing only the bg image declarations for that page. Maybe I've missed something, but why wouldn't you just have the one css file but declare the background image in the head section of each individual page?

[WSG] Separate mobile content considered harmful?

Hi all, This was big news a year or two ago now, but I just realised that, perhaps, a separate domain space for mobile content isn't particularly evil afterall. Tim Berners-Lee weighed in on this in May 2004 [1], and I do agree with everything outlined in that document -- but there is more.

RE: [WSG] Background-Image download order

nick Bear this in mind, too - some browsers will call *all* images specified with the background property in your CSS file, whether they're needed for that page or not. errr.. what browsers? I wonder what would happen if the seperate stylesheets were alled called in from one importer

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

On 2 Feb 2006, at 1:24 PM, Ric Raftis wrote: Nick Gleitzman wrote: Boring, but multiple CSS files, one for each page, containing only the bg image declarations for that page. Maybe I've missed something, but why wouldn't you just have the one css file but declare the background image in

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

Todd Baker said: We are finding that the background images for our main navigation are downloading last and as such the white text is unreadable This makes for quite a usability issue. Is there any way you can revisit the design to ensure the text is visible with images turned off or not

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

On 2 Feb 2006, at 1:18 PM, kvnmcwebn wrote: nick Bear this in mind, too - some browsers will call *all* images specified with the background property in your CSS file, whether they're needed for that page or not. errr.. what browsers? Safari, from memory... it was a while ago. Later

Re: [WSG] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

Hi Zachary, I just have noticed that your web site does not meet the requirements for WAI AA and AAA. But it is really beautiful. Best, John Home: http://www.webnauts.net Redesign in process: http://www.webnauts.net/redesign/ Hopkins Programming wrote: Does anyone have any ideas or

Re: [WSG] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

It meets -A and -AAA. This re-coding process will allow me to add text back into my a href="" tags on my main page and gain back -AA status. Do you know if its better to arrange the actual HTML code on the page such that the content all comes first, and all links are at the bottom of the page?

Re: [WSG] HTML Restructuring of hopkinsprogramming.net

Hopkins Programming said: [is it] better that the content all comes first? Mark Pilgrim [1], Sarah Horton (of Web Style Guide Fame, in her latest book) and others say it is. Roger Hudson, WSG's very own Russ Weakley, and Lisa Miller say that it isn't. [1]:

Re: [WSG] Background-Image download order

NickGleitzman wrote: On 2 Feb 2006, at 1:24 PM, Ric Raftis wrote: Nick Gleitzman wrote: Boring, but multiple CSS files, one for each page, containing only the bg image declarations for that page. Maybe I've missed something, but why wouldn't you just

Re: [WSG] Web Standards Shetland Ponies

heretic wrote: I wanted to understand why this happened. Is standards only really something a small contingent of geeky developers go for? I think it's fair to say that standards developers are still the minority, but that doesn't make them wrong. "What's right is not always

[WSG] css/html snippets

on the topic of css patterns and re-usable chunks of code, there's plenty of whole css page layout resources that you can use as a starting point for your own stuff right, like the 'ol classics http://glish.com/css/ or http://www.bluerobot.com/web/layouts/ what about the insides of those

Re: [WSG] css/html snippets

That web patterns thing people were bouncing around in here a month or so back? I've lost the address... if someone else doesn't post it, it's in the archives somewhere... probably something really obvious like webpatterns.org... Ah, yes, that's it. http://webpatterns.org/ On 2/2/06, Peter

Re: [WSG] css/html snippets

Joshua wrote http://webpatterns.org/ *checks it out* ok, so the term patterns is potentially a too far advanced term for what i'm thinking of. all that microformat and machine readable data stuff is certainly interesting (Allsopp - i can hear you screaming about it from here ;-) but... I

Re: [WSG] css/html snippets

Joshua also wrote: That web patterns thing people were bouncing around in here a month or so back? I've lost the address... if someone else doesn't post it, it's in the archives somewhere... oops. yeah ok: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg24333.html it was a good