Re: [WSG] running ie7 on my mac??
Hi Kevin One option is to use VirtualBox (virtualbox.org) which is virtualisation software written in Qt. Looks to have Mac OSX host capabilities (http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewforum.php?f=8) I use the open source edition in KDE and run all the Windows browsers in an XP guest for testing. Only thing I can't do is get a Mac guest running although there is talk about it in VirtualBox (http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=13612#13612) - won't affect you tho' HTH James On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:08:52 pm kevin mcmonagle wrote: Hi, Whats my cheapest option for getting ie7 to run on my intel based mac. Is it basically an option between boot camp, parallels or virtual pc? Very frustrated with discrepancies at the moment. -best kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Background images versus image
Agreed thanks, I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make sure that you get all users? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available. I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist. On 25/01/2008, Likely, James A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_ Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_ Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James *** List Guidelines:
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
I actually found a nice image-enabled testing script which works well: http://webgeekblog.com/2007/04/15/unobtrusive-javascript-for-detecting-whether-images-are-enabled-or-not/ I tried using the onload even, but that will still go off even if images are disabled. Thomas Thomassen wrote: You could make the javascript trigger on the image onload events. Though, I think some older version of Opera, v8 or 7.54, doesn't support the onLoad event for images. - Original Message - From: Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:43 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base: 1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable 2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up as the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't aware, Safari is the major browser for Mac computers. So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images aren't available. I'm working on this. Then, you find an alternative, working method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this as well. The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, just that the look isn't consistent when it should be. Likely, James A. wrote: Agreed thanks, I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make sure that you get all users? *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available. I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist. On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
You could make the javascript trigger on the image onload events. Though, I think some older version of Opera, v8 or 7.54, doesn't support the onLoad event for images. - Original Message - From: Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:43 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base: 1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable 2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up as the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't aware, Safari is the major browser for Mac computers. So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images aren't available. I'm working on this. Then, you find an alternative, working method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this as well. The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, just that the look isn't consistent when it should be. Likely, James A. wrote: Agreed thanks, I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make sure that you get all users? *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available. I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist. On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base: 1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable 2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up as the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't aware, Safari is the major browser for Mac computers. So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images aren't available. I'm working on this. Then, you find an alternative, working method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this as well. The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, just that the look isn't consistent when it should be. Likely, James A. wrote: Agreed thanks, I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make sure that you get all users? *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available. I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist. On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at:
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
In this particular case, the script will fail and fall back to the default look of the radio and check boxes if either Javascript or CSS is missing, which is good. The only problem in this case is if Javascript and CSS -are- available, but images are not. In that case, it becomes 100% unusable. Thomas Thomassen wrote: Most mobile phones won't use Javascript or CSS either. And the usage of handheld devices is rapidly increasing. So is other gadgets. Nintendo DS for instance. We can't assume that only browser applications is used to access our webpages. - Original Message - From: Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form. However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read a document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no idea. I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for disabled users, but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a scientific or statistically evaluation. You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as you probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). I'll let you know how it turns out. Likely, James A. wrote: What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_ Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_ Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form. However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read a document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no idea. I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for disabled users, but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a scientific or statistically evaluation. You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as you probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). I'll let you know how it turns out. Likely, James A. wrote: What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_ Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_ Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Background images versus image
Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, Likely, James A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html Using background images: http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_ Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_ Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest
I am away on holidays, returning Monday 18th Feb. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available. I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist. On 25/01/2008, Likely, James A. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_ Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_ Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955
RE: [WSG] Background images versus image
What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_ Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_ Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:
Re: [WSG] running ie7 on my mac??
Had a terrible time on my Intel MacBook with Parallels Desktop; it refused to play nice with OS X Leopard. Wouldn't even install properly. Switched to VMware Fusion, and haven't had a problem since. g. On Fri , kevin mcmonagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: Hi, Whats my cheapest option for getting ie7 to run on my intel based mac. Is it basically an option between boot camp, parallels or virtual pc? Very frustrated with discrepancies at the moment. -best kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
Most mobile phones won't use Javascript or CSS either. And the usage of handheld devices is rapidly increasing. So is other gadgets. Nintendo DS for instance. We can't assume that only browser applications is used to access our webpages. - Original Message - From: Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form. However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read a document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no idea. I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for disabled users, but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a scientific or statistically evaluation. You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as you probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). I'll let you know how it turns out. Likely, James A. wrote: What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very slim wouldn't it? From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that accommodates most users. How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something similar to the example that I found? Thanks again for the help. James -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it fails completely. Likely, James A. wrote: Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this example. http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/ What are your thoughts on this approach? To me it looks pretty user friendly. Please let me know as this is new to me. Thanks James *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant. If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders. If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms. Hope that helps. - - - - - http://www.dave-woods.co.uk On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a problem that I have. I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. The reason I ask is 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people with disabilities. 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? You can see an example of both ways at: Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_ Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_ Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible? Thanks for the help. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[WSG] Re: WSG Digest (Out-of-office)
Thanks for your email. I'm currently out of the office and will be returning on 30 January 2008. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
