RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Jens-Uwe Korff]

> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"

That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
apply no borders at all.

Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
screenreaders to go

"home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
sitemap vertical bar "

Cheers,
 
Jens 

The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is 
or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any 
attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of 
it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of 
the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise 
the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. 
Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information 
contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not 
secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents 
of this message or attached files.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] :: CSS Code Formatting ::

[Adam Martin]

We use a very similar approach - php to deliver the css.
This allows us to do some very cool things, such as target browsers with  
simple comments


For example:

/* IE
button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
}
button span {
margin-top: 2px;
}
*/

or we can even target browser versions

/* IE6
button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
}
button span {
margin-top: 2px;
}
*/

or even browsers and operating systems

/* Opera 9.10 Win
button {
width: auto;
overflow: visible;
}
button span {
margin-top: 2px;
}
*/

We also store basic css configuration into a config.ini file that can be  
read by the php script, for example:


#-#
# LAYOUT DEFINITION
#   style1 centered content, header and footer are fullscreen width
#   style2 fullscreen
#   style3 centered
#   style4 header fullscreen, everything else centered
#   style5 footer fullscreen, everything else centered
#-#

layout.style= style3;
layout.width= 758;
left.width  = 185;
right.width = 0;
header.display  = true;
footer.display  = true;
body.bg = #FFF;
header.bg   = #FFF;
left.bg = #dae2f0;
right.bg= #78746E;
main.bg = #FFF;
footer.bg   = #FFF;

this sets up our basic layout for us, very quickly and easily. The true  
power is in using some logic to produce the cs is that is needed. We can  
then compress it all nicely, add a future expiry date, cache and we are  
good to go.


Sorry, this seemed to get completely off topic, but I am sure it will  
spark some conversations :)

Cheers
Adam



On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:46:34 +1000, David Hucklesby  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:19:24 +0530, Amrinder wrote:


I was reading this article on Smashing Magazine which shows how to  
increase code

readability,
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/02/improving-code-readability-with-css-
styleguides/

but I have listened to Andy Clarke over Lynda.com saying that one  
should save the white

space as it increases the file size.




Ted Drake replied:


Reduce the number of css files used
Link to them in the top of the page, no inline styles
Gzip and reduce the whitespace when going to production.


~~~

A job for a server-side script. See:

 
Cordially,
David
--




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[David Hucklesby]

On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:52:38 +0100 (BST), Stuart Foulstone wrote:
> From a usability/accessibility point a view.
>
> The most common separator used in such circumstances (and therefore that most 
> expected
> by screen-reader users) is the vertical bar.
>

How about a border?



Cordially,
David
--




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] :: CSS Code Formatting ::

[David Hucklesby]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:19:24 +0530, Amrinder wrote:
>
> I was reading this article on Smashing Magazine which shows how to increase 
> code
> readability,
> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/02/improving-code-readability-with-css-
> styleguides/
>
> but I have listened to Andy Clarke over Lynda.com saying that one should save 
> the white
> space as it increases the file size.
>


Ted Drake replied:
>
> Reduce the number of css files used
> Link to them in the top of the page, no inline styles
> Gzip and reduce the whitespace when going to production.

~~~

A job for a server-side script. See:

 
 
Cordially,
David
--




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Images

[Elizabeth Spiegel]

Personally I would place the border in the CSS (although unless the image is
a link, it's surely unncessary), but the height and width in the HTML. My
reasoning is that these will (or at least may) vary for each image, and I
can't see the benefit of giving every image its own id just so that you can
move the dimensions into a style sheet.  If the images are all the same
size, then maybe.

 

Elizabeth Spiegel

Web editing

0409 986 158

GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001

www.spiegelweb.com.au

 

 

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Likely, James A.
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2008 7:22 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Images

 

I have a quick question and would like your thoughts. 

I am working with a team of coders that code images like: 

 

My question is, do you need the border, height, and width or should that be
done in the style sheet or is it needed? 

 

Thoughts? 

Thanks 

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]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Ben Buchanan]

What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting any
> characters in there? I don't want any characters in there!
>

You could put the two links into a list. That would separate them into two
disctinct elements without requiring punctuation.

I'm not 100% sure of the usability aspect of having such a short nav list
thought - anyone have any thoughts on that?

Also, just another vote here to follow WCAG Samurai over raw WCAG 1. The
Samurai know their stuff and the Errata really capture the best practice
that emerged while working with WCAG 1 (many notes in WCAG 1 need
clarification or are no longer correct in their original form).

-Ben

-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

[Michael Horowitz]

I don't think it is worth the time an effort to support old browsers 
like IE 5.  There aren't enough users who are surfing the web using such 
old equipment to be worth the development time and expense.


There is always another browser to test.  I think we need to focus on 
the major ways people access the web not the handful of people with IE 1.0


Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



Robert O'Rourke wrote:

Krystian - Sunlust wrote:

IE5 ?
Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and
most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use
Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5?
My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but
his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that
old hardware ??

Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong
compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to
try to develop modern websites in our "web 2.0" world for those
useless browsers.
It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam
engines instead of jet ones.

Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would
create: "Click this button to download Firefox".

Regards,
  


I had a customer recently whom I had prepared a rough demo page for, 
it worked for ie6,7, Opera and FF but when I got some feedback they 
weren't happy in the slightest because I'd sent them a mess. Anyway, 
we checked the server logs and it turned out they were using an 
unpatched IE5 on an unpatched windows 98! (which of course was 
perfectly reasonable, just uncommon).


We convinced them to upgrade their IT equipment but it was an eye 
opener. It never pays to assume that everyone is/should be bang up to 
date just because you are sick of working around IE bugs (we all are). 
Assumption is the mother of all ups. If you don't write CSS for 
those very old browsers eg. IE5.x (which I must admit I don't) I find 
it best to hide the CSS from those browsers altogether using 
conditional comments and the media attribute when linking to CSS. 
Using the same approach you can add a note to say why the site looks 
the way it does.


re. 'some strong campaign': http://www.savethedevelopers.org/

-Rob


***
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] Images

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

Hi James,


do you need the border, height, and width or should that
be done in the style sheet or is it needed?


Exactly what Tony said regarding width and height, they're beneficial. Lose 
the border attribute, though. That should be done in the style sheet as you 
suspected.


Cheers.
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Images

[toneee]

Hi James,

By specifying the dimensions in the markup, you're helping the browser to know 
what space is taken up while it is fetching the files. This means the page 
doesn't jog up and down as images are loaded.

Cheers,

Tony 
-Original Message-
From: "Likely, James A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:22:27 
To:
Subject: [WSG] Images


I have a quick question and would like your thoughts. 
I am working with a team of coders that code images like: 
 
My question is, do you need the border, height, and width or should that be 
done in the style sheet or is it needed? 
 
Thoughts? 
Thanks 
James 
 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Images

[Likely, James A.]

I have a quick question and would like your thoughts.

I am working with a team of coders that code images like:



My question is, do you need the border, height, and width or should that
be done in the style sheet or is it needed?



Thoughts?

Thanks

James




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

[Robert O'Rourke]

Krystian - Sunlust wrote:

IE5 ?
Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and
most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use
Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5?
My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but
his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that
old hardware ??

Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong
compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to
try to develop modern websites in our "web 2.0" world for those
useless browsers.
It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam
engines instead of jet ones.

Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would
create: "Click this button to download Firefox".

Regards,
  


I had a customer recently whom I had prepared a rough demo page for, it 
worked for ie6,7, Opera and FF but when I got some feedback they weren't 
happy in the slightest because I'd sent them a mess. Anyway, we checked 
the server logs and it turned out they were using an unpatched IE5 on an 
unpatched windows 98! (which of course was perfectly reasonable, just 
uncommon).


We convinced them to upgrade their IT equipment but it was an eye 
opener. It never pays to assume that everyone is/should be bang up to 
date just because you are sick of working around IE bugs (we all are). 
Assumption is the mother of all ups. If you don't write CSS for 
those very old browsers eg. IE5.x (which I must admit I don't) I find it 
best to hide the CSS from those browsers altogether using conditional 
comments and the media attribute when linking to CSS. Using the same 
approach you can add a note to say why the site looks the way it does.


re. 'some strong campaign': http://www.savethedevelopers.org/

-Rob


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Stuart Foulstone]

>From a usability/accessibility point a view.

The most common separator used in such circumstances (and therefore that
most expected by screen-reader users) is the vertical bar.

i.e. IF you add extra characters for accessibility, use the ones they are
familiar with (usability).

Addition: apparently the vertical bar character was preferred by
screen-reader users because, whilst it is quite "wordy", there is
virtually no other use for it, so very little opportunity for confusion.



On Thu, May 8, 2008 2:32 pm, Rahul Gonsalves wrote:
> On 08-May-08, at 2:33 PM, Designer wrote:
>
>> The WAI validator complains [...]
>
> Do you have to build a WAI-validating site? If you don't have to, I
> would suggest ignoring that guideline, as it doesn't necessarily
> enhance accessibility for visitors. I would suggest using :focus to
> provide visual cues - most modern screen readers are able to
> differentiate between adjacent links without difficulty.
>
>> You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden
>> character. [...]
>
>
> @Mike: Adding extra characters just increases the auditory clutter
> that screenreader-users have to experience. While your method is a
> good one if WAI-valid is necessary, I must respectfully disagree with
> it on accessibility grounds :-).
>
> Best,
>   - Rahul.
>
>
> ***
> 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] Older Browsers

[Ted Drake]

libraries, government organizations, military, and other large 
organizations have locked down computers that don't allow installation 
of fire fox. They also have purpose built web applications that only run 
in IE6 that are critical for their day to day jobs.


That is a major reason for the large ie6 userbase still.  This is also 
why microsoft keeps saying they can't break stuff by upgrading to full 
standards support. This is why ie8 is causing issues and has the option 
of rendering a page in the older manner.


So, if you are building a web site for your portfolio and don't need to 
worry about those organizations, feel free to add your firefox only 
link. If, on the other hand, you are building a site with a mass 
audience, IE6 is still on the horizon.


ted


Krystian - Sunlust wrote:

IE5 ?
Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and
most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use
Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5?
My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but
his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that
old hardware ??

Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong
compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to
try to develop modern websites in our "web 2.0" world for those
useless browsers.
It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam
engines instead of jet ones.

Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would
create: "Click this button to download Firefox".

Regards,

  




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Rahul Gonsalves]

On 08-May-08, at 2:33 PM, Designer wrote:


The WAI validator complains [...]


Do you have to build a WAI-validating site? If you don't have to, I  
would suggest ignoring that guideline, as it doesn't necessarily  
enhance accessibility for visitors. I would suggest using :focus to  
provide visual cues - most modern screen readers are able to  
differentiate between adjacent links without difficulty.


You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden  
character. [...]



@Mike: Adding extra characters just increases the auditory clutter  
that screenreader-users have to experience. While your method is a  
good one if WAI-valid is necessary, I must respectfully disagree with  
it on accessibility grounds :-).


Best,
 - Rahul.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

Hi Bob,


I have run into a problem with having two adjacent
links at the top of a page.


You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden 
character. Example:




  [Site Map
 | 
  Home]

  

The span would be style with:

div#sitelink span {
 position : absolute;
 left : -9000px;
}

Cheers.
Mike Cherim 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

[Krystian - Sunlust]

IE5 ?
Each time I hear about IE5 I want to laugh, honestly, IE6 is old, and
most companies that actually create revenue in our modern times use
Vista and IE7, who would worry/use IE5?
My friend who I just finished designing website for is using IE6 but
his computer is like 2-3 years old, what kind of a company uses that
old hardware ??

Anyway, end with the rant, in my opinion there should be some strong
compaign to cut the usage of IE5 and IE6 because it's just silly to
try to develop modern websites in our "web 2.0" world for those
useless browsers.
It's like trying to design new aeroplanes and test them with steam
engines instead of jet ones.

Get a grip, for old browsers theres only one kind of a website I would
create: "Click this button to download Firefox".

Regards,

-- 
Krystian - Sunlust
Freelance on the side: Sunlust Designs - http://sunlust.net
Full time Website Designer at SME System Solutions Ltd


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

[Alan Cocks]

I haven't used the Tredosoft version of multiple IEs,but I did use an earlier 
incarnation of the same approach in 2005, withIE4, IE5.0 and 5.5 among the 
browsers I tested. The results were notencouraging.

This approach is much more lightweight than having to first downloadmultiple 
virtual machines and then run them simultaneously, but at the endof the day it 
is still based on hacks.

The problems I found were not just with conditional comments, versionnumbers 
and cookies (problems which apparently have been solved 
--http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/multiIE.html), but alsowith 
JavaScript.

If I remember rightly the discussions from that time, the allegedly 
"standalone" versions of the browsers stillmanaged to use the JavaScript engine 
of your main installed browser.

When I tested my site on a machine with only IE5.5. installed, I foundthat I 
got different results from what I saw in my "standalone"parallel-installed 
version of IE5.5.

In the end I decided that the whole side-by-side testing process was 
fundamentally unreliable.

If you read some of the comments on Tredosoft's own 
page(http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE), it appears there are still problemswith 
the side-by-side approach -- unexpected browser crashes etc etc.

So my recommendation is don't take the seeming short-cut. The virtual machine 
approach will be better in the long run.

And when developing, I would say that if you can, use a 
"progressiveenhancement" approach - start with solid html that will work in any 
browser,then add CSS, and JavaScript (and AJAX and Flash etc etc) that will 
deliver a superior experience tothe newer browsers that support them, but will 
degrade gracefully (i.e.without throwing a ton of error messages) for the old 
browsers.

If your client doesn't like the idea of the site looking and 
behavingdifferently in different browsers (the likely consequence 
of"progressive enhancement"), then I would say start by developing yourCSS for 
the latest, most standard-compliant browsers, then second, useconditional 
comments to target specific corrective style sheets at theold, dead browsers.

I know that in such a situation, some other people might prefer CSS"filters" or 
hacks for dealing with such inconsistencies betweenbrowsers. But using 
browser-specific override style sheets at leastmeans that your main style 
sheets can be kept relatively clean, focused and freeof crud.
-- 
Alan Cocks 
User Interface Designer
LinkMe Pty Ltd 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

[Léo Siqueira]

Hello Chris, also u cant use this too:
http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage.
It IETester and this program have 4 versions of IE (5.5, 6, 7 and 8 beta 1).

I use the Multiple IE too, but a have some unexpected problems when i try to
view some site in IE 5.5 version !!!
Enjoy !!!

Regards,

Léo Siqueira
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Matthew Pennell]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> "10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent
> links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by
> spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]"
>
> What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting
> any characters in there? I don't want any characters in there!


"Do not add non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces or not)
between adjacent links unless the semantics of the document naturally would
include such characters."

>From the WCAG Samurai corrections to WCAG1:
http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html

So basically, don't worry about using anything between links.

http://www.thewatchmakerproject.com/journal/455/wcag-samurai-question

-- 

- Matthew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Ian Chamberlain]

I tend to use a good old unordered list for such things Bob.

- Original Message - 
From: "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links


I have run into a problem with having two adjacent links at the top of a 
page. The WAI validator complains:

"10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render 
adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters 
(surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]"

What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting 
any characters in there? I don't want any characters in there! 
  I have tried using:


 
   [Site Map]
   [Home]
 
   

and that validates WAI, but I hate the appearance of it. I could set the 
(non a:) text colour to be the same as the background, but that's a 
fiddle I want to avoid.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob





***
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]
***

[WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Designer]

I have run into a problem with having two adjacent links at the top of a 
page. The WAI validator complains:


"10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render 
adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters 
(surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]"


What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting 
any characters in there? I don't want any characters in there! 
 I have tried using:




  [Site Map]
  [Home]

  

and that validates WAI, but I hate the appearance of it. I could set the 
(non a:) text colour to be the same as the background, but that's a 
fiddle I want to avoid.


Any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] London Web standards meetup group

[Joe Ortenzi]

Once again the Web Standards Meetup London group is gathering at  
Lloyds bar in Clerkenwell on Monday May 12th at 7pm.

Full details at:

http://webstandards.meetup.com/130/calendar/7700441/

Please RSVP if you can make it, thanks!

Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.typingthevoid.com
www.joiz.com





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Older Browsers

[chris | chrisbuttery.com]

Hi All,
Thanks so much for all the feedback. This is fantastic. I really 
appreciate it.

Thanks again
Chris





Ben Buchanan wrote:


>My question to you guys is how do you develop & test your websites to 
ensure they
> are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you 
have older

> browsers handy to test them with?

Personally I wouldn't support IE5 for a full design, it's just too old 
- for many reasons they should upgrade. About the most I'd do for IE5 
would be to exclude it from the current design and perhaps send it a 
cut down stylesheet with some basic font and colour settings.


To test IE I run Virtual PC with IE6/7 - 
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&displaylang=en 



I'm not wild about the "multiple IE" system as early experiences with 
it suggested they were inconsistent versus the real thing.



--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
***
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] Older Browsers

[Ben Buchanan]

>My question to you guys is how do you develop & test your websites to
ensure they
> are interpreted correctly by older more popular browsers ? Do you have
older
> browsers handy to test them with?

Personally I wouldn't support IE5 for a full design, it's just too old - for
many reasons they should upgrade. About the most I'd do for IE5 would be to
exclude it from the current design and perhaps send it a cut down stylesheet
with some basic font and colour settings.

To test IE I run Virtual PC with IE6/7 -
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&displaylang=en

I'm not wild about the "multiple IE" system as early experiences with it
suggested they were inconsistent versus the real thing.


-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] [OT] Full flash websites

[Mark Harris]

Michael Persson wrote:
> I find it bad to have to rebuild my computer to have the opportunity 
to have
> a deascent set of standard browsers. Does my clients have the same 
setup??

>
Ummm, aren't you building sites for your client's customers to use? It's 
the internet you have to match browsers with, to make sure everything 
works. And you don't have to rebuild your computer - that's the point. 
It installs as an application and then you build the base installation 
you want (e.g XP SP2) and clone it to give you platforms to test all 
sorts and versions of browsers.



> I dont mean to be bad but having the most normal installation is for 
me the target

> and to have a smilar setup as a standard website visitor is my goal..
>
Well, if there was such a thing, I don't think we'd need web standards. 
The reason most of us are here is because there isn't a standard 
installation and we have to be able to cope with anything.



> I think that IE6, FF, Safari and my colleagues MAC FF and Safari 
should cover my

> most visitors installations...
>

But which versions of FF and Safari, and which version of OSX? Is the 
mac Intel or PPC? Is the PC running Vista? Will Aero make a difference 
to base IE look and feel? i'd suggest that you need to think about these 
things.


> Of course i check the websites in IE7 also but i buld everything in 
IE6 and goe from

> there wihout hacks and cheats...
>
That's great for your IE audience but I really think you need to look a 
little wider.


Your call, though.

cheers

mark


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] [OT] Full flash websites

[Jason Ray]

Hi Michael,

This was posted in another thread, it might be useful to you if you want to
test in previous versions of IE, though I don't know if it solves your
problem of wanting to run flash with it.

http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE

Jason

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I find it bad to have to rebuild my computer to have the opportunity to
> have
> a deascent set of standard browsers. Does my clients have the same setup??
>
> I dont mean to be bad but having the most normal installation is for me the
> target
> and to have a smilar setup as a standard website visitor is my goal..
>
> I think that IE6, FF, Safari and my colleagues MAC FF and Safari should
> cover my
> most visitors installations...
>
> Of course i check the websites in IE7 also but i buld everything in IE6 and
> goe from
> there wihout hacks and cheats...
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Mark Harris wrote:
>
>> Michael Persson wrote:
>>
>>> I resinstalled my work computer some months ago and I had a technical
>>> person to do this because we have a deal, Yes he installed all programs i
>>> needed and also IE7 ONLY!!!. Stupid me didnt made him understand i need
>>> IE6 to make websites for the most of the internet audience...
>>>
>>> I have now a cracked tripped IE6 that cant have flash installed and i am
>>> in need of another new installation again... just need to find the
>>> time...
>>>
>>>  Just to go slightly off topic here but can I recommend to you the
>> running of virtual machines for your different versions so you can install
>> multiple versions tiny differences in settings and do side by side
>> comparisons? If you get your tech to install a VM environment, it will mean
>> you can install anything you like. (My particular favourite is VirtualBox,
>> once by Innotek, now owned by Sun, but still open source -
>> http://www.sun.com/software/innotek/ - works on Linux, OSX and XP (not
>> sure about Vista))
>>
>> We now return to your regular listserv
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> mark
>>
>>
>> ***
>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ***
>>
>>
>
> --
> Michael Persson
> front-end developer & seo
>
>
> ***
> 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]
***