Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

[David Hucklesby]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:49:43 +0100, Stewart Griffiths wrote:
>
> However, within Fireworks you can also export png's as a png8, which provides 
> a palette
> based colour model (like gif's) and which many believe only offers a 1 bit 
> transparency
> option. However, if we play with some of the settings we are able to offer 
> similar semi-
> transparency colors as a png32.
>

Yes.

More on that technique here:
  

... with some ideas for improving appearance in IE 6 here:
  


Cordially,
David
--




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

RE: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[Matthew Hodgson]

I've also seen a lot of people with big screens re-size their browser windows 
to about 1024x768/800x600-ish.

M


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hucklesby [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2008 3:46 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: IceKat
Subject: Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:28:18 +1000, IceKat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother 
> designing to
> fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 
> 1024x768 and not
> worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make 
> it more
> complicated and am interested to hear people's views.
>

FWIW - I work at a computer training lab, teaching computer skills to
a very wide age group. A significant number of students switch the
nominally 1280 x 960 19" display to 800 x 600.

Just my 41 cents.

Cordially,
David
--



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

NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any 
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in 
reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management 
& Technology on 9696 0911 immediately.  Any views expressed in this 
Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender 
specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management & Technology.  
Except as required by law, SMS Management & Technology does not represent, 
warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been 
maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception 
or interference.


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

Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[David Hucklesby]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:28:18 +1000, IceKat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother 
> designing to
> fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 
> 1024x768 and not
> worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make 
> it more
> complicated and am interested to hear people's views.
>

FWIW - I work at a computer training lab, teaching computer skills to
a very wide age group. A significant number of students switch the
nominally 1280 x 960 19" display to 800 x 600.

Just my 41 cents.

Cordially,
David
--



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

RE: [WSG] Reset CSS

[Jens-Uwe Korff]

> Wondering what your thoughts are on whether to use  a 'reset'
framework for CSS
 
I wouldn't label it a "framework" since it's effectively just a single,
simple style sheet. For me it's benefits are

*   one initial place to reset margins, paddings (saves me from
doing this over and over again for individual elements)
*   re-usability across projects as a component in my framework
*   using a tried-and-tested piece of code (since I rely on Eric
Meyer's version)

I don't see the user control aspect that much. Users usually control
view port and font sizes, some might have custom style sheets and those
can manipulate styles as they see fit.
 
I think a reset style sheet compensates for different browser defaults
rather than for "poor standards compliance". Look at Safari and Opera,
two very compliant browsers, and compare their defaults on margin and
padding. It's like trying to build a house on wooden poles which you've
sourced from all over the world, the first thing you'd do is make sure
they're all the same length by adding and cutting as necessary.
 
IE-only style sheets have their rightful place. I had projects where I
even had an IE6-only stylesheet because I needed so many fixes for that
browser (see the recent png thread). IE-only files are yet one more
component in my framework.
 
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] Marking up multiple form inputs

[Dani Iswara]

Try ATRC Web Accessibility Checker (http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/)
you can select multiple standard of accessbility:

   - BITV 1.0 level 2 (Germany standard)
   - Section 508 (US standard)
   - Stanca act (Italy standard)
   - WCAG 1.0 (A, AA, AAA)
   - WCAG 2.0 (L1, L2, L3)

and they have some examples for the failed problem. :)
Webagogo (http://www.webagogo.be; website analysis) needs all of those
criteria to be valid..(just kind of a game..)..but useful for disable
people..

for the data/form presentation, I agree to use fieldset, legend, label,
input, accesskey, tabindex, table summary, caption, with the help of CSS..


On 6/11/08, Miles Menegon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Use fieldset, legend, label, input and CSS.  Make sure each input has a
> label.  I would suggest checking your form with the WAVE toolbar for
> accessibility (http://wave.webaim.org/)
>
> M
>
>  --
> **
>


-- 
Regards,

Dani Iswara
http://daniiswara.net/


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

Re: [WSG] Reset CSS

[Joseph Taylor]

The reset.css (in the form you mention) first came about from css 
developers who set the same defaults again and again as they made 
sites.  They obviously realized they repeated themselves and eventually 
created a separate stylesheet to handle that.  I did this myself (I 
chose the name global.css).


I'd end up with a css structure like:

/CSS/
-
- reset.css (set universal defaults)
- screen.css (set screen defaults)
- mypage.css (page specific styles)
- print.css (set print defaults)
- handheld.css (small screen defaults)

As far as using frameworks, its a great idea that has far to go still so 
use sparingly.  I prefer the http://960.gs framework.  Low on bloat.  
Again use sparingly.


Joseph R. B. Taylor
/Designer / Developer/
--
Sites by Joe, LLC
/"Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design"/
Phone: (609) 335-3076
Fax: (866) 301-8045
Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Miles Menegon wrote:

Hello all,
 
Wondering what your thoughts are on whether to use  a 'reset' 
framework for CSS.  I've noticed that quite a few people on the list 
use it to try to overcome default browser behaviour / user-defined 
browser preferences.
 
I understand the benefit of trying to level the playing field in terms 
of cross-browser rendering, but shouldn't we be giving users at least 
some control over how they like to view the web?  And by using a 
'reset' framework, aren't we just compensating for poor standards 
compliance on behalf of IE?  How does a reset framework compare with 
an IE-only stylesheet, for instance?
 
Thoughts...
 
M
 


***
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]
***begin:vcard
fn:Joseph Taylor
n:Taylor;Joseph
org:Sites by Joe, LLC
adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Designer / Developer
tel;work:609-335-3076
tel;fax:886-301-8045
tel;home:609-886-9660
tel;cell:609-335-3076
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://sitesbyjoe.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

RE: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

[Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd]

Hi Michael,
Here a re few sites I've worked on that use the double helix PNG fix

http://www.petcalendars.eu/
http://www.epichousing.co.uk/site/cms/page.asp
http://www.enterprise-days.co.uk/

Hope they help

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 June 2008 00:08
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org; Michael Persson
Subject: Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

Here you are Michael:
http://www.meccompany.com.au/aboutUs.php

Don't ask me how but it works

Quoting Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>
> I need a function of a link that one KNOWS is working...
>
> Michael
>
>
> IceKat wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link   
>> (below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much   
>> for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that   
>> I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while.
>>
>> As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the   
>> replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because  
>>  I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my  
>>  computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a  
>> wide  screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started  
>> trying  to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the  
>> replies  and get the opinion of everyone.
>>
>> IceKat.
>>
>> PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm
>>
>>
>> Michael Persson wrote:
>>> HI people,
>>>
>>> I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not   
>>> working IE6 properly.
>>>
>>> I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I   
>>> have tried some
>>> tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.
>>>
>>> There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i   
>>> get the transparency
>>> working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this   
>>> transparency crap
>>> to make work ?
>>>
>>> I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael in Athens
>>>
>>>
>>> ***
>>> 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]
> ***




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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 09/06/2008
17:25




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

[WSG] Reset CSS

[Miles Menegon]

Hello all,
 
Wondering what your thoughts are on whether to use  a 'reset' framework
for CSS.  I've noticed that quite a few people on the list use it to try
to overcome default browser behaviour / user-defined browser
preferences.
 
I understand the benefit of trying to level the playing field in terms
of cross-browser rendering, but shouldn't we be giving users at least
some control over how they like to view the web?  And by using a 'reset'
framework, aren't we just compensating for poor standards compliance on
behalf of IE?  How does a reset framework compare with an IE-only
stylesheet, for instance?
 
Thoughts...
 
M
 


***
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

[Cook, Karen]

 
Hi,

I'm out of the office on a training course. I will return on Tuesday 17th May. 

For Whereis related matters contact Belinda Lang, product manager or Asaf Amit, 
Dev Lead.

For nav bar related matters contact Wayne Barker in Shared Services.

I will be checking emails periodically, however if it is urgent send me a text.

Karen


Sensis. Helping you find, buy and sell.

www.sensis.com.au - www.yellow.com.au - www.whitepages.com.au - 
www.citysearch.com.au - www.whereis.com.au - www.tradingpost.com.au 

Sensis cares for the environment - think before you print.

This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the recipient 
and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Sensis Pty Ltd disclaims 
liability for any errors, omissions, viruses, loss and/or damage arising from 
using, opening or transmitting this email. If you are not the intended 
recipient you must not use, interfere with, disclose, copy or retain this email 
and you should notify the sender immediately by return email or by contacting 
Sensis Pty Ltd by telephone on [+61 3 8653 5000]

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

RE: [WSG] Marking up multiple form inputs

[Miles Menegon]

Use fieldset, legend, label, input and CSS.  Make sure each input has a
label.  I would suggest checking your form with the WAVE toolbar for
accessibility (http://wave.webaim.org/)
 
M



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jason Ray
Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:22 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Marking up multiple form inputs


Tables shouldn't be used for layouts, use style sheets instead, but they
should be used for information which lends itself well to a table. If
you are trying to display data in an organised format, which requires
columns and rows, then use a table.

Jason


On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Chris Pearce <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi,

 

Would the following layout be best marked up using a table:

 

 

Column Header

Column Header

 [label tag]

[input tag]

[input tag]

 [label tag]

[input tag]

[input tag]

 [label tag]

[input tag]

[input tag]

 

Cheers

   

solutions for a digital world



Exchange Server 2007

Built-in Protection, Anywhere Access, Operational Efficiency

BLUEARC WILL HELP YOU MAKE THE MOVE. FIND OUT HOW
 


level 1, 11 albany street
st leonards nsw 2065

p: 02 9467 2500

d: 02 9467 25
f: 02 9431 5999
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
w: www.bluearcgroup.com  



ARE YOU READY FOR NEXT GENERATION WEB TECHNOLOGY?

Leading the way in Web Content Management, IgnitionSuite Version
3.0 prepares you for the future of the web.
To learn more call 9467 2500 or email 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 



Privileged - Private & Confidential 
This email and files transmitted with it are intended solely for
the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information which is
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email or
any attachment is prohibited. If you receive this email and you are not
the addressee, or you have received this email in error, please
disregard the contents of the email, delete the email and notify the
author immediately.

 

P  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 

 



***
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] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

[cf]

Here you are Michael:
http://www.meccompany.com.au/aboutUs.php

Don't ask me how but it works

Quoting Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:



I need a function of a link that one KNOWS is working...

Michael


IceKat wrote:

Hey,

I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link   
(below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much   
for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that   
I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while.


As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the   
replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because  
 I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my  
 computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a  
wide  screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started  
trying  to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the  
replies  and get the opinion of everyone.


IceKat.

PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm


Michael Persson wrote:

HI people,

I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not   
working IE6 properly.


I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I   
have tried some

tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i   
get the transparency

working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this   
transparency crap

to make work ?

I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


Michael in Athens


***
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]
***





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

RE: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??

[Simon]

I've used superslieight to great success. You see a moment of grey border as
the page loads in IE6 but after that it renders fine.

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew McGrath
Sent: 10 June 2008 13:37
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??

 

theres no clean solution that i'm aware of...but this is a common issue, so
i'm certain there is plenty of tips and tricks out there to help you get
around the problem you are faced with.

http://24ways.org/2007/supersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6

the above link provides some /interesting/ info, i don't claim to know a lot
about this topic in particular however this page essentially summarized what
i already knew...so maybe it will help.

 Good luck!

2008/6/10 Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

HI people,

I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6
properly.

I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have tried
some
tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the
transparency
working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency
crap
to make work ?

I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


Michael in Athens


***
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]
***

[WSG] Margin Trapping

[Chris Kennon]

The navigation list on the following  only stays at top when the following rule  
is in place:


div#container{width: 100%; border: 1px solid transparent;}

is this due to margin trapping, or some conjured anomaly with my floats?

Chris







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

Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

[Sergey Kushniruk]

I use this: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/


On Jun 10, 2008, at 15:52, Michael Persson wrote:



I need a function of a link that one KNOWS is working...

Michael


IceKat wrote:

Hey,

I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link  
(below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much  
for background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that  
I've used this script without much trouble for quite a while.


As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the  
replies and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because  
I was making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my  
computer when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide  
screen. Some of you might be glad to know I've since started trying  
to make it fluid width but it's been great to read all the replies  
and get the opinion of everyone.


IceKat.

PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm


Michael Persson wrote:

HI people,

I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not  
working IE6 properly.


I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I  
have tried some

tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i  
get the transparency

working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this  
transparency crap

to make work ?

I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


Michael in Athens


***
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]
***





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

Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[Felix Miata]

On 2008/06/10 12:20 (GMT+0200) Gunlaug Sørtun apparently typed:
...
> Since all browsers can also resize fonts (one way or another)
> independent of page zoom, "relative sizes" risk creating even more
> problems when both font resizing and page zoom are used.

> The latest mobile browsers also incorporates page zoom and font resizing
> in various forms in order to enhance the experience, so the more freedom
> we give those browsers to perform their job the easier it'll be for the
> end-user.
...

"Resize" as generally applied within web design discussions doesn't seem to
have have a good clear meaning. It seems to me that in most cases it is
assumed equivalent to using a text sizer or text zoom function in the browser
or built into the page with alternate stylesheets or script, tools designed
for use as defense mechanisms to be used against the designer's wish for text
some arbitrarily smaller size than whatever the user's default is (body
{font-size: 76%}), or some arbitrary size that disregards user wishes or
needs (px text sizes).

OTOH, the possibility to "resize" at the base level, in the browser's default
settings, gets ignored, or assumed to be something that users almost
universally leave unchanged.

As to the former we should remember that defense mechanisms, including page
zoom, are exactly what they are. When the design respectfully and competently
embraces the idea that the viewport is fluid and that not everyone uses
800x600 or 1024x768 or any particular other screen resolution default text
size, then the need to defend and the ugly consequences of defense are avoided.

Get your work to work across a reasonable range of text size to em width
viewport ratios and the need to defend is reduced; possibly, and ideally, to
zero.
-- 
"Where were you when I laid the earth's
foudation?"Matthew 7:12 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


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

Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6 ??

[Christian Fagan]

Hi there Michael,

Had the same problem a while back and, while I can't give you the exact 
line of code that makes it work, the paragraph on this page seems to 
display properly in IE6 (as well as all other major browsers):

http://www.meccompany.com.au/aboutUs.php

I think it has something to do whether the element is floated or not


Andrew McGrath wrote:
theres no clean solution that i'm aware of...but this is a common 
issue, so i'm certain there is plenty of tips and tricks out there to 
help you get around the problem you are faced with.


http://24ways.org/2007/supersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6

the above link provides some /interesting/ info, i don't claim to know 
a lot about this topic in particular however this page essentially 
summarized what i already knew...so maybe it will help.


 Good luck!

2008/6/10 Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:

HI people,

I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not
working IE6 properly.

I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I
have tried some
tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i
get the transparency
working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this
transparency crap
to make work ?

I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


Michael in Athens


***
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 Fagan
Fagan Design

fagandesign.com.au
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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

Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

[Michael Persson]

I need a function of a link that one KNOWS is working...

Michael


IceKat wrote:

Hey,

I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link 
(below) to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for 
background images pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've 
used this script without much trouble for quite a while.


As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies 
and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was 
making a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my computer 
when made to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. 
Some of you might be glad to know I've since started trying to make it 
fluid width but it's been great to read all the replies and get the 
opinion of everyone.


IceKat.

PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm


Michael Persson wrote:

HI people,

I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working 
IE6 properly.


I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I 
have tried some

tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get 
the transparency

working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this 
transparency crap

to make work ?

I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


Michael in Athens


***
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] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

[Stewart Griffiths]

There is a way to produce portable network graphics (png's) so that they
render correctly across all browsers without the need to employ complicated
hacks and ie filter-based
solutionsor
heavy javascript files, such as the twin
helixapproach
or the
supersleight
.

Most times when a png is exported it is done so as a png32, which provides
lossless compression and allows for more complex settings. All the goodies
we love when designing a site.

However, within Fireworks you can also export png's as a png8, which
provides a palette based colour model (like gif's) and which many believe
only offers a 1 bit transparency option. However, if we play with some of
the settings we are able to offer similar semi-transparency colors as a
png32.

So if you use the export wizard and set it to export as png8 with indexed
transparency, you will see the palette colours have been flattened and you
are offered one, single transparent colour.

However, if you change these settings to alpha transparency, you will notice
a few small "chunks" cut out of the some of the palette colours. These are
the new semi-transparent colours.

The only downside is that complicated fade effects on images are not seen on
IE5.5 & 6, but it still is a transparent image.

This works for IE5.5 and above (I haven't tested lower than that), FF,
Safari and Opera, so it's a winner all round.

Also, the generated image files are smaller, which will increase delivery
time, and , more importantly, there is no need to implement hacks,
javascript files or any other third party coding, making the total delivery
package smaller and therefore increasing the speed of your site.

Hope the above helps you all.

I am planning on writing an article on the web design forum I moderate (
www.webforumz.com) around this, once complete I shall let you know so you
can bookmark it for future reference.

Stew

2008/6/10 IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Hey,
>
> I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link (below) to
> work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for background images
> pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've used this script without
> much trouble for quite a while.
>
> As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies and
> thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was making a fixed
> width layout which was looking very odd on my computer when made to fix for
> an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. Some of you might be glad to
> know I've since started trying to make it fluid width but it's been great to
> read all the replies and get the opinion of everyone.
>
> IceKat.
>
> PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm
>
>
> Michael Persson wrote:
>
>> HI people,
>>
>> I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6
>> properly.
>>
>> I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have
>> tried some
>> tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.
>>
>> There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the
>> transparency
>> working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency
>> crap
>> to make work ?
>>
>> I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...
>>
>>
>> Michael in Athens
>>
>>
>> ***
>> 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] transparency, png IE6 ??

[Andrew McGrath]

theres no clean solution that i'm aware of...but this is a common issue, so
i'm certain there is plenty of tips and tricks out there to help you get
around the problem you are faced with.

http://24ways.org/2007/supersleight-transparent-png-in-ie6

the above link provides some /interesting/ info, i don't claim to know a lot
about this topic in particular however this page essentially summarized what
i already knew...so maybe it will help.

 Good luck!

2008/6/10 Michael Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> HI people,
>
> I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6
> properly.
>
> I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have
> tried some
> tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.
>
> There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the
> transparency
> working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.
>
>
> Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency
> crap
> to make work ?
>
> I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...
>
>
> Michael in Athens
>
>
> ***
> 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] animated gif not animating...

[Robert O'Rourke]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


HI,

 

I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an 
animated loading gif animation. Sometimes  In IE the animated gif is 
not animating.


Anybody knows why?

 


Thanks a ton in advance..

 


Thanking you

*Naveen Bhaskar *



Can you provide a link to the page or a demo Naveen? To get this working 
most scripts I've seen insert the image into the HTML immediately after 
the page loads but hide it, either off-screen or using 
style="display:none;". Then when the script displays the image it is 
already loaded and animating.


I guess in IE it can't buffer an animated gif while the rest of your 
script runs.


-Rob


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

Re: [WSG] transparency, png IE6?? & Screen Resolution

[IceKat]

Hey,

I recently looked this up for someone else. I've found this link (below) 
to work well for regular images but don't seem to do much for background 
images pulled in with CSS. However having said that I've used this 
script without much trouble for quite a while.


As for the 800x600 thread. I've been interested in reading the replies 
and thank everyone responding to my thread. I asked because I was making 
a fixed width layout which was looking very odd on my computer when made 
to fix for an 800x600 and my screen being a wide screen. Some of you 
might be glad to know I've since started trying to make it fluid width 
but it's been great to read all the replies and get the opinion of everyone.


IceKat.

PNG Link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm


Michael Persson wrote:

HI people,

I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working 
IE6 properly.


I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have 
tried some

tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get 
the transparency

working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this 
transparency crap

to make work ?

I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


Michael in Athens


***
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] transparency, png IE6 ??

[Michael Persson]

HI people,

I have tried to not use transparency for years as it is not working IE6 
properly.


I have not a situation where i need it and there is no way out, I have 
tried some

tricks and there are some that works half way to the full solution.

There is a solution with a js file called htc somethnig where i get the 
transparency

working but only in one of the images i need them to appear.


Does anyone have a clever full functional solution for this transparency 
crap

to make work ?

I have grey hair already but its starting to fall of soon...


Michael in Athens


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

Re[2]: [WSG] animated gif not animating...

[k . voronin]

Hi, Jonathan

http://www.west-wind.com/WebLog/posts/1227.aspx

hope that helps!

WBR, Kirill

> I've seen this happen before on loading images. Never bothered about
> it much as it was an IE specific problem.

> Jonathan

> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> HI,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an animated
>> loading gif animation. Sometimes  In IE the animated gif is not animating.
>>
>> Anybody knows why?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks a ton in advance..
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanking you
>>
>> Naveen Bhaskar
>>
>>
>>
>> ***
>> 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]
> ***



-- 
С уважением,
 k  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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

Re: [WSG] animated gif not animating...

[Jonathan D'mello]

I've seen this happen before on loading images. Never bothered about
it much as it was an IE specific problem.

Jonathan

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HI,
>
>
>
> I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an animated
> loading gif animation. Sometimes  In IE the animated gif is not animating.
>
> Anybody knows why?
>
>
>
> Thanks a ton in advance..
>
>
>
> Thanking you
>
> Naveen Bhaskar
>
>
>
> ***
> 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] animated gif not animating...

[Naveen_Bhaskar]

HI,

 

I have an ajax call in my page and while loading I am showing an
animated loading gif animation. Sometimes  In IE the animated gif is not
animating.

Anybody knows why?

 

Thanks a ton in advance..

 

Thanking you

Naveen Bhaskar 

 



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

Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Darren West wrote:
An alternative could be to develop with relative sizes for all 
measurements, allowing the interface to be scaled to any screen 
resolution. Examples can be seen at http://www.linkedin.com and 
http://www.sky.com


Dysfunctional examples, but they clearly show what many mean by
"relative sizes" - font-size dependent layouts, without looking into the
potential problems created by such a "framed" approach.

1: wanting or having a need for larger text, doesn't mean one has or
want a larger screen and/or browser-window.

2: having a larger screen and/or browser-window, doesn't mean one wants
or need larger text.

Thus, "relative sizes" means a/the layout only works well within a
certain window-size on a certain screen-resolution with a certain
font-size, and can not adapt well to the end-user's environment and
needs if they deviate from the designer's "frame".
Sounds designer-friendly enough since they get to keep the designed
proportions, but is not what I would call user-friendly.


Page zoom in Opera, Firefox 3 and Safari 3 allow layouts to adjust to
the end-user's environment and needs - unless the designer has declared
"relative sizes" and/or other width-barriers.
Since this user-friendly zoom-feature seems to be on its way in - after
having been found only in Opera for years, it would be better if
designers tried to make sure it could actually work as intended instead
of designing for certain "relative or absolute sized frames".

Since all browsers can also resize fonts (one way or another)
independent of page zoom, "relative sizes" risk creating even more
problems when both font resizing and page zoom are used.

The latest mobile browsers also incorporates page zoom and font resizing
in various forms in order to enhance the experience, so the more freedom
we give those browsers to perform their job the easier it'll be for the
end-user.


Optimizing our designs for an "average" window-size is an ok approach
IMO, as long as we don't "lock them in" so they fail too badly outside
that "average" window.


Personally I optimize for a range of 600 - 1200 in width, and am now
working on extending the "don't fail too badly" range to 200 - 2400 in
width by giving the browsers more freedom to determine proportions.
I also get to keep _my_ design-proportions, since I design for the way
browsers treat my layouts and make as much out of the many variables
introduced by browsers and their various options as I possibly can.

I use 3800 wide screens/browser-windows and mobile browser emulators to
test on, and although there may be quite a few problems getting older
browsers "perfectly" in line, I see no real problems in getting the new
ones to play ball.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


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

Re: [WSG] Help setting current menu state on level2 menus

[Rick Lecoat]

On 10 Jun 2008, at 05:55, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Testing with regular browser-option well beyond what "normal" users  
will

expose your work to, will save you from having to deal with
"user-introduced problems" later on.


On a related note (testing in IE win), I try and remember when doing  
my IE/Win testing to test both in 'regular' mode (default text sizes")  
and accessibility 'brute test' mode (ignore font sizes on page, set  
text to largest). This involves quite a bit of irksome preference- 
switching back and forth on a regular basis. I was wondering if anyone  
had developed a script or something to automate these changes to  
settings with a single click?


--
Rick Lecoat



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

Re: [WSG] Marking up multiple form inputs

[Darren West]

Chris,

Please can you provide more information about the form. I would be
hesitant in agreeing with a solution that seems to omit the labels for
the second form controls.

Darren


2008/6/10 Chris Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Would the following layout be best marked up using a table:
>
>
>
>
>
> Column Header
>
> Column Header
>
>  [label tag]
>
> [input tag]
>
> [input tag]
>
>  [label tag]
>
> [input tag]
>
> [input tag]
>
>  [label tag]
>
> [input tag]
>
> [input tag]
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> solutions for a digital world
>
> 
>
> Exchange Server 2007
>
> Built-in Protection, Anywhere Access, Operational Efficiency
>
> BLUEARC WILL HELP YOU MAKE THE MOVE. FIND OUT HOW
>
> 
> level 1, 11 albany street
> st leonards nsw 2065
> 
> p: 02 9467 2500
>
> d: 02 9467 25
> f: 02 9431 5999
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> w: www.bluearcgroup.com
>
> 
>
> ARE YOU READY FOR NEXT GENERATION WEB TECHNOLOGY?
>
> Leading the way in Web Content Management, IgnitionSuite Version 3.0
> prepares you for the future of the web.
> To learn more call 9467 2500 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 
>
> Privileged - Private & Confidential
> This email and files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of
> the addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential or
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email or any attachment is
> prohibited. If you receive this email and you are not the addressee, or you
> have received this email in error, please disregard the contents of the
> email, delete the email and notify the author immediately.
>
>
>
> P  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
> 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] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[Darren West]

An alternative could be to develop with relative sizes for all
measurements, allowing the interface to be scaled to any screen
resolution. Examples can be seen at http://www.linkedin.com and
http://www.sky.com


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

Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[Nick Cowie]

I agree with Felix, you have build for your users not for screen resolutions
be it 1280x800, 800x480, 392x320, 240x320 (in the top 20 resolutions
visiting my work website) and the number of pixels per inch is no longer in
the 70 to 100 pixel range, but 70 to  250+ pixel range. So your trusty 280
pixel wide image is 4 inches wide on some screens but just over an inch wide
on others.


I have no great answers because the devices visiting a website are so varied
today, but you need to think about before you design.

Nick


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

Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[Anton Babushkin]

Felix,

I think the term "design for" is perhaps a little bit inconsistent in terms
of interpretation. Perhaps in this context it was also very badly
misinterpreted.

When I was referring to "design for" I was more referring to "Accommodate
for" which in essence is what fluid layouts are all about.

To me "Accommodate for" simply means:
 - the breaking point at which the page loses its utter most usability, so
for example in GMail the usability drastically reduces under a resolution
below 800x600

So re-iterate, the page should be as usable as possible; meaning all
elements (apart from the content area) should be too large and not too small
under resolutions up to 800x600.

But in all its essence of what you say - absolutely correct. Web pages
should be able to scale gracefully under very small (800x600) to very large
(1920x1080) resolutions.


On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed:
>
> > Should we still bother
> > designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just
> > design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions?
>
> Never should have been "designing for" either one. To design "for" any
> particular resolution means you're designing against all the others. An
> "800x600" page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp,
> about 12% in "size" measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size
> measured in inches or mm.
>
> Some of the resolutions you should NOT "design for" (not an exhaustive
> list):
> 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050,
> 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800,
> 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080.
>
> Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have
> nothing
> more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is
> what
> print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such
> thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages
> designed
> for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them.
>
> Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the
> environment
> figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to
> design
> for the medium and the people who use it.
>
> http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels
> http://cssliquid.com/
> --
> "Where were you when I laid the earth's
> foudation?"Matthew 7:12 NIV
>
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
>
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


-- 
- Anton Babushkin


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

Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?

[Felix Miata]

On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed:

> Should we still bother 
> designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just 
> design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions?

Never should have been "designing for" either one. To design "for" any
particular resolution means you're designing against all the others. An
"800x600" page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp,
about 12% in "size" measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size
measured in inches or mm.

Some of the resolutions you should NOT "design for" (not an exhaustive list):
640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050,
1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800,
1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080.

Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have nothing
more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is what
print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such
thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages designed
for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them.

Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the environment
figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to design
for the medium and the people who use it.

http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels
http://cssliquid.com/
-- 
"Where were you when I laid the earth's
foudation?"Matthew 7:12 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


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

Re: [WSG] Structuring CSS

[Michael Persson]

James,

It depends on the site size and the structure. If you have a huge CSS 
file for navigation

it is of course good to separate it from other styles.

I always make form.css for contact pages and form pages, but in general 
i keep style.css

for the rest ad my sites are not so huge, something up to 100 pages..

Michael


James Jeffery wrote:
There really needs to be a consistent method of sturucturing CSS 
personally.


If i cram everything onto one file I feel like the structure of the 
website is not really effective and editing becomes a task. Most the 
time I will break up the CSS file into a few sections as standard and 
use Yahoo!'s reset stylesheet to reset elements. I am not a fan of 
framworks and like to invent my own naming conventions.


CSS Structure
-
- Reset.css (Yahoo!)
- Layout.css (positioning, margins, padding etc.)
- Style.css (colours, borders, backgrounds etc.)
- Typography (fonts)
- Base.css (used to @import everything)

I would like to break it up further but I do respect users on slower 
Internet connections. In all the CSS files you are usually repeating 
selectors which is generating uneeded code, but on the other hand I 
have found it useful and easier to edit.


It's really good for bug hunting because when you need to find a bug 
thats messing up the layout, you can focus on a single file (most the 
time) and narrow down the scope until the bug is eliminated.


I like the idea of a server-side stylesheet joiner. I am going to look 
into that.


Keep the replies coming.

***
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]
***