Re: [WSG] button name present and some CSS issues

[Taco Fleur]

Thanks Thierry,

Indeed the problem lies with IE6.

"It gets worse though, Internet Explorer 6 has a further bug where it will
treat all  elements as successful controls, and submit their data to
the server, even if they were not clicked. This effectively makes using
multiple button elements impossible."

Back to using  buttons for now.

The *position: relative* trick also worked.

thanks a lot.

-- 
Kind regards,
Taco Fleur
clickfind™ - The new Australian Online Marketing Platform (OMP)
http://www.onlinemarketingplatform.com.au
http://www.clickfind.com.au


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

[WSG] another form question

[tee]

1) wrap the input inside 'label' is bad practice - so I have not done  
that for years.

2) learned that 'button' is better over the 'input' for submit
3) Will wrapping button inside 'label' is: a) OK - no ill effect  
whatsoever; b) very good; c) bad- never do that.


example 1:

Search Site
   
  
 Search

 

example: 2 (give a label empty tag)

Search Site

   
   Search



tee





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

[WSG] I am away on leave [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[nathan.franklin]

I am away on leave returning on Monday, 10 November 2008, if you have a
request for Customs web admin please send it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Regards
Nathan
Nathan Franklin
Web Admin | IT Applications | Australian Customs Service
Ph: (02) 6275 6357 | http://www.customs.gov.au
 



IMPORTANT:

* This transmission is intended for the use of the addressee only and might 
contain sensitive or legally privileged information. If you are NOT the 
intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in 
error, please notify the author immediately by telephone and delete all copies 
of this transmission together with any attachments. 

* The Australian Customs Service DOES NOT AUTHORISE the recipient to further 
disclose this email or its contents without permission of the originator.

* Unsolicited commercial emails MUST NOT be forwarded to the originator of this 
transmission unless prior consent has been given.


***



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

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

[James Farrell]

Hi Guys,

Thank your for your insights and assistance on this topic.

I am taking everyone's opinion into consideration and have received very
usefull help and templates from several people.

James

2008/11/3 Susan Grossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM, James Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.
>>
>> Is there any point writing standards complient code or will contribute
>> butcher the code anyway?
>>
>> Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include
>> html files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime
>> navigation changes etc.
>>
>> James
>
>
> I do free work for non-profits, and many of them ask about using
> Contribute.  A CMS won't work for them because most of them have a small
> existing website that they got someone to do at some point in the last few
> years and they're trying to change it/add to it/figure out how to do
> anything to it.  They aren't willing to start from scratch and have a CMS
> set up for them, nor do the volunteers want to learn all about editing in a
> role based application, no matter how easy it is.  These are the people who
> Contribute is a lifesaver for.  I go in and clean up their stuff, make it
> into PHP and design includes they can't accidently edit and show them how to
> use Contribute by surfing to their web site and clicking the Contribute
> button.  TaDa - they can edit, sans butchering.
>
> Yes there are better solutions out there, but there's nothing wrong with
> this solution.  I don't feel it's my job to tell them that I won't help them
> unless they get on board with the latest and greatest.  I'm here to help
> them make sure their web site is accessible and that they can change text on
> the few pages they'll update.
>
> For me, the client is always right.  They know their business, their
> people, their limitations.  That doesn't mean I can't say, "Yes, though we
> could also do that by  "  but in the end, they make the final decisions
> and a lot of the time I don't agree on everything, but they call the shots,
> and we have to be gracious.  I try to teach as I go , but I don't force my
> clients to learn if they don't want to.  And you might be surprised how many
> don't want to.
>
>
>
> --
> Susan R. Grossman
> [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] Standards and Adobe Contribute

[Susan Grossman]

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM, James Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.
>
> Is there any point writing standards complient code or will contribute
> butcher the code anyway?
>
> Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include html
> files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime
> navigation changes etc.
>
> James


I do free work for non-profits, and many of them ask about using
Contribute.  A CMS won't work for them because most of them have a small
existing website that they got someone to do at some point in the last few
years and they're trying to change it/add to it/figure out how to do
anything to it.  They aren't willing to start from scratch and have a CMS
set up for them, nor do the volunteers want to learn all about editing in a
role based application, no matter how easy it is.  These are the people who
Contribute is a lifesaver for.  I go in and clean up their stuff, make it
into PHP and design includes they can't accidently edit and show them how to
use Contribute by surfing to their web site and clicking the Contribute
button.  TaDa - they can edit, sans butchering.

Yes there are better solutions out there, but there's nothing wrong with
this solution.  I don't feel it's my job to tell them that I won't help them
unless they get on board with the latest and greatest.  I'm here to help
them make sure their web site is accessible and that they can change text on
the few pages they'll update.

For me, the client is always right.  They know their business, their people,
their limitations.  That doesn't mean I can't say, "Yes, though we could
also do that by  "  but in the end, they make the final decisions and a
lot of the time I don't agree on everything, but they call the shots, and we
have to be gracious.  I try to teach as I go , but I don't force my clients
to learn if they don't want to.  And you might be surprised how many don't
want to.



-- 
Susan R. Grossman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

[Joe Ortenzi]

I think that was the point of both myself and Dave, Todd.
Mark's vitriolic rant seemed to miss the point that the technology  
comes after you discover what the business requires, what their  
resources are, what the requirements of the site will be over the next  
12-24 months, etc. not just say OK to contribute because the client  
says so before discovering much more important things


And as for budget, well, Contribute at $99 is more expensive than many  
CMSs (twice the cost of the powerful EE and $99 more than Drupal).


As you say, a god consultant will discover why they want Contribute  
and, upon discovering those needs, either continue with Contribute or  
offer a solution that meets their needs better, should that be the  
case, but it is the needs of the project that need to be discovered  
first, I'd have thought.


Joe


On 03/11/2008, at 12:21 AM, Todd Budnikas wrote:

with respect to both sides here, I have had numerous clients come to  
me
requesting Contribute as a solution. I would say the reason, in  
every case
i believe, is the cost. It's a 1 time fee of $99. I imagine, that if  
you
can offer something comparable or cheaper to them, they would  
appreciate
the  recommendation and scrap Contribute if the other product(s)  
worked

better, were easier to maintain and implement, etc.

I would guess here that the client isn't dictating technology, but  
budget
for CMS. I mean, what are the chances they've used a bunch of  
solutions,

and settled that Contribute is the best and meets their workflow?

My recommendation is to try something like http://www.cushycms.com/  
which

is also free and is a hosted solution. I've used this with pretty good
success. It's not without it's limitation, but it's extremely easy  
to use
and met the needs of one of my clients. You obviously could go with  
a more

common solution like Expression Engine, or Wordpress, etc.

I would find out why your client wants to use Contribute, and if you'd
rather not use it, then your job is to find something comparable or  
better

(hopefully for the same cost or less) and state your case.


Mark Harris wrote:

Joe Ortenzi wrote:

Contribute is not about content management as much as it is about
allowing an in-house web team to share tasks without a "proper" CMS
deployed. Thus your coder can code and the content writer can write
but it can be all wrapped within a team. This is, frankly, Web 1.0,
and your time and their money is better served by getting a  
simple CMS
deployed that meets with their scope and strategy and will be  
easier

to manage for everyone, client included.


With respect, this is so much bollocks.

The manner of deployment is always the client's choice. If you can  
offer
her something better, by all means offer, but it's arrogant to  
tell the

client "you have to do it this way".

Many clients won't have an "in-house" web team - they'll have one  
person
to whom "maintaining the website" is only 1/4 of their job. Some  
outfits
are still coming to grips with how they should be using the web  
and need

baby steps.

While it's a designer's job to help educate them, you can't drag  
them

kicking and screaming into something they're not ready for.

Regards

Mark Harris




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




Joseph Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)434 047 804
http://www.typingthevoid.com
http://twitter.com/wheelyweb
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jortenzi
Skype:wheelyweb

http://au.movember.com/mospace/1714401



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

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

[Joe Ortenzi]

Bless you Dave, much more patience than I had, I can tell you.

These are all spot on.

Joe

On 03/11/2008, at 9:35 AM, Dave Lane wrote:


Hello Mark,

Mark Harris wrote:
Dave, the business decision is not that of the web designer. While  
web

design may be his business, it's not the business of his client.


If it's not the decision of the web developer, then I don't expect  
that

web developer to be around for long.


As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability.  Anything
else is a disservice to both your business and your customer.


Not arguing, but it must also work for the client, otherwise you are
merely building ongoing work for yourself, in doing the maintenance.
Offer options, by all means, but the result *must* be within the
client's capability set or it won't get used. How much value have you
then added to the client's business by imposing your own ideas on  
their

naivety?


I disagree here.  The developer provides support - the customer  
chooses
the developer based on that ability (assuming the customer isn't  
totally

naive, which is probably not a safe assumption), and values their
ability to provide that support.  The customer should *want* a  
developer

who focuses on the smallest possible set of technologies (that's not
*too* small to fulfil the requirements).  Otherwise the developer will
be likely to be stretched too far.


The
customer is not always right.  The customer hires you because they
perceive you to have expertise they don't, and they trust your  
skill and

judgement on their behalf.  If they don't have that respect for your
ability, they're not the right customer for you.


Fine. Say so and get out, but if you take the job, you take the
constraints and responsibilities that come with it.


Agreed.  It's the web developer's business decision in that case.   
Those

who take any work that comes their way regardless of the technologies
specified reek of desperation... (which, ultimately, leads to lack of
respect from the customer)


I'm not saying that
you should tell them their wrong, but you should explain the
shortcomings of the methods they request and explain the  
advantages of

the tools you've chosen...  if you can't do that then you probably
haven't thought very carefully about choosing tools.


That's not what Joe was advising. What he said was:
   "you should never let the client specify the technology,
   that's YOUR job The technology you decide to deploy should
   be a result of having defined the strategy and scope of a
   project and identified the resources for ongoing content
   and support."

which is a pretty tall ask for a web designer, not to mention  
arrogant.

Do you get your mechanic to tell you how to drive your car? He's far
more experienced with vehicles than you, so he should know, right?


If my mechanic suggests that I alter the way I drive to reduce the
maintenance requirements and therefore cost of running my vehicle,  
and I

trust him/her, you better believe I'll listen.  I'd say it'd be a
foolish customer who didn't.

Ultimately, a business must select its technologies (the smallest  
set
possible to do the job well), become expert in them, and then  
maintain
those skills for the length of their relationship with their  
customers.


See, it's the whole "become expert with them" that's the problem.  
They
don't have the desire to become expert in something that is a  
commodity
to them. Many companies don't have web specialists on staff. If  
they're

lucky, they have a librarian, who does records management, maybe a
little DTP and gets stuff onto the web. They don't *want* a web  
designer
on board, or they'd be hiring one instead of farming the work out  
to you.


Customers will become expert in whatever technology they're  
convinced is
best for them, and is well supported.  But that's not what I was  
talking

about in the above paragraph.

The "business" I was referring to was the web developer - if the web
developer isn't experienced with his/her tools, then s/he's a cowboy/ 
girl :)


If that's how they see it, that's their business. Myself, I'd try  
to get

them to see that it's a major strategic part of their future business
*but* if they won't go there, I'm going to build them something they
feel comfortable with, with an outline of what it could become, if
appropriate. I'm not going to push a company into "Web 2.0" if they
still believe a little man sits in the printer pushing out paper.


True, but those naive companies need to expect to pay for the  
privilege

of being educated.  And, being blank slates, they should be given the
technology that the *web developer* thinks is best, not the one they
happened to see on the self of Harvey Norman or on the infomercial  
page

of the Tuesday "fun with computers" section of their local mainstream
newspaper.

I completely agree with Joe's statement - using an app like  
Contribute

is a step backwards in most cases, both for the customer and for the
web.


If it

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

[Joe Ortenzi]

Mark, you seem to misunderstand what Dave and I are saying and maybe  
you so angry about something you can't even see you're contradicting  
yourself and claiming dave and I are saying different things when your  
examples, reflected back at us, clearly show paralell, not conflicting  
statements.


In addition you seem to think I swan into an organisation and tell  
them how to run THEIR business, which is the last thing I do. As Dave  
says, a good website provider works in partnership with a business,  
and discovers and recommends technology that gets these business needs  
covered,


You are confusing two sets of business aims, one is the client  
requiring a website that serves his business aims and two a supplier  
of said website who's business aim is to be paid for a good service to  
the client, which sometimes means giving them what they need (by  
working in close consultation with them) rather than what they think  
they want, which as you seem to be saying, they may not necessarily  
know, if their business knowledge is not about the web.


And you know, my mechanic WILL tell me how to drive my car if I'm  
doing it wrong. "stop riding the clutch", "shift gears at a lower rev  
to save petrol", "let the engine warm for a few moments before giving  
it a load", are all things you pay your mechanic good money for so  
your car runs better for longer, the expert advice he is good for.


Mark, you misread both myself and Dave terribly badly.

Joe


On 02/11/2008, at 9:41 PM, Mark Harris wrote:


Dave Lane wrote:

I'm sorry, Mark, but that is not a winning strategy in business.
Dave, the business decision is not that of the web designer. While  
web design may be his business, it's not the business of his client.



As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability.  Anything
else is a disservice to both your business and your customer.


Not arguing, but it must also work for the client, otherwise you are  
merely building ongoing work for yourself, in doing the maintenance.  
Offer options, by all means, but the result *must* be within the  
client's capability set or it won't get used. How much value have  
you then added to the client's business by imposing your own ideas  
on their naivety?



The
customer is not always right.  The customer hires you because they
perceive you to have expertise they don't, and they trust your  
skill and

judgement on their behalf.  If they don't have that respect for your
ability, they're not the right customer for you.


Fine. Say so and get out, but if you take the job, you take the  
constraints and responsibilities that come with it.



I'm not saying that
you should tell them their wrong, but you should explain the
shortcomings of the methods they request and explain the advantages  
of

the tools you've chosen...  if you can't do that then you probably
haven't thought very carefully about choosing tools.

That's not what Joe was advising. What he said was:
"you should never let the client specify the technology,
that's YOUR job The technology you decide to deploy should
be a result of having defined the strategy and scope of a
project and identified the resources for ongoing content
and support."

which is a pretty tall ask for a web designer, not to mention  
arrogant. Do you get your mechanic to tell you how to drive your  
car? He's far more experienced with vehicles than you, so he should  
know, right?



Ultimately, a business must select its technologies (the smallest set
possible to do the job well), become expert in them, and then  
maintain
those skills for the length of their relationship with their  
customers.
See, it's the whole "become expert with them" that's the problem.  
They don't have the desire to become expert in something that is a  
commodity to them. Many companies don't have web specialists on  
staff. If they're lucky, they have a librarian, who does records  
management, maybe a little DTP and gets stuff onto the web. They  
don't *want* a web designer on board, or they'd be hiring one  
instead of farming the work out to you.


If that's how they see it, that's their business. Myself, I'd try to  
get them to see that it's a major strategic part of their future  
business *but* if they won't go there, I'm going to build them  
something they feel comfortable with, with an outline of what it  
could become, if appropriate. I'm not going to push a company into  
"Web 2.0" if they still believe a little man sits in the printer  
pushing out paper.



I completely agree with Joe's statement - using an app like  
Contribute

is a step backwards in most cases, both for the customer and for the
web.


If it works for them, it's their call. A simple site set up by  
someone who knows what they're doing can be managed just fine with  
Contribute. It's not likely to win any awards (and it probably won't  
do a lot for their bottom line) but we don't always get to paint the  
Mona Lisa.