Re: [WSG] Safari Beta 4
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Without that rule, empty thumbnail box is still clickable. Not quite so easy, it seems. Note that what you see as empty thumbnail boxes in Safari (without the extra CSS rule) aren't necessarily empty. Those images are just blown up so large, and only the middle-left portion is shown, that the objects end up hidden outside the list-item box. Thus, the image is often there in Safari too, and therefore clickable, even if you can't see the object. Georg, Thanks again. What you wrote above led to a new finding. I was blind, something was quite obvious right in front of me that I didn't think to look into it. Magento uses resize for all images, in this gallery, I have it set to 250px which is what I wanted for the large image. Declaring width attribute in img tag is fine as galleria script takes care of reducing thumbnail to 80px from '.galleria li'. Somehow, with the resize function (250px value) and the cache issue Safari has, it must be confused, unable to decide whether to listen to galieria' script or PHP resize command. I took the resize value out, added width directly to #main_image img and the thumb in jquery function. I think this fixed the distortion issue, at least from my version (3.2.1). Now that resize function is out, the image does not resize proportionally, but I think this can be fixed easily. By the way, Google Chorme behaves as Safari does. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Javascript Accessibility
Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs JavaScript Availability: http://rossboucher.com/2009/02/26/accessibility-degradation-in-cappuccino Personally im in favour of the distinction he makes, but the expectation for the WAI ARIA team to contact _them_ to help their framework use it is rather unrealistic although the WAI ARIA team (as with the W3C in general) need to start producing more palatable documentation rather than just having huge technical manuals on the subject. Interested to know others thoughts on the subject. David -- David Dixon t: 07967 569 489 e: da...@digitaloasis.co.uk linkedin | http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjdixon twitter | http://twitter.com/daviddixon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Safari Beta 4
tee wrote: By the way, Google Chorme behaves as Safari does. Not during my testing, but that may be conditional. Conditional is problematic since that mean behavior may change with factors like OS and connection speed = highly unreliable. Tested Chrome, OmniWeb and Arora - all complete WebKit with unique script engines. All behaved more or less like the latest versions of Firefox, Opera and IE8 - not like any Safari version on any OS. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility
David, I think you are reading things differently to me. I don't know the authors true intention, but I read his words as being a call for anyone who wants to see ARIA implemented to join their team, not necessarily someone who is on the ARIA team. I do also agree with the sentiments though - there is an obvious need to treat 'applications' differently from 'content' in quite a number of ways, and at the moment there is not even a way to signal this explicitly. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dixon Sent: 01 March 2009 14:33 To: li...@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs JavaScript Availability: http://rossboucher.com/2009/02/26/accessibility-degradation-in-cappuccin o Personally im in favour of the distinction he makes, but the expectation for the WAI ARIA team to contact _them_ to help their framework use it is rather unrealistic although the WAI ARIA team (as with the W3C in general) need to start producing more palatable documentation rather than just having huge technical manuals on the subject. Interested to know others thoughts on the subject. David *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility
David Dixon da...@terrainferno.net wrote: Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs JavaScript Availability: http://rossboucher.com/2009/02/26/accessibility-degradation-in-cappuccino Personally im in favour of the distinction he makes, but the expectation for the WAI ARIA team to contact _them_ to help their framework use it is rather unrealistic although the WAI ARIA team (as with the W3C in general) need to start producing more palatable documentation rather than just having huge technical manuals on the subject. Interested to know others thoughts on the subject. Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. Mathew Robertson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility
michael.brocking...@bt.com wrote: David, I think you are reading things differently to me. I don't know the authors true intention, but I read his words as being a call for anyone who wants to see ARIA implemented to join their team, not necessarily someone who is on the ARIA team. Thanks Mike, t'was a fairly minor point, but yes i think you're interpretation of the request is more accurate than my initial one. David -- David Dixon t: 07967 569 489 e: da...@digitaloasis.co.uk linkedin | http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjdixon twitter | http://twitter.com/daviddixon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility
Mathew Robertson wrote: Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. Mathew Robertson Before this question gets sidetracked, the request was for opinion on the position of the distinction of accessibility vs availability, not on WAI ARIA, apologies if the content of my original email didn't make this clear. My issue with ARIA is one of documentation, and would prefer deal with ARIA in a separate conversation. David -- David Dixon t: 07967 569 489 e: da...@digitaloasis.co.uk linkedin | http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjdixon twitter | http://twitter.com/daviddixon *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility - ARIA
Dude, that's a little unrealistic and a tad bitter: Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. Personally I've been waiting for ARIA to come of age now both assistive technologies and browsers offer support. With the imminent release of IEv8 (with ARIA support) it's time to re-examine state of play. I'm interested in how's of implementation, and what's happening with W3C validation? Can it be used with XHTML v1.0 yet? Will it ever be? Does serving the page as text/html still have issues? Is there a fully usable Doctype yet? Is there a simple method to implement liveregion areas? Any news or thoughts greatly appreciated. Mike Foskett http://websemantics.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Mathew Robertson Sent: 02 March 2009 10:03 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility David Dixon da...@terrainferno.net wrote: Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs JavaScript Availability: http://rossboucher.com/2009/02/26/accessibility-degradation-in-cappuccin o Personally im in favour of the distinction he makes, but the expectation for the WAI ARIA team to contact _them_ to help their framework use it is rather unrealistic although the WAI ARIA team (as with the W3C in general) need to start producing more palatable documentation rather than just having huge technical manuals on the subject. Interested to know others thoughts on the subject. Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. Mathew Robertson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility
On 3/2/09 2:02 AM, Mathew Robertson mat...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. Not sure what value you were hoping to add to the conversation, but MSAA, the Windows accessibility API, didn't come out until April 1997. And that much of what ARIA has to offer is actually enabled by the IAccessible2 or User Interface Automation APIs, which are much more recent and comprehensive. ARIA is a very ambitious spec, and a number of companies contributing to its support in a very short period of time, relative to the work that's necessary. But, thanks for the cynicism! We don't get enough of that on the Internet these days. :) - m *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility
Guys please, move this to a different topic, this ARIA issue has now clouded the original question. David -- David Dixon t: 07967 569 489 e: da...@digitaloasis.co.uk linkedin | http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjdixon twitter | http://twitter.com/daviddixon Matt Morgan-May wrote: As someone who's on the working group producing ARIA, I have to say the editors have done a pretty remarkable job in terms of documenting a specification that hasn't even advanced past Working Draft. First, there's the spec itself: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ Then there's the User Agent Implementation Guide, for browser developers to follow: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-implementation/ And the Best Practices Guide, for authors: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/ In addition, Steve Faulkner, also in the PFWG, has done lots of writing on the subject: http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?cat=23 And Universal Design for Web Applications, the book I co-wrote with Wendy Chisholm, has a more basic introductory chapter on ARIA. The point is, it may not all have a W3C banner at the top, but generally speaking, W3C is more responsible for being complete and precise, than being prosaic. I expect that the Web Standards Curriculum is most likely to have author-friendly material on ARIA, and that's only when the spec is stable enough for general consumption. - m On 3/1/09 6:32 AM, David Dixon da...@terrainferno.net wrote: although the WAI ARIA team (as with the W3C in general) need to start producing more palatable documentation rather than just having huge technical manuals on the subject. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility
On 3/2/09 2:02 AM, Mathew Robertson mat...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. But ARIA, as deployed by companies like Yahoo with its ARIA Menu [1] is very nice, but with JavaScript disabled there is a not-so-nice blank page. [1] http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/examples/menu/menuwaiaria_source.html Getting worked up over stuff like, for the average developer/designer is going to be as illogical and incongruous as ever. -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] The notion of accessibility [was: Javascript Accessibility]
Matt Morgan-May wrote: Look at the Atlas project that was unveiled this week, as an example. ref? -- Hassan Schroeder - has...@webtuitive.com Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] The notion of accessibility [was: Javascript Accessibility]
On 3/2/09 3:15 PM, Hassan Schroeder has...@webtuitive.com wrote: Matt Morgan-May wrote: Look at the Atlas project that was unveiled this week, as an example. ref? http://www.280atlas.com/ One of the developers is actually talking about ARIA right now: http://rossboucher.com/2009/03/01/limitations-of-the-wai-aria/ - m *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Re: WSG Digest
I am currently out of the office running a training course returning the morning of the 04/03/2009. For technical assitance please contact Anthony Johnston - anthony.johns...@spotlessdesign.com I will have limited access to email but will try to respond to your enquiry. If your enquiry is urgent then please contact me on my mobile. Kind regards Ben Logan Director Spotless Design http://www.spotlessdesign.com Tel: +44 (0) 207 168 7526 Fax: +44 (0) 207 681 4375 Mob: +44 (0) 7971 002292 Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/spotlessdesign Twitter: http://twitter.com/DJBenLogan *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Mike Kear w...@afpwebworks.com wrote: Google Chrome now amounts to over half the traffic on these sites. Wow, that's the first time I've seen Chrome over 4%. Why are these stats so scewed, if I may ask? -- Blake http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
For the first time since I started building web sites, IE is not the most prominent server on my two highest traffic sites. Google Chrome now amounts to over half the traffic on these sites. Not sure what that means for us as web developers, but it would certainly be significant for Microsoft people if it was translated across the web. Of course other sites will have a different pattern, depending on the audience. On these two sites, the breakdown is like this: Unknown: 1.86% IE: 38.85% Bots,Spiders: 1.47% Firefox: 4.91% Google Chrome: 51.35% Opera: 0.72% Safari: 0.46% Netscape: 0.22% Other: 0.15% - Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
Oops.There's a senior moment. Of course I mean IE is not the highest traffic BROWSER on these two sites of mine, not SERVER. Sorry. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Mike Kear Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2009 12:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE For the first time since I started building web sites, IE is not the most prominent server on my two highest traffic sites. Google Chrome now amounts to over half the traffic on these sites. Not sure what that means for us as web developers, but it would certainly be significant for Microsoft people if it was translated across the web. Of course other sites will have a different pattern, depending on the audience. On these two sites, the breakdown is like this: Unknown: 1.86% IE: 38.85% Bots,Spiders: 1.47% Firefox: 4.91% Google Chrome: 51.35% Opera: 0.72% Safari: 0.46% Netscape: 0.22% Other: 0.15% - Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1974 - Release Date: 02/26/09 14:51:00 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
How big is the sample? On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Mike Kear w...@afpwebworks.com wrote: For the first time since I started building web sites, IE is not the most prominent server on my two highest traffic sites. Google Chrome now amounts to over half the traffic on these sites. Not sure what that means for us as web developers, but it would certainly be significant for Microsoft people if it was translated across the web. Of course other sites will have a different pattern, depending on the audience. On these two sites, the breakdown is like this: Unknown: 1.86% IE: 38.85% Bots,Spiders: 1.47% Firefox: 4.91% Google Chrome: 51.35% Opera: 0.72% Safari: 0.46% Netscape: 0.22% Other: 0.15% - Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- James Ducker Web Developer http://www.studioj.net.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
My blog has similar stats except it is Firefox over 50%, Safari about 10%, and Chrome around 5% I am thinking somehow Chrome and Firefox got swap around somehow? 2009/3/3 Blake haswel...@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Mike Kear w...@afpwebworks.com wrote: Google Chrome now amounts to over half the traffic on these sites. Wow, that's the first time I've seen Chrome over 4%. Why are these stats so scewed, if I may ask? -- Blake http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Nick Cowie http://nickcowie.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
hmmm - this is not reflected on our main site... from the past three days: 1. Internet Explorer 642,173 61.98% 2. Firefox 286,669 27.67% 3. Safari 89,030 8.59% 4. Chrome 11,195 1.08% which is, I imagine, par for a 'mainstream' site. -- Andrew Harris and...@woowoowoo.com http://www.woowoowoo.com ~~~ * ~~~ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
Mike Kear wrote: For the first time since I started building web sites, IE is not the most prominent server on my two highest traffic sites. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. -- Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
It's less than 1% this year at my site - a university library. regards Mark Mark Huppert Library Web Development Integrated Library Management System Coordinator Division of Information R.G. Menzies Building (#2) The Australian National University ACTON ACT 0200 T: +61 02 6125 2752 F: +61 02 6125 4063 W: http://anulib.anu.edu.au/about/ CRICOS Provider #00120C -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harris Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2009 1:31 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE hmmm - this is not reflected on our main site... from the past three days: 1. Internet Explorer 642,173 61.98% 2. Firefox 286,669 27.67% 3. Safari 89,030 8.59% 4. Chrome 11,195 1.08% which is, I imagine, par for a 'mainstream' site. -- Andrew Harris and...@woowoowoo.com http://www.woowoowoo.com ~~~ * ~~~ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
Mike Kear wrote: For the first time since I started building web sites, IE is not the most prominent browser on my two highest traffic sites. Of course other sites will have a different pattern, depending on the audience. Not entirely new, but much broader... http://www.xitimonitor.com/en-us/browsers-barometer/browsers-barometer-november-2008/index-1-2-3-153.html regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Safari Beta 4
You tell 'em Dyre ;) Dyre Hult wrote: Opera 10 was unveiled already last year and do pass the web standards Acid 3 test. Safari 4 was unveiled this month. Both browsers are still in the dev stage, so I reckon Mr. Andrew Lyle was misinformed. http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/presto-2-2-and-opera-10-a-first-look/ Todd Budnikas wrote: according to Mr. Andrew Lyle: Safari 4 is the first web browser to pass the web standards Acid 3 test which demonstrates how well a browser adheres to CSS, javascript, XML and SVG. So, i'd say it's handling them pretty well :) http://acid3.acidtests.org/ On Feb 25, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Kevin Erickson wrote: Hi, Anyone know about how the new Safari Beta 4 is handling the current standards of the Web? Thanks, Kevin No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 - Release Date: 2/24/2009 6:43 AM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
OK here are some other interesting stats from another major library site, IE7 rules and Chrome is 0.5% Browser Website IE7/IE6 Internet Explorer 86.88% (80/20) Firefox 9.29% Safari 2.17% Chrome0.47% Opera 0.27% More interesting are the wifi browsers, mainly netbooks and inexpensive laptops, which are as likely to be Chinese language as English Browser WifiIE7/IE6 Internet Explorer 69.56% (67/33) Firefox20.42% Safari 8.64% (Mac + iPod + iPhone + Symbian) Opera 1.09% Chrome 0.07% Blazer 0.06% Playstation Portable 0.05% IE6 has gone from 1 in 5 on the regular site to 1 in 3 of all IE connections in this sample of 10k. Of interest Chrome on Windows is only slightly more popular than Blazer or PSP (and less than Safari on Symbian or IE8) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
From: Nick Cowie cowie.n...@gmail.com OK here are some other interesting stats from another major library site, IE7 rules and Chrome is 0.5% Browser Website IE7/IE6 Internet Explorer 86.88% (80/20) Firefox 9.29% Safari 2.17% Chrome0.47% Opera 0.27% Fascinating. Can you provide some demographic context to this library site? -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets http://www.projectseven.com/go/pop The Ultimate DW Menu System *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] The notion of accessibility [was: Javascript Accessibility]
On 3/2/09 2:02 AM, Mathew Robertson mat...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. Matt Morgan-May matt...@adobe.com wrote: Not sure what value you were hoping to add to the conversation, but MSAA, the Windows accessibility API, didn't come out until April 1997. And that much of what ARIA has to offer is actually enabled by the IAccessible2 or User Interface Automation APIs, which are much more recent and comprehensive. ARIA is a very ambitious spec, and a number of companies contributing to its support in a very short period of time, relative to the work that's necessary. But, thanks for the cynicism! We don't get enough of that on the Internet these days. :) :) It was definitly meant as a little cynisism... I did say about 1995 - so I should have been more specific as to the actual year... so I'll expand my sentiment (it might be a little long-winded for some people...). Firstly, accessibilty is not *just* about being able to keystrokes, as its been possible to use braille devices in linux before 1995 (aka Win95 came out that year), using a serial console. Its not just about supporting disability, it also represents support for other languages, layouts, and so on. Indeed as someone quite bright wrote (I dont have a link), making applications more accessible, helps not only those that specifically need that extra help, but also those that simply make use of those features. For example: to using a serial console for text display, has been available since the first mainframes existed - so braille devices worked too. One would expect that new user interface paradigms could provide at least a similar equivalent - in browser terms, it should have been possible to navigate with keyboard and screen-reader only, and it was (albeit it was quite clunky). So one variation of accesbility, is to support multiple languages. Its easy to look back with hindsight, but it was pretty apparent that UTF8 and Unicode was the direction for accessible language support. This was available from about 1993 - the real issue here appers that software vendors chose a different path (eg: Java choosing to use double-byte characters), then became committed to it. And indeed we now see that braille support has been added to Unicode, abeit only recently - imagine the accessibility support that would currently be available, if Win95 had have support unicode natively (font rendering and keycode composition) from day dot... alt tags have been available since html 1, with its recommended practise to show blank for img's that dont mean anything. longdesc has been available since html 4 (1998). Using the tab-key to navigate between elements, has been available in pretty much all browsers, for a long time - however it was cumbersome. However, from MSIE 4 (1997), tabindex became available (it took some time longer before Netscape had support for tabindex) - this made it possible to produce decent navigation for web pages. Text language and direction was added in html 4 - making Hebrew (et. al.) accessible. Finally, the keypress event handler has be around in various incarnations, not long afer Javascript was added to browsers. Its not unreasonable to require web developers to acutally use it (as opposed to just relying on click events). So basically, the about 1995 is about right, depending on the specific technology implementation. So now a slight rant... I dont understand how: span role=aria-checkbox is better than: input type=checkbox ... ? ARIA is good in that it documents technology, based on best practise - in particular, I like how the accelerator keys are defined, but some things appears to be re-inventing stuff that doesn't need it. In fairness to the ARIA working group, I'm bound to have misunderstood the entire accessibility thing, so my opinion doesn't really matter. cheers, Mathew Robertson Note: I only speak English and I dont have a disability (except for maybe my mouth...) - I'm just confident that developers shouldn't make any assumptions about how other people interface with technology. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
I don't where Nick is from, but part of the explanation in our case is hits from computer labs on campus. The biggest set of labs have IE, Firefox and Safari but Chrome is not in the build. I would humbly suggest that a blog site for geeks will naturally get lots hits from the latest cutting-edge whatever. Sites like that do not represent the general population very accurately. regards Mark Mark Huppert Library Web Development Integrated Library Management System Coordinator Division of Information R.G. Menzies Building (#2) The Australian National University ACTON ACT 0200 T: +61 02 6125 2752 F: +61 02 6125 4063 W: http://anulib.anu.edu.au/about/ CRICOS Provider #00120C -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Al Sparber Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2009 4:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE From: Nick Cowie cowie.n...@gmail.com OK here are some other interesting stats from another major library site, IE7 rules and Chrome is 0.5% Browser Website IE7/IE6 Internet Explorer 86.88% (80/20) Firefox 9.29% Safari 2.17% Chrome0.47% Opera 0.27% Fascinating. Can you provide some demographic context to this library site? -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets http://www.projectseven.com/go/pop The Ultimate DW Menu System *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Chrome now higher traffic than IE
From: Nick Cowie cowie.n...@gmail.com OK here are some other interesting stats from another major library site, IE7 rules and Chrome is 0.5% Browser Website IE7/IE6 Internet Explorer 86.88% (80/20) Firefox 9.29% Safari 2.17% Chrome0.47% Opera 0.27% Fascinating. Can you provide some demographic context to this library site? -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets http://www.projectseven.com/go/pop The Ultimate DW Menu System *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
