Ryan Nichols wrote:
The reason you would want to usa a 'popup' is for contextual
information. Usually this is in more of a web application scenario than
a website per-se. So you have to think more broadly in the term of
website than serving documents with content in them (ala 'surfing').
Hi Moorey
The site looks lovely, aesthetically it's a great job.
There are some problems though:
1. Load time is excessive, due to the overall bulk of the page -
350Kb+ is about 290Kb too much for one page.
2. No access keys.
3. Images As Text - you have used images to represent text,
the simple answer to this, Olajide , is to use the overflow property.
in the divs, set overflow: visible perhaps.
google search css overflow for more information.
the less simple answer is - why is there a height set in the first
place? I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be taking a less
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Don't imagine that users of visual browsers are automatically free of
disabilities. Think for instance about users with learning
disabilities...they too would get confused by a new window being popped
up, effectively breaking the back button navigation.
I believe I've
The main point they were making was that they wanted the new site in a
new window so that they can visually separate my site from external
links (a point I don't understand, since it should be pretty obvious
when you're leaving the original site). They also enjoyed the idea of
having the
Hi all,
I'm working on my own site at the moment. I want to ensure that the php
code I've just implemented actually works.
On visiting http://wallishamilton.com/ in the righthand side bar, it
should say I'm not at work at the moment. If there is someone in a time
zone where it is between 9am
Have a look at Disability Online (http://www.disability.vic.gov.au) - they
solve it quite nicely by opening external links in new windows, yet
providing little icons which inform the user that the link will open new
windows.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
THREAD CLOSED
Please reply to Ben offlist. This is not on-topic. This mail list does not
cover discussions of server-side scripting beyond that directly involved
with Web Standards:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Thanks
Russ
Hi all,
I'm working on my own site at the
Hi Bert
1. Even at 1152x864 and I get a massive horizontal scrollbar.
IE ignores body { overflow:hidden } for that one -- all other browsers work fine.
I've used body scrollbar=no> instead in index.dev.php file - it's not valid though.
2. Very slow loading, which isn't surprising with 8
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:48:31 +1000, Ben Hamilton wrote:
If there is someone in a time zone where it is between 9am and 5pm,
could you please check it for me? ta.
Ben,
While I appreciate the need, this is completely offtopic.
Could anyone who wants to respond do so offlist and no one take this
Assuming the user knows what the icons mean. In my experience, they
unfortunately don't.
Cheers,
Dey
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:48:50 +1000, Andreas Boehmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have a look at Disability Online (http://www.disability.vic.gov.au) - they
solve it quite nicely by opening
On 10/6/04 1:48 AM Andreas Boehmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this
out:
Have a look at Disability Online (http://www.disability.vic.gov.au) - they
solve it quite nicely by opening external links in new windows, yet
providing little icons which inform the user that the link will open new
windows.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dey Alexander
Assuming the user knows what the icons mean. In my experience, they
unfortunately don't.
Hi Dey,
I agree, but then again I don't think it harms anybody to have them.
And for the general
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Rick Faaberg
Sent: Wednesday, 6 October 2004 7:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] thoughts of external links in new window?
On 10/6/04 1:48 AM Andreas Boehmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this
I would like to share an interesting experience I had during accessibility
testing of a website, in regards to this topic:
We were testing a blind participant using JAWS. The website we tested opened
external links in new windows.
The problem was, however, that the computer had Google Toolbar
I also just noticed: the website has got a little legend at the bottom
explaining the icon. But of course having the legend there does not mean
that the users will see and read it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dey Alexander
Sent:
Ryan, you have put forward a lot of ideas, but I can't help but thinking
that the examples you provide make a stronger case for the counterpoint
to the argument you are trying to make.
Ryan Nichols wrote:
The reason you would want to usa a 'popup' is for contextual
information. Usually this is
G'day
IE ignores body { overflow:hidden } for that one -- all other browsers
work fine.
I've used body scrollbar=no instead in index.dev.php file - it's not
valid though.
With most people using MSIE, I think it's too big an issue to ignore. How
many people do you know that have a computer
Regarding external links in new window, like many of you I have the
usual concerns. Although most users are familiar with the idea of
closing external windows, some users will be confused. Some people with
cognitive disabilities fit this description. Also changing the current
window or popping
help needed because i encountered a strange problem.
please could you help me hunt this error down:
my homepage http://www.cialog.com/
crashes on Windows IE and i've got no idea why
the code validates xhtml 1.0 trans and css and looks fine
in safari, firefox ... but random crashes on IE PC occur
Hi,
First of all... I'm sorry if this is off topic.
I've been telling people (the few who asked me and through my website)
to use (valid) xhtml because it a W3C recommendation, it's device
independent, (valid) xhtml can be processed by an XML parser, better
accessibility, less code, faster
Stefan,
crashes such as the one on your site are usually caused by something in the CSS that
IE doesn't like. I didn't get a chance to actually look through it, but I'd suggest
commenting out your different blocks in the stylesheet, one at a time, and trying to
isolate the problem that way.
No crashing here using W2K/IE6. Try to reboot and try again.
Kim
stefan sick | cialog wrote:
help needed because i encountered a strange problem.
please could you help me hunt this error down:
my homepage http://www.cialog.com/
crashes on Windows IE and i've got no idea why
the code validates
Stefan,
I've modified the Security Level of my XP machine and now the page renders
without a glitch.
Try to turn off the ActiveX components in IE and try again. It looks like
the flash component makes
the browser act weird.
.K
Webstandards.be ~ Baptising the Frontpage monkeys
-Original
Kim Kruse wrote:
Hi,
First of all... I'm sorry if this is off topic.
I've been telling people (the few who asked me and through my website)
to use (valid) xhtml because it a W3C recommendation, it's device
independent, (valid) xhtml can be processed by an XML parser, better
accessibility, less
In most of the usability testing I've conducted or been involved in,
participants have stated that they do not like pop up windows. - Susan
I don't doubt that! Let's replace our word of 'pop-up' (which many web
surfers would shudder at the thought of :) and replace it with
'information I can get
Funny - the mail-archive.com link at http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/
opens in a new window...
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the
Hi Kim,
Ian Hickson is _not_ saying XHTML is harmful, he is saying that serving up XHTML with
the wrong MIME type is bad. At an academic level, he has a point. On a practical
level, this does not concern most of us because all current (modern) user agents
(browsers, crawlers, gadgets, etc)
Thanks to Lachlan and Drew for their feedback. I have made a lot of
changes, pages are validating now in both HTML and CSS, but I still have
one area that I obviously need to address
My submenus for my navigation are done with tables. Please look at what
I have and if you have suggestions for
thanx people for testing so far! but still noo solution ;(
i cut the flash object and place an image instead: still crashes
btw: crashes not only on my pc - so the problem must be part of the
website
not the local XP or IE installation
so next thing i'll do: turn off some of the css rules ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Manuel González
Noriega [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
XHTML problems:
- Zero-tolerance for markup errors
Surely that is a benefit rather than a problem?
--
Chris Hughes
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk
**
The discussion
Chris Hughes wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Manuel González
Noriega [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
XHTML problems:
- Zero-tolerance for markup errors
Surely that is a benefit rather than a problem?
Again, higly subjective: it's neat for marchine-parsing but IMHO it's
overkill to learn that
Again, higly subjective: it's neat for marchine-parsing but IMHO it's
overkill to learn that you've made a teenyweeny mistake in your blog
post markup by watching the bloody thing crash before your eyes
Yet with each crash and burn of your blog and each little mistake you
fix the more and more
Clayton Lengel-Zigich wrote:
Again, higly subjective: it's neat for marchine-parsing but IMHO it's
overkill to learn that you've made a teenyweeny mistake in your blog
post markup by watching the bloody thing crash before your eyes
Yet with each crash and burn of your blog and each little
Hello, group.
I want to put a top of page link in the footer of one of my sites, so
instead of using the a name= tag, I a href= to one of my ID's.
The problem is, I've used z-index in the CSS so that the header and
nav stay put when scrolling...but it doesn't work in IE. The result is
that,
All code of every web page should be validated. Any errors need to be
corrected. If your typo is in a tag, then it could produce undesirable
results.
We should all make sure our code on every web page we create has no
errors, whether simple typos or forgotten closing tags; whether we use
Manuel González Noriega wrote:
Often, markup errors, like natural language errors, are most likely
typos than anything else. Therefore, i don't really learn anything from
them
You learn that you should validate anything before making it live (just
like you'd spell-check and proofread anything
At 12:05 PM 10/6/2004, john wrote:
I want to put a top of page link in the footer of one of my sites, so
instead of using the a name= tag, I a href= to one of my ID's. The
problem is, I've used z-index in the CSS so that the header and nav stay
put when scrolling...but it doesn't work in IE.
-Original Message-
Shane Helm - he say:
All code of every web page should be validated. Any errors need to be
corrected. If your typo is in a tag, then it could produce undesirable
results.
We should all make sure our code on every web page we create has no
errors, whether simple
Two ideas spring to mind:
- wrap the entire page content in a div with a specific ID, and change
the link to point to that
body
div id=top
a href='#top
...
/div
/body
- taking it one step further (and admittedly a bit crazy, but seems to
work fine in FF, IE and Opera from my really quick
Works as intended in Safari 1.2.3 OS X 10.3.5. to the top takes me
all the way back to the top.
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
mlinc.com
Get FireFox http://spreadfirefox.com/community/?q=affiliatesid=0t=1
On Oct 6, 2004, at 3:05 PM, john wrote:
Shane Helm wrote:
All code of every web page should be validated. Any errors need to be
corrected. If your typo is in a tag, then it could produce
undesirable results.
We should all make sure our code on every web page we create has no
errors, whether simple typos or forgotten closing tags;
Paul Novitski wrote:
At 12:05 PM 10/6/2004, john wrote:
Why not just put a name=content/a at the top of the page?
Probably because it doesn't look or feel (from a markup point of view)
like an elegant, modern solution.
Some browsers don't appear to need a corresponding named anchor if the
link
Shane Helm wrote:
I have also become a better and
cleaner coder since I switched to XHTML CSS.
Table-less layout rules!
But, to clarify: there's nothing, absolutely nothing at all, stopping
you from going all CSS-driven, table-less, separation of content and
presentation, etc in HTML 4 - just
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Manuel González Noriega wrote:
Often, markup errors, like natural language errors, are most likely
typos than anything else. Therefore, i don't really learn anything
from them
You learn that you should validate anything before making it live
(just like you'd spell-check
On 7/10/04 4:15 AM, Ryan Nichols wrote:
Here, I'll bring in the help of an expert. Excellent book, 'The Design
of Sites' by Douglas Duyne, James Landay, and Jason Hong. Quote is from
the section on Process Funnels.
I have this book, and as a formal collection of design patterns it's a
fantastic
Has anyone on the list ever made a braille style sheet? What is involved?
Are there any templates to suggest a standard braille sheet?
What about Aural style sheets?
I'm referring to the w3c media descriptors:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#h-6.13
braille
Intended for braille
I just have a couple of points
* I disabled styles to see it without, and there is an extra, blank
LI before the Curtin site index and search Curtin there are also
extra, blank LIs in the bottom section, corrections feedback etc.
* why not put a search form on the page, rather than a link to
Can anyone explain what this means in that article?
* A CSS stylesheet written for an HTML4 document is interpreted
slightly differently in an XHTML context (e.g. the body element
is not magical in XHTML
In what ways might body be magical?
Hi Group,
I'm a new member since a few days, just got interested in real
standards.
I've had my firstime ever attempt to design in a compliant xhtml/css
combo tonight.
I'd like some response on the design/coding en use of semantics.
Thanks in advance.
The URL of the site :
One that I know, but there may be more: in HTML, body is the size of the
entire viewport, even if it's empty. In XHTML, it's just like any other
block level elements and takes on the dimensions of its content (and if
you float everything in the body, it effectively is 0 pixels high). If
you
there were a couple of threads about this issue at WEB4LIB recently.
subject = Moving from HTML4.01 to XML
subject = to X or not to X
the consensus was generally mixed, as it is here. one of my gurus bow said:
paste
Moving from any flavor of HTML to the corresponding flavor of XHTML is a
pretty
Every modern browser, including Mozilla and Safari, is much worse at
XHTML than at HTML. People tend to foolishly gloss over the transition
from one to the other, thinking that code you write for one will just
work when you switch to XHTML. That simply isnt true. If you look at
XHTML in both
Hi Moorey,
On Safari, mac FF and mac IE (5.2) there are no scroll bars on the
homepage which means not everything on the page can be viewed. Even
if everything can be seen to start off with, things quickly disappear
when you make text size bigger.
Cheers,
Eunice
Hi everyone
We have just
Hmmm...
but it was also pointed out
paste
Note that a strict interpretation of the WAI WCAG 1.0 guidelines would
indicate that you MUST use XHTML 1.0 if you intent to comply
with WAI AA
guidelines. See http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
Um, no. Not MUST at all. This is
Kim wrote:
Now I would like to
know what your arguments would be for using xhtml.Hi
everyone,have heard and understand all the good responses on this question.
As usual the decision can vary depending on your needs.I'd like to offer
one reason why it has been a good decision for us here at
... as for appropriate, that's a judgement call
based on personal preference.
mm..
he also did add:
Note that I personally think it is unfortunate that the WAI WCAG guidelines
mandate this.
(I appreciate that the word 'appropriate' could be interpreted as a get-out
- but I would argue that XHTML
I think there are valid arguments for both sides of this.
This is also where I agree with the approach of the Apache/Cocoon advocates
in that you serve up the solution which be suits the user agent.
As standards developers we are working in an imperfect world and it's what
frustrates us all.
Hi ted,
This information from
[http://www.codestyle.org/css/media/braille-BrowserSummary.shtml] may be
helpful:
Test case results for media types aural, braille, embossed, handheld, tty
and tv are equivalent in all the mainstream browsers tested to date,
none of which support these media.
I
Ok, let me see if this mailling list posting is working now...
First of all I like the design, but can't understand any of the content!!
About the code...
h1 id=header I was initially going to say you don't need the
id=header part, but noticed you had another level one heading
further down. I
I'm intitially responded to a post regarding any possible usability
reasons why you would want 'pop-ups'. I re-defined pop-ups as not
limited to web pop-ups, but any windowed information which appears on
top of content to show contextual information or prompt for user action.
Whether it is
On 07/10/2004, at 9:45 AM, Peter Firminger wrote:
(and it's debateable whether HTML 3.2 is either... By version
do they mean the language or the subset? HTML 3.2 is the latest
version of
HTML 3)
I suspect that they mean HTML4.
From the HTML 4 rec
W3C recommends that authors produce HTML 4
On 07/10/2004, at 10:07 AM, Geoff Deering wrote:
The reason being that if you are not closing all your tags it
can become a guessing game for the parser where the CSS declaration
may end
in various parts of the document.
It always strikes me that when using HTML4 you are at the mercy of the
http://wordpress.org/development/2004/10/wp-121/
Now I have to go and upgrade all my installations :-(
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development IT consultancy
Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27
http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav
Pondering over this one:
I'm presuming a list of links with their short intros like e.g. news
articles:
dl
dta href=cow_jumps_over_moon.html ... Cow jumps over
moon/a/dt
ddAn unnamed cow has been seen jumping over the moon say
residents.../dd
dta href=dish_spoon.html ... Dish runs
Manuel González Noriega wrote:
You learn that you should validate anything before making it live
(just like you'd spell-check and proofread anything before going to
publication in the print world, for instance). ;)
Hmmm... I started writing a reply a few hours ago and events overtook
me. Still,
On 07/10/2004, at 10:07 AM, Geoff Deering wrote:
The reason being that if you are not closing all your tags it
can become a guessing game for the parser where the CSS declaration
may end
in various parts of the document.
It always strikes me that when using HTML4 you are at the mercy
Title: RE: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?
Lachlan wrote:
On use of validation: valid code is not difficult.
Pete, I'm assuming from your comments that you aim for valid code by
changing institutional practices rather than programmatically?
Agreed on both.
The reality in big
Thanks for you contribution to this discussion Ryan, my apologies if you
felt 'got at' in any way by me... it certainly was a lively debate, and
it was great that you voiced your opinion with such enthusiasm.
cheers
./tdw
On 7/10/04 1:26 PM, Ryan Nichols wrote:
I'm intitially responded to a
Nick Lo wrote:
dl
dta href=cow_jumps_over_moon.html ... Cow jumps over moon/a/dt
ddAn unnamed cow has been seen jumping over the moon say
residents.../dd
dta href=dish_spoon.html ... Dish runs away with spoon/a/dt
ddThe mystery continues as crockery takes to the streets.../dd
/dl
Are there any parsers out there you explicitly trust to get it right
every
time? I don't.
I know of one, http://validator.w3.org/. Are you say though that User
Agents are generally better/fast at parsing/rendering valid XHTML than
they are valid HTML?
They may well do, but they are still
dta href=dish_spoon.html ... Dish runs away with spoon/a/dt
ddThe mystery continues as crockery takes to the streets.../dd
Works as a definition list in a semantically comforting way? Am I wrong?
If the material in your DD is actually an *extract* from the story
being linked to, you could
Thanks so muchh Amit! That worked
great, with a few modifications for my specific design. Thank you so
much! 8-)
Jeremy S.
Author of JezzJournal
Co-Founder of Effuse
Amit Karmakar wrote:
Jeremy, here goes. my $0.02
div id="banner"
h1a href="" accesskey="1"My Header/a/h1
/div
73 matches
Mail list logo
