-Original Message-
From: Matthew Cruickshank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 19 December 2004 2:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] accessible image form buttons
> I haven't ever found any accessibility expert saying images of text are
> inaccessible when the
> image i
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
adding a title attribute for good measure and increased accessibility,
providing your image doesn't use tiny text, and has good contrast
between text and background ?
I prefer giving my users the ability to increase font, if possible. N
You say you want the first line smaller than the second, but your css
will do exactly the opposite (once the selectors are fixed):
.pmi {
font-size: 1.5em;
}
.pmi p:first-line {
font-size: 1.2em;
}
Let me explain; if your default font size is 10px (it's not, but this
is just an eg.), p
> OT: Does anyone else think the Garden needs some sort of rating system
> or better categorisation? When there was only ~30 it was fine. But now
> there's ~520. A lot will never get seen, and that probably includes some
> really good examples that should be.
[also OT]
What the garden really need
Ag!!
Am I having Firefox problems because the latest Netscape is also on my Mac
OSX (Panther) as well? The latest version of Firefox has been acting
strangely ever since I installed Netscape (or thereabouts). I can't seem to
quit Firefox without it remaining in the menu and is unusable withou
Due to modularization.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/abstract_modules.html#s_iframemodule
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/introduction.html#s_intro
--
Jan Brasna :: alphanumeric.cz | webcore.cz | designlab.cz | janbrasna.com
I'll show my setup...
1) IE 6 (at least 3 versions of them?), IE 5.5, IE/Mac and below (I've got
IE 6 but how do I install IE 5.5 and where do I find it?)
IE 4.0, IE 5.01, IE 5.5, IE 6.0, planning IE/Mac via PearPC.
http://www.skyzyx.com/archives/94.php
2) Mozilla/Firefox (no issue finding them
may I find out why exactly?
Due to modularization.
--
Jan Brasna :: alphanumeric.cz | webcore.cz | designlab.cz | janbrasna.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some
You can go down to netscape 4.7 here:
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/archive.jsp
Bennie
On 12/18/2004 2:12:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In addition to making sure our codes adhere to standards, we also face
> the
> unenviable task of making sure they appear right in as many
Hi,
Since XHTML 1.1 removed support for iframes, may I find out why exactly?
Just thinking that there're lots of useful code snippets like WYSIWYG
editors that are going to be rendered obsolete by this. Not trying to troll,
honest, but it'd be helpful to know why...
Thanks
Wong
***
Hi,
In addition to making sure our codes adhere to standards, we also face the
unenviable task of making sure they appear right in as many UAs are
possible. Therefore, I reckon it's not too far off topic here when I ask
what are the usual browsers to check against and how in tarnation do some of
y
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote:
I'm beginning to suspect nested might make sense sometimes.
You may have a point. It's kind of like nested quotes.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guide
I'm beginning to suspect nested might make sense sometimes. The
XHTML 1.0 spec doesn't specifically prohibit them, and neither does the
DTD, nor are the description and examples in the HTML 4.01 spec at odds
with what I'm suggesting.
Here's an example:
Greed is good. Greed works. -- "Gordon Geck
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Krespanis
> I know I'm way out on a limb with this one, but the ocean thing really
> doesn't do anything for me... The diver/flashlight effect is cool
> (even though it looks a bit nasty as it goes over the gradient) and
> the rendered ocean floor has rea
Well put. For the record, my "I'm not worthy" comment was merely my
manner of speech and should not, of course, be taken literally.
Everybody was "wowing" -- I chose to say something different.
Yes, I was (and am) very impressed.
~john
_
Dr. Zeus Web Development
http://w
A recent survey in my imagination revealed that:
99% of people don't go "wow" because, not having the experience of
attempting to build anything remotely like it, they don't see how clever it is.
Half the rest go "wow" because, having experience, they see it is clever,
but don't quite understan
16 matches
Mail list logo
