Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:17:17 +, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > > Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'? > > Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented? > > Arguably, UAAG 1.0 guideline 4.1 > http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-configure-text-scale > Yes this is close, but even this does not require to implement dynamic text scaling: ability to set preferred font size and to override one specified by document author suffices. On the other hand: "It is inappropriate to use this document as reference material or to cite it as other than "work in progress.". And it is dated 17 December 2002, whilst latest version of IE saw the light in October 2001. So in terms of font-scaling we depend solely on the good will of browser makers, luckily any, but MS has problems with that. But that's the way Microsoft does - they invent text-zoom on IE/Mac and it never finds it way to IE/Win properly; or they hold patent for CSS but are badly lagging behind in implementing this technology That's it for me on this topic, in any case we are on the same side, only we differ in the views on the weight of that problem. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: G.S: Two factors creates this accessibility-problem with pixel-defined text: - Web designers in general don't know that IE/win can *override* font sizes. - Users in general don't know that either. The technical side of it: IE/win has "ignore font size..." amongst its accessibility-options... http://www.seoconsultants.com/windows/ie/accessibility/ ... and have had it since IE4 (at least), so we can not say that pixel defined fonts is an accessibility-problem in any major browser today. A.B: But as you said: "Users in general don't know that". So it is an accessibility problem: even if the browser has got the ability to override font-sizes, it is no use if the user does not know about it. You are correct -- but my point was that the accessibility problem isn't caused by what browser people use. Lack of knowledge-- "ignorance" if you like-- will always be a problem. That's not limited to font size issues, or the web as such. It's a universal problem... :-) My views (on the web) are best presented here: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/molly_1_01.html I prefer to use font sizing methods / units that allow for user-adjustments in all browsers, so the need for this accessibility-options isn't there. However, I also try to make my pages take it, *if* these options are used. Some of that, and how I deal with it, is presented here: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_02.html ... and on other pages in this new, and still unfinished, section on my site. Guess I'm still trying to find a cure for the universal problem, but I'm not sure if there is any... I rest my case. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
That was my point. Not that I was dumb or anything, but lots of us don't know some things. Including those with eyesite difficulties, and that a site guide would be nice. If I could miss that, many others have also. Bruce Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I didn't know this... I guess I have nothing to add here. This would be insightful if Bruce was a user that actually needed/relied on resizable fonts. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'? Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented? Arguably, UAAG 1.0 guideline 4.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-configure-text-scale -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] fonts
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:37:24 +, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with custom font sizers is that they only apply to that > particular site. > This is very true, so users should figure where it is, what it is (at least how to use it is prety obvious). On the other hand the same very fact that they apply to that particular site is a good thing: this won't interfere other sites you read. Being in the sight of user such control also has slightly better chances being discovered than any other options. But once user knows how to operate ctrl+mousewheel or ctrl +/-/0 s/he will try to use that option first. If you go as far as making cutom font-size control then you may as well go all the way and avoid using pixels AND having your font-control (maybe with some cookie baking to keep preffered setting). <...> Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I didn't know this... I guess I have nothing to add here. This would be insightful if Bruce was a user that actually needed/relied on resizable fonts. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] fonts
G'day The problem with custom font sizers is that they only apply to that particular site. And it only applies to one page (without resorting to the use of cookies, javascript, server side technology etc to remember the user's preference). Luckily I am one of the few "older guys" with poor eyesight who have discovered there are browsers other than IE. My $0.02 Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:23:20 -0500, Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > Quote: > And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a > lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through > accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the > ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). > > Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I > didn't know this... <...> I guess I have nothing to add here. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:13:03 +, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause > real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and > therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 > guideline 10) in favour of ems? Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'? Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented? I may be wrong, but I guess - none. Texts zoom is (ironically) an invention of Microsoft. It is nice and useful feature. Don't confuse 'relative' with 'scalable by browser'. Relative means just that - physical size of, say 12px can vary depending on the size of actual pixel, which depends on screen size, its resolution, etc. Absolute units should have the same physical dimension, doesn't matter what, and what's way it is virtually impossible to have them implemented on screen. Funny enough, you may look at text-zoom feature as of wrong implementation. Mozilla lets you zoom text with font-size set in points. But 72 points, according to spec is 1 inch - no matter what. IE does not resize text in pt. Pixels are bit more complicated but they have fixed size for given device to. That leads us to text-zooming, font-scaling is a violation of the specification? So who is wrong? Or is there anyone wrong at all? >Saying that the percentage > of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really > change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a > valid set of arguments, imho. Saying in contrary is no more valid, sadly. <...> Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] fonts
Bruce wrote: Some time back I used to add a font sizer to my site as a trial. Font + - Perhaps it isn't a bad idea. The problem with custom font sizers is that they only apply to that particular site. I used to have that specifically for the article text, and scaled down for menus. Then I could go back to using fixed fonts, and if someone cannot read 12px text-make it bigger at a click from the page instead of having the hassle of changing it in ie. As pointed out before, it's not really a hassle with the quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL shortcut. So, it's not a bad idea as such, just unnecessary (plus all the points that Felix mentions in his reply, of course) -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] label for question
Wong Chin Shin wrote: To get validated by Bobby, Forget "validated by Bobby". It's really "to be accessible". Bobby is just a tool, and it's irrelevant whether or not your site passes its automated tests or not...anyway, rant over, now to the issue... I need to have a for each tag. I've got a 2 inputs, a drop down for salutation and a text input for name that really don't want to have a separate label for each. Is it possible/advisable for me to declare a label for both? Yes, you do need a label for both. Without a label, if a blind user with a screenreader comes across the input, all they'll hear is "text input" without any idea what it's for. You can always hide the label itself with CSS (e.g. move it underneath the input, move it off screen, or even use display:none - with caution, as some screenreaders will then not recognise it...unless, from testing, that rule comes from an @import stylesheet) -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] fonts
Bruce wrote: > Some time back I used to add a font sizer to my site as a trial. Font + - > Perhaps it isn't a bad idea. > I used to have that specifically for the article text, and scaled down for > menus. > Then I could go back to using fixed fonts, and if someone cannot read > 12px text-make it bigger at a click from the page instead of having the > hassle of changing it in ie. > What's wrong with that really? If they aren't using a browser with zoom or minimum font size they know how to use, they have to be able to: 1-see it; 2-understand what to do with it; 3- be willing to use it. Just because you can see it and understand what to do with it doesn't mean they are both able and willing. If I had to use IE, I'd just leave. Or maybe if it was a site required to adhere to usability regulations, I'd complain to the regulators. -- "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] label for question
Hi, To get validated by Bobby, I need to have a for each tag. I've got a 2 inputs, a drop down for salutation and a text input for name that really don't want to have a separate label for each. Is it possible/advisable for me to declare a label for both? Thanks Wong ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Quote: And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I didn't know this... amazed here. Will add this to my accessibility statement onsite...forever learning. Actually, to have standards is good, informing users what they are and giving tips to visitors to a site is also good. Forever learning, Bruce ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement something what is never used. How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 guideline 10) in favour of ems? Sure, if you're not too hot on CSS, making use of the cascade to avoid inheritance issues, or if you're still stuck with "pixel perfect" design, then sure it's a problem...but please let's not blow this out of proportion. Saying that the percentage of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a valid set of arguments, imho. What I see as a biggest overestimation is the idea that user _wants_ to control something on your page. No! User wants content of your page. Which is a bugger if they then can't read it, because the designer decided that he/she prefers an illegible, but cool looking, pixel size. Or functionality of your application. Or whatever. And d) is very important here: users are much more comfortable with hitting "back" button than in setting font-sizes. So if you committed a sin of infamous font-size-too-small and it is small bellow acceptable level, I'd say there will be one visitor going somewhere else, than one visitor adjusting font-size. But that's an assumption too. Exactly, it's one assumption against another. Having worked directly with users with various levels of visual impairment, however, I can tell you that those who need font sizing are well aware of how to do it. Yes, they're also aware that there are advanced options that lets them completely ignore a site's chosen font size, but they don't see the need to enable them if the author is considerate enough not to stop them from simply bumping up the text size a notch if needed. And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Don't use pixels. Don't yell, if someone uses. ...but gently remind them that there is another way which can eliminate the possibility of problems for certain users with minimal effort. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: These users would benefit most from the 'Accessibility' options under Options menu.That allows them: Ignore colors specified on Web pages Ignore font-styles specified on Web pages Ignore font-sizes specified on Web pages Use own stylesheet Cute...first you argue that users don't even know how to change the font size, then you say they should know how to change various settings AND create their own stylesheets? -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] fonts
Some time back I used to add a font sizer to my site as a trial. Font + - Perhaps it isn't a bad idea. I used to have that specifically for the article text, and scaled down for menus. Then I could go back to using fixed fonts, and if someone cannot read 12px text-make it bigger at a click from the page instead of having the hassle of changing it in ie. What's wrong with that really? Bruce www.bkdesign.ca ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:02:53 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] <...> > Not all users with visual disabilities use a screen reader. Some may only > require a larger font size or a different font colour. Others use screen > readers in combination with enlarged fonts. A user I tested once insisted on > having 14 pt font-size in blue colour on white background. The problem was > that his visual disability made it very hard for him to read font that was > black or smaller than 14 pt. Here's another group: older people with reduced > eyesight. These users would benefit most from the 'Accessibility' options under Options menu.That allows them: Ignore colors specified on Web pages Ignore font-styles specified on Web pages Ignore font-sizes specified on Web pages Use own stylesheet Having in mind how many sites with 14pt blue text I've came across this is the only viable option: set own stylesheet with aforementioned rules. Fiddling with fonts on every single page is a nightmare, not an accessibility. But this by any means does not make your statement below invalid: <...> > That's why we should give them the option to create their own little world. > Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:51:54 +1100, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that the point of this discussion is partially missed, making font > size scalable is not just about making a site accessible for people with > special needs - it benefits everyone! Consider this scenario: > > Acme Company hires Zippo Web Dev to create their website > Zippo decide 8px Arial is really funky for the main text - sells Acme on the > idea. > Site is launched, looks beautiful. > > John Doe has no disabilities, accesses site, can't read text, his options: > Leave site, never to return > Tell all his friends what a crappy site it is > Email Acme to complain > If the information is critical to JD, consider legal complaint under > Disability Discrimination Act. I'd vote for first two option. On what ground could he use option 4? Only what has it to do with being able to scale fonts? I guess, you assume John Doe uses IE/Win and he knows how to change font-size: only he cannot to. Let's modify your scenario: John Doe uses [any browser] and site is designed with em's, only they are sized in such a way they look exactly the same size of 8px. But - JD does NOT know how to change font-size. That leaves as with options: > Leave site, never to return > Tell all his friends what a crappy site it is > Email Acme to complain > If the information is critical to JD, consider legal complaint under > Disability Discrimination Act. Not much difference here, eh? That brings us to the original sin: > Zippo decide 8px Arial is really funky for the main text - sells Acme on the > idea. That may bring us to the flame about optimal font-size, please, don't, I beg you. Not here, not now. > Do you think Acme would hire Zippo again? It depends. I'd say yes -- they've bought the idea of the 8px font, haven't they?. (Who would, anyway ;) Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] A downlable link
The Man With His Guide Dog At The Tent Store wrote: I have links to files on a web site. What would be the best web standard to make these links an FTP download? No, you don't mean FTP download (which would only happen if you were using the FTP *protocol*, i.e. your links were pointing to ftp://). You mean file download. So, an individual clicks on a filename and the FTP window opens. I am not sure why my work is not working. It depends on how browsers have been set up. By default, when installing MS Office for instance, IE will open .doc files directly in the browser window. Same with Adobe Acrobat. So, it's really up to the user to set things up the way they want it to on their machine. The only way (and even that is not guaranteed) that you can, to a certain extent, force browsers to not open files like that in a viewer inside the browser window, but prompt for download, is by sending a MIME type such as "application/octet-stream" - browsers won't really know what it is, and in most cases prompt the user to choose a download destination. Setting the MIME type requires changes to your server's configuration, or the use of some intermediate server-side scripting that sends them before passing on the file. See http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=MIME+type+force+download Failing that, you could always ZIP the files up and link to the ZIP file. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] G* addressing standards
> -Original Message- > From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 10:44 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards > > So what exactly makes you think those users will: > > a) know hot to change font size We have to make it as easy as possible and give them all the options. If a user knows that they can change the font-size with the browser, let them do it - don't stop them from doing it by using pixels. I agree - not all users know how to change it. So why not make it even easier: add "reduce/enlarge font" links at the top of your page. > b) want to change font-size Not all users with visual disabilities use a screen reader. Some may only require a larger font size or a different font colour. Others use screen readers in combination with enlarged fonts. A user I tested once insisted on having 14 pt font-size in blue colour on white background. The problem was that his visual disability made it very hard for him to read font that was black or smaller than 14 pt. Here's another group: older people with reduced eyesight. > If b) happens, that means something is already broken - no matter can > user actually change the setting or not. Not necessarily broken: I really would not want to design all my websites in 14 pt and blue colour, but I have to give the user the option to change it to their personal preference. > But there we go into the domain "what the user wants" and that is > not so simple. I agree - you cannot immediately fulfil all the wishes that are out there. That's why we should give them the option to create their own little world. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] G* addressing standards
I think that the point of this discussion is partially missed, making font size scalable is not just about making a site accessible for people with special needs - it benefits everyone! Consider this scenario: Acme Company hires Zippo Web Dev to create their website Zippo decide 8px Arial is really funky for the main text - sells Acme on the idea. Site is launched, looks beautiful. John Doe has no disabilities, accesses site, can't read text, his options: Leave site, never to return Tell all his friends what a crappy site it is Email Acme to complain If the information is critical to JD, consider legal complaint under Disability Discrimination Act. Do you think Acme would hire Zippo again? Regards Graham Cook ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] A downlable link
I hope this is not off topic. If it is please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] privately. I have links to files on a web site. What would be the best web standard to make these links an FTP download? So, an individual clicks on a filename and the FTP window opens. I am not sure why my work is not working. An example is: href="http://www.asic.bc.cx/Entertainment/2005MasterIndexes/2005VancouverIsland MasterIndex.doc" alt="Index Master for Vancouver Island, British Columbia">Vancouver Island, British Columbia Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Web page: http://members.shaw.ca/dabneyadfm Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. http://www.choroideremia.org Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Web page: http://members.shaw.ca/dabneyadfm Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. http://www.choroideremia.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:18:55 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] <...> > - It may be hard to believe for some, but many computer users do not know > how to install a different browser. In fact, many of them don't even know > that there is anything else but IE. <...> All you say is true. And there are users who go to the site by entering it's url into _search field of some search engine_ and then following the first link... So what exactly makes you think those users will: a) know hot to change font size b) want to change font-size If b) happens, that means something is already broken - no matter can user actually change the setting or not. Why? Because user got distracted from his/her main goal. He has to fiddle with something. Worse than that - that fiddling should be repeated, cause other sites user is used to will appear different and unacceptable. But there we go into the domain "what the user wants" and that is not so simple. Especially because users _do not know_ what they really want. So I will leave it for now. Regards, Rimantas, -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] G* addressing standards
> -Original Message- > From: Gunlaug Sørtun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 10:30 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards > > Two factors creates this accessibility-problem with pixel-defined text: > - Web designers in general don't know that IE/win can *override* > font sizes. > - Users in general don't know that either. > > The technical side of it: > > IE/win has "ignore font size..." amongst its accessibility-options... > http://www.seoconsultants.com/windows/ie/accessibility/ > ... and have had it since IE4 (at least), so we can not say that pixel > defined fonts is an accessibility-problem in any major browser today. > But as you said: "Users in general don't know that". So it is an accessibility problem: even if the browser has got the ability to override font-sizes, it is no use if the user does not know about it. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
russ - maxdesign wrote: I'd put the question back to the group... Rather than ask "why should I not use pixels, as there is nowhere that forces me not to", why not ask "how can I make my content as accessible to the widest audience possible". If you ask this question, then right now, with the current browser situation, this means that pixels are not desirable as they can possibly (regardless of whether a guideline or not) adversely affect a large number of users. I'm all for re-sizable font sizing methods, but I think the only thing that matters is that any web page should be able to take it-- no matter how we define font size. The current browser situation means nothing here. Two factors creates this accessibility-problem with pixel-defined text: - Web designers in general don't know that IE/win can *override* font sizes. - Users in general don't know that either. The technical side of it: IE/win has "ignore font size..." amongst its accessibility-options... http://www.seoconsultants.com/windows/ie/accessibility/ ... and have had it since IE4 (at least), so we can not say that pixel defined fonts is an accessibility-problem in any major browser today. The fact that so many web pages becomes broken and inaccessible when this accessibility-option is used, is caused by web designers who don't know the browsers they design for well enough. It should only take a minute or two to test out what IE/win can and cannot do (don't forget to look at line height). The simple fact is that most pages behaves better and are more accessible when we *do not* try to set font sizes "in stone". regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:17:53 +1100, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <...> > As pointed out, these are guidelines only, and open to interpretation. For > example, pixels could be interpreted to be relative units, as explained by > Derek Featherstone: > http://www.wats.ca/articles/pixelsarerelative/65 > The main point that seems to be missing in this discussion is that you could > argue that: > A. pixels are relative units and therefore acceptable within the WAI > guidelines That's my point. And there is nothing to argue about: pixels are relative units. > B. browsers should support scaling pixels (and therefore IE is wrong) IE for Windows. IE5 for Mac was the first browser with text zoom, IIRC. <...> > Accessibility should not be seen as check points, laws, lawsuits or covering > your bum. It should be about people and empathy - putting yourself in others > shoes. Absolutely. > It is also about the real world. A huge percentage of users are on > Windows IE and within the disabled community, you could argue this figure is > even higher as most accessibility tools seem to be run on that platform. That is the problem - the real world. So far I've seen only assumptions. I did not exactly get your point on disabled community (unless you have other problems in mind, not only impaired vision). For screen readers doesn't matter what size your font is, others may have using low resolutions on big screens, so they are in relatively same position as the rest. > I'd put the question back to the group... Rather than ask "why should I not > use pixels, as there is nowhere that forces me not to", why not ask "how can > I make my content as accessible to the widest audience possible". Because of laziness. As simple as that. Pixels are the easiest way to have consistent result (does http://old.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/ matter any more?). <...> > If you ask this question, then right now, with the current browser > situation, this means that pixels are not desirable as they can possibly > (regardless of whether a guideline or not) adversely affect a large number > of users. <...> Non sequitur. That's why I mentioned 'possibility vs. probability'. Maybe that may affect some users. Maybe not. I may be lazy and implement pixels. Or I may put some effort and make text work with other units. This will be used in case: a) Font size I set looks unacceptably too small for particular user on his screen b) Users uses IE/Win c) User knows how to change font-size d) User chooses to change font-size I have no idea about probability of a). We have very varying results on b) (you can have more exact numbers for site in question though). We have no idea about c) and d). So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement something what is never used. What I see as a biggest overestimation is the idea that user _wants_ to control something on your page. No! User wants content of your page. Or functionality of your application. Or whatever. And d) is very important here: users are much more comfortable with hitting "back" button than in setting font-sizes. So if you committed a sin of infamous font-size-too-small and it is small bellow acceptable level, I'd say there will be one visitor going somewhere else, than one visitor adjusting font-size. But that's an assumption too. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating pixels as best possible way to set font-size. Methods which allow to scale fonts are indeed preferable, but I still think that evilness of pixels is hugely overestimated as is users will to change it. And whats is not desirable: some percentage based schema, which is broken so users get illegible fonts, or reasonably sized fonts in pixels, plus stylesheet switcher allowing to change size with one click? How big is probability of the first case? What is the probability of user being unhappy with default setting in the second case? Who knows, who knows... I'd say we have more prominent and less arguable problems with accessibility than guessing game about font-sizing. Strive to perfection is nice, though. Don't use pixels. Don't yell, if someone uses. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] G* addressing standards
> -Original Message- > From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 6:49 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards > > To be more precise: what percentage of unfortunate web surfers knows > that it is possible to change font size. > And then what percentage of those uses font-changing tools instead of > using glasses. > Most users with serious visual disabilities that cannot be rectified by simply wearing a pair of glasses know how to change the font-size in their browser (or they use screen magnifiers or similar software). This is a technical knowledge they have to gain if they wish to use the Internet at all. > Why not? I can change it (except for graphical menu and absolutely > illegible trademark notice). > The only browser which does not allow it is IE for Windows That's it. > (yes, I can hear your "it is the most popular and user by 7/8/9-ty > percents of the web surfers. Anyway, 1/2/3-ty percent of users CAN > change font size in browser. Maybe 0.1% wants to... maybe 0.01% knows > how). There is a good reason why people would come back to you and tell you that 90% of users have IE installed: it's because our websites should be working for the majority of people that use it, not the minority. Although there is lots of "research" that shows that Firefox is being installed on so-and-so many machines, our statistics in ALL our websites show that IE has still got a leading position of 90% amongst our users. There are a couple of reasons why this is not going to change in the next years majorly: - Companies will not be willing to change their default browser just because there is a trend amongst Web Developers or Computer Nerds (not excluding myself here) to move to a standards based browser. Give them a good reason to change. The only good reason would be if websites did not work in IE. The way it looks at the moment: there are many more websites that don't work in Firefox than in IE. - IE is the browser that supports assistive technology best. Most assistive software only works in IE. Those groups of users will not change in the near future. - It may be hard to believe for some, but many computer users do not know how to install a different browser. In fact, many of them don't even know that there is anything else but IE. Who, except for us guys here, cares about reading IT articles about the new kick-ass browser that is going to take over the world? Nobody. There are 10 million people that downloaded Firefox? Well, there are 600 million people online world wide (http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/). Which makes the 10 million a mere 1.66%. Is the trend of downloading Firefox going to continue as it has so far? Doubtful. Us computer nerds have downloaded it eagerly, but persuading the general public will take more than just a few years. So, until further notice: we better continue working for our dear friend IE, which, unfortunately, cannot resize absolute fonts. Make it accessible, make it usable. My two cents. :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font suggestions
Charles Eaton wrote: I'll second that choose ( 'Comic Sans MS' ) but, use both the long & short version of the name. No offense, but I think you missed the point, which is: you, as developer, don't know what fonts users may or may not have installed. Therefore, you should opt for generic family names like font-family: fantasy; This then puts the onus on the browser to choose a "fantasy" font from the ones available on the specific system. See http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#value-def-generic-family (to the admins: sorry, I know this thread was officially closed...but I do think this particular line of thought pertains to the standards discussion, as it revolves around fundamental issues of CSS; if it's not ok to carry on with the thread, fine...consider me admonished for the second time) -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font suggestions
I'll second that choose ( 'Comic Sans MS' ) but, use both the long & short version of the name. === On Jan 6, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Andrew Krespanis wrote: Tricia Fitzgerald wrote: Does anyone know of a "whimsical" font that works in all browsers? I've tried "Kidprint" but that does not work on any of the Mac browsers nor AOL on the pc. font-family: fantasy; --- guaranteed to be 'whimsical' on any browser... ...and also very nasty (think 'Comic Sans', 'Curlz MT' et all) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] How to create a mark-up guide?
Ted Drake wrote: This is great Patrick. I'm going to save it as a layout.css and use it for all sorts of stuff. You are the bomb! We aim to please ;-) May have to expand on it a bit more and make it into a proper experiment on my site, I think. Watch this space... -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
To quote part of what I posted from G8 web: "This is an accessibility issue that we are aware of and hope to be able to address in the near future. " I really don't think this is an important matter that would need permission to post anywhere. It isn't a secret. Perhaps I am out of line here, but the purpose was only to show the wide ranging awareness of accessibility issues, and an item of general interest. That there was an issue, perhaps a small one according to some, that a government website had a small problem, but were aware of it and are going to address it. It was nice that they responded...etc. Why they haven't is beyond me, but then so are a lot of things...It certainly got some interesting feedback, whereby everyone gains perhaps? Various opinions on font-size here naturally...I 'sometimes' use Internet Explorer, as many do, so fixed fonts can be important if you have poor vision and are used to a certain way of enlargening them. I believe that issue is mostly settled...I'm an amature here, but I switched to em, small x-small and % on my sites...and that's just fine "It gives me the warm fuzzies." All I know is when I went to adjust them as I normally would in ie, I couldn't. Not a big deal to me, as I have reasonably good vision, but for some...maybe it would be. Simple and basic Bruce www.bkdesign.ca ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] How to create a mark-up guide?
This is great Patrick.
I'm going to save it as a layout.css and use it for all sorts of stuff.
You are the bomb!
Ted
-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:15 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [WSG] How to create a mark-up guide?
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> /* long list of all the ones you need (only catering for id...similar
> for class,
> and need to do separate rules for the case in which it's just id, just
> class, or both
> id and class */
And to elaborate, as an example:
div:before { content: 'div'; }
div[id]:before { content: 'div #'attr(id); }
div[class]:before { content: 'div class='attr(class); }
div[id][class]:before { content: 'div #'attr(id)' class='attr(class); }
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? WCAG 1.0, checkpoint 3.4 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-relative-units (although there have been discussions recently on the WAI-IG list about whether or not some of these have now been overtaken by technology, the fact remains that IE gets it wrong, not allowing px to resize, and thus web authors should use interim solutions - in this case, not using pixel fonts - to work around the problem http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-interim-accessibility ) Why not? I can change it (except for graphical menu and absolutely illegible trademark notice). The only browser which does not allow it is IE for Windows That's it. (yes, I can hear your "it is the most popular and user by 7/8/9-ty percents of the web surfers. Anyway, 1/2/3-ty percent of users CAN change font size in browser. Maybe 0.1% wants to... maybe 0.01% knows how). Saying "the percentage of IE users that will resize the font is low" is obviously not the same as saying "the percentage of IE users that will resize the font is low, so I'll just make it impossible for them to do so". > > To be more precise: what percentage of unfortunate web surfers knows > that it is possible to change font size. > And then what percentage of those uses font-changing tools instead of > using glasses. > If I set my display to 1024x768, but with large fonts in Windows, the pixel size doesn't change. If a site author now specifies a lovely 9px font, because they're designers and they love their lovely minimal type, then I can't resize it. I shouldn't need to use glasses, a screen magnifier, or even go as far as having to change my screen resolution. Period. Yes, it's a shortcoming of IE, but it's a real world problem which can be fixed in such a simple way... I do not think this issue deserves as much attention as it gets now. I don't think it's getting that much attention, but seeing as it is such a trivial thing to do, I'm still amazed at the number of sites that use pixel sizing for fonts. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
> I absolutely hate to jump into the topic of font-size issue, because I > think this is > the question of religion, not web standards. > > Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? On the issue of pixel sizes, the guideline that best describes the pixels issue is Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 3.4: "3.4 Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values. [Priority 2] For example, in CSS, use 'em' or percentage lengths rather than 'pt' or 'cm', which are absolute units. If absolute units are used, validate that the rendered content is usable (refer to the section on validation)." As pointed out, these are guidelines only, and open to interpretation. For example, pixels could be interpreted to be relative units, as explained by Derek Featherstone: http://www.wats.ca/articles/pixelsarerelative/65 The main point that seems to be missing in this discussion is that you could argue that: A. pixels are relative units and therefore acceptable within the WAI guidelines B. browsers should support scaling pixels (and therefore IE is wrong) C. users may not necessarily know about increasing font sizes And many other things... But the bottom line is that these arguments do not help real users who may experience real accessibility issues with a site that is sized using pixels. Accessibility should not be seen as check points, laws, lawsuits or covering your bum. It should be about people and empathy - putting yourself in others shoes. It is also about the real world. A huge percentage of users are on Windows IE and within the disabled community, you could argue this figure is even higher as most accessibility tools seem to be run on that platform. I'd put the question back to the group... Rather than ask "why should I not use pixels, as there is nowhere that forces me not to", why not ask "how can I make my content as accessible to the widest audience possible". If you ask this question, then right now, with the current browser situation, this means that pixels are not desirable as they can possibly (regardless of whether a guideline or not) adversely affect a large number of users. My 2 cents A small aside... I am a little concerned that a private email was posted to the wsg list from the G8 Presidency Team. I hope that approval was requested and given by them to post to a mailing list? Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
These are *guidelines* are they not? As opposed to hard-fast rules? "...This document provides information to Web content developers who wish to satisfy the success criteria of "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" note the word 'Guidelines'... ? Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic mlinc.com On Jan 7, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Kornel Lesinski wrote: Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units and soon this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:45:24 -, Kornel Lesinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? > > Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units Sorry for being dumb, but where do you see prohibition of px? Can you, pleas, quote? Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
That's not exactly the way I read it. But then I can't read. ~d On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:45:24 -, Kornel Lesinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units and soon this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/ -- http://www.dlaakso.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Connditional Comment / @import Problem in IE 5.0.1
Hi all, I sent this earlier, but I think I accidentally hijacked another post... For quite a while, I've been using my spare time to improve the standards, CSS, usability, and accessibility of one of my projects. In doing so I've also been trying to move away from IE hacks in my CSS in favor of conditional comments, which for the most part has been a fairly seamless process. While making some adjustments to the main template (01) this morning, I noticed IE 5.0.1 would behaving oddly when I added a particular conditional comment. When I included the conditional comment, a rather large gap would appear at the top of the page. At first, I thought something in the IE stylesheet was causing the problem, but after further testing I realized that it was the comment itself that caused the issue, or rather, the comments position in the markup. If I place the comment above the @import (02) of my main stylesheet, everything seems to work fine; however, there is a single selector in the IE specific stylesheet that needs to override a selector in the main stylesheet, so the conditional comment *has* to come after the @import. When I move the comment below the @import, IE 5.0.1 (not 5.5 or 6.0) breaks (03). I can completely remove the CSS from the IE specific stylesheet--saving it as a blank document-- and the problem persists. Furthermore, and this just makes things weirder, if I use a , rather than @import, the problem vanishes. I also tested several other import methods, all of which, produce the same results as the method I originally used. I am using the "hacked", standalone versions of IE 5.0.1 and 5.5 for testing; however, I am aware of the issues with using conditional comments. This particular conditional uses [if IE], so the version of IE *should be* irrelevant. I only mention this to be sure all my conditions are straight, in case there is any question. Has anyone ever experienced something similar to this issue or know of any documentation that might help explain it? Of course, I could just be doing something stupid or overlooking something simple. I'll leave the comment in the "broken" position for now, so y'all can check it out if you like. 01: http://www.iqmax.com/iqmaxcss/ 02: http://www.iqmax.com/downloads/mike/beforeimport.gif 03: http://www.iqmax.com/downloads/mike/afterimport.gif @import method used: Conditional comment used: -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units and soon this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/ -- regards, Kornel Lesiński ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:55:38 -0500, Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is > interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being > addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest > ...but at least they are aware of it. I absolutely hate to jump into the topic of font-size issue, because I think this is the question of religion, not web standards. Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? >From original letter: > Thank you for your interest in the UK G8 Presidency website and bringing > to our attention that the font size cannot be changed via the browser. Why not? I can change it (except for graphical menu and absolutely illegible trademark notice). The only browser which does not allow it is IE for Windows That's it. (yes, I can hear your "it is the most popular and user by 7/8/9-ty percents of the web surfers. Anyway, 1/2/3-ty percent of users CAN change font size in browser. Maybe 0.1% wants to... maybe 0.01% knows how). Mac users don't have this problem, Linux users don't have this problems, Mozilla/Firefox users on any platform don't have this problem. > This is an accessibility issue that we are aware of and hope to be able > to address in the near future. I'd really really like to see any research data which would back up this statement. If you have any links - please, provide. To be more precise: what percentage of unfortunate web surfers knows that it is possible to change font size. And then what percentage of those uses font-changing tools instead of using glasses. That's why I hate this issue - because it is based on assumptions, guesses, and overestimated urge of average user to control something. This is classic case probability vs. possibility. While I agree, that using methods which allow scale fonts on IE/Win to (even it only makes happy all 15 web-developers, who know browsers in and out, and use Firefox anyway) is preferable, I do not think this issue deserves as much attention as it gets now. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ (yep, px fonts) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] semantic markup for song chart?
Wong Chin Shin wrote: I'm still troubled by using tables to implement a song chart as the semantic meaning behind each row's position (eg. Row 2 is there cos it's ranked LOWER than row 1) is lost. Not if one of your columns is specifically for the chart position. Then, on the first row the data will be 1, on the second 2, etc. Lists are all nice an well, but can be taken to the extreme sometimes (heck, sentences are ordered lists of individual words, etc etc). I stand by the statement that a single table, correctly marked up with adequate headers, is the most semantic way to mark this up. Also, as for accessibility issues, would a blind man get tired of reading n-lines of Song Name: XXX, Singer: YYY etc? :) Don't make assumptions about how a blind person would or wouldn't be reading it. Depending on the screenreader they use, and the specific verbosity settings, they can read the data, then only prompt the screenreader to inform them of the header if they need it. Using a screenreader is an interactive process. Blind users don't simply get to a page and have it read out top to bottom. Particularly when working with data sets in tables, there are a great number of functions available to the user in order to efficiently navigate around. And in any case, it's a silly question: that *is* the way tabular data has to be marked up accessibly. It's the software the visually impaired use that takes care of whether it's "tiring" or not. If you're still unconvinced, though...here's a scenario where the tabularlist thing falls apart completely and becomes a pain for any non-sighted user: say you're in one of the rows, in the column with the artist name. Now, you want to go down the rows, but stay within this column (i.e. you're skimming the artist names, until you hit your favourite artist). If it's marked up as a single table, that's a piece of cake: screenreaders like JAWS offer simple ways to navigate up/down/left/right within a table. Simply jump down, and you're still in the artist column. Now, tabularlists? As it's only a one row table you're always in, the screenreader would announce "end of table" or similar; you then have to exit the table, go to the next list item, enter the table, navigate to the artist column (and remember, none of these columns have headers defined, so it's a case of counting or guessing)...etc Now, *that* is tiring. Tabularlists are a perversion, in the sense that they use markup structures in ways in which they were not meant to be used...and then use heavy styling to *visually* make them right. Sorry, but no, it's still rubbish...the usual "everything can be boiled down to a list" approach that seems to be "de rigeur"... -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] semantic markup for song chart?
Strictly following the tabularlist example would be rubbish in this context, but if we extend the idea into an list with a definition table inside each list element, it may not be so absurd idea. I'm still troubled by using tables to implement a song chart as the semantic meaning behind each row's position (eg. Row 2 is there cos it's ranked LOWER than row 1) is lost. I'm just not so sure about the practicality of implementing the paragraph above 'cos of the possibility of varying column widths. Also, as for accessibility issues, would a blind man get tired of reading n-lines of Song Name: XXX, Singer: YYY etc? :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:52 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] semantic markup for song chart? John Ozturk wrote: > http://www.tbrown.org/ideas/tabularlist/ Sorry, but that is rubbish. Any correlation between the data and what it actually represents is completely lost. It's purely visual. And even if it were sort of ok, you'd have to use ordered lists, not unordered lists, as there *is* a set, predefined order in which each row's elements are displayed (based on the visual headings defined in the first row). I'd posit that the markup underlying this method is non-semantic and pretty meaningless (and incidentally, using a screenreader to access this sort of tabular list just becomes a confusing mess, and without stylesheets it makes no sense whatsoever either). -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re.dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Bruce wrote: I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest ...but at least they are aware of it. Considering it's a governmental site (of sorts), I would have been surprised if they weren't going to at least try to cover the easy accessibility points. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [WSG] How to create a mark-up guide?
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
/* long list of all the ones you need (only catering for id...similar
for class,
and need to do separate rules for the case in which it's just id, just
class, or both
id and class */
And to elaborate, as an example:
div:before { content: 'div'; }
div[id]:before { content: 'div #'attr(id); }
div[class]:before { content: 'div class='attr(class); }
div[id][class]:before { content: 'div #'attr(id)' class='attr(class); }
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] How to create a mark-up guide?
Ted Drake wrote:
And all that Malarkey http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/css_markup_guides.html
[...]
I was wondering if there is a css2 method to show the id or class within the div?
Only made a start, but something like:
/* general styling for all of the :before bits */
:before { display: block; color: red; font-weight: bold; }
/* long list of all the ones you need (only catering for id...similar
for class,
and need to do separate rules for the case in which it's just id, just
class, or both
id and class */
div:before { content: 'div'; }
div[id]:before { content: 'div #'attr(id); }
h1:before { content: 'h1'; }
h1[id]:before { content: 'h1 #'attr(id); }
h2:before { content: 'h2'; }
h2[id]:before { content: 'h2 #'attr(id); }
h3:before { content: 'h3'; }
h3[id]:before { content: 'h3 #'attr(id); }
h4:before { content: 'h4'; }
h4[id]:before { content: 'h4 #'attr(id); }
h5:before { content: 'h5'; }
h5[id]:before { content: 'h5 #'attr(id); }
h6:before { content: 'h6'; }
h6[id]:before { content: 'h6 #'attr(id); }
p:before { content: 'p'; }
p[id]:before { content: 'p #'attr(id); }
ul:before { content: 'ul'; }
ul[id]:before { content: 'ul #'attr(id); }
dl:before { content: 'dl'; }
dl[id]:before { content: 'dl #'attr(id); }
dt:before { content: 'dt'; }
dt[id]:before { content: 'dt #'attr(id); }
dd:before { content: 'dd'; }
dd[id]:before { content: 'dd #'attr(id); }
form:before { content: 'form'; }
form[id]:before { content: 'form #'attr(id); }
label:before { content: 'label'; }
label[id]:before { content: 'label #'attr(id); }
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
[WSG] G* addressing standards
I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest ...but at least they are aware of it. Bruce www.bkdesign.ca Dear Bruce, Thank you for your interest in the UK G8 Presidency website and bringing to our attention that the font size cannot be changed via the browser. This is an accessibility issue that we are aware of and hope to be able to address in the near future. Regards, G8 Presidency Team -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:25 AM To: Feedback Form www.g8.gov.uk Subject: Comment from Bruce Prochnau Just a thought, but myself being a webdesigner focusing on accessability, you have fixed fonts. This means that those who have poor vision, even most older people cannot change the text size from their browser, and have difficuly reading the site, if they can even. Perhaps use small, x-small medium etc? Otherwise great! All the best from Canada ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] How to create a mark-up guide?
And all that Malarkey
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/css_markup_guides.html
has a recent post about how he creates sites with black and white
drawings and adds the div id's etc after the client has approved...
This made me think that I should go back to our re-designed web site
and create a similar sketch.
My first thought was add:
div {border:1px solid #000 !important; margin: 2px !important;}
to the style sheet to show the divs. Then I was wondering if there is
a css2 method to show the id or class within the div?
div {
border:1px solid #000 !important;
margin:1.25em !important;
padding:0.25em !important;
}
div[class]:before {
content: "class=" attr(class);
color:#900;
font-weight:bold;
}
div[id]:after {
content: "id=" attr(id);
color:#090;
font-weight:bold;
}
--
Ben Curtis
WebSciences International
http://www.websciences.org/
v: (310) 478-6648
f: (310) 235-2067
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
RE: [WSG] Slightly OT... Interview with IE Dev team
In response to Kornel and some of the more cynical posters, I would say "keep your faith". There will always be a Microsoft present in our world, whether they come with the moniker "Microsoft", "Sun" or "Oracle". Fortunately, there're other elements to keep things in balance. Opensource is increasingly becoming a stronger force in keeping Microsoft from changing from a "monopoly" to a "dictatorship". We developers are finally learning that "class-action" and "lawsuits" aren't always dirty words. Technical blogs giving the lowdown on IE's shortcomings have been informative to everyone who reads them but so have Larry Rosen's legal work. I admit that if I was thinking of us enlightened developers trying to save the world from MS, I'd be pretty depressed but once I see the efforts of everybody else from all walks of life contributing, I'm heartened. Might seem OT, but I'd say there's a link. E.g.: poor country with no money for MS products -> Opensource software -> Better compliance with standards (web or otherwise) -> more countries like this -> critical mass big enough for MS to take notice. I think the points brought up by the rest re: IE shortcomings have been spelt out well enough. Won't add to it but I've been straddling both the Microsoft and anti-MS world long enough and I'm still hopeful until now :) I've used VS.Net and think it's good enough a first try and the fact that it MAY be XHTML 1.1 compliant in the next iteration is pretty darned amazing. (Alright, so I have low expectations). OK, for most part, this mail has been random rambling but the gist of it is that I'm still optimistic about pushing MS towards compliance EVENTUALLY :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kornel Lesinski Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:59 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Slightly OT... Interview with IE Dev team > Microsoft has been hyping about web-applications more than you'd > imagine, the MSDN Library is full of articles on the subject. 3 of the > included posters in the 2003 edition are about web-applications. They don't think about W3C-standards based applications. They are just using a buzzrword to push .NET apps. > But I'm convinced Microsoft will make IE7 support standards... why? > Because VS 2005 supports the entire XHTML1.1 and CSS2.1 spec They have to support some HTML, XML and CSS anyway, so that's not a problem to add few extra tags. Page you mentioned promotes layout table creator and shows some non-standard code... Microsoft knows that there are web standards. They used W3C to get help on creating technologies they needed, but Microsoft doesn't *gain* anything from supporting other W3C standards. They will support standards when they see cash coming from it, or when someone forces them to do it. How *Microsoft* would benefit from supporting XHTML and CSS2? ... it just doesn't sell. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] XHTML complient in-browser Rich Text Editor.
1) HTMLArea RC3 - pretty darned powerful. suspect support. It's been at RC3 since the stone ages and nothing much since then. I'm also not very sure about the validity of the output code since changing font families will churn out tags by default (didn't try to explore changing this as I moved to FCKEditor by then). Not easy to set up either. 2) FCKEditor - my choice right now. Support is pretty much a single-handed effort by the author but it's one of the most active projects on sourceforge right now. Visually very rich and it's one of the easiest to set up so far. One thing I love is the provision of plug-ins to the variety of server-side technologies like ASP, ASP.net, PHP etc. 3) TinyMCE - a little light on features, good to use if you're just letting users access to the basic stuff. 4) XStandard - commercial-ware so I didn't really evaluate it much. But since it's supposed to be fully XHTML-compliant I guess there's something to be said for that. 5) http://www.intelimen.com.br/lib/editor/index.php - not evaluated yet 6) http://www.snippetmaster.com/index.php - not evaluated yet 7) http://kupu.oscom.org/ - not evaluated yet, from my first look it seemed really basic and slow. 8) http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpwebeditor - not evaluated yet 9) http://walter.sourceforge.net/ - not evaluated yet One thing that you may want to watch out is whether they allow editing of individual table CELL attributes. No, not for more abuse of table-based layouts but it does have its uses sometimes. Wong -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 7:07 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] XHTML complient in-browser Rich Text Editor. Hi Everyone, I am looking for a lean browser based text editor which creates valid XHTML output. Basically I would use a normal text area, but the site I am developing requires the ability to add hyper links, paragraphs, and change the text style. I want something that will automatically run (i.e. I want to avoid having the user manually install something)... I have looked at xstandard (http://www.xstandard.com) and I'm pretty impressed, but I found it to be really slow to load as it might be a bit too rich on functionality for my needs... Just wondered if anyone has any other recommendations for a nice simple RTE??? Cheers, Matt ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] problem with z-index
hiya Jolorence Santos, If your trying to achieve the effect that 21 degrees make, you should take a look that they've used a full body background for both the main and navigation, second, they have used another footer background image to achieve the ending footer. that's what i meant with: "21degrees produced the effect with a graphic while i'm trying to use css positioning to achieve the result." :-) Check it using firefox and rightclick on the maincontent - view background, probably you could get the idea and concept on how they implment the css. :) i did, see above, please. By the way, I've checked their css document and I found no CSS Z-Index thing. of course not -- because they used that graphic. i tried using z-indices to solve the problem i had when using css positioning to achieve the overlap effect. my solution is a mix, sort of: i ended up using my picture as a background image, but still have my contents container independent from the background. no z-indices needed anymore :-) -- Thorsten ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] problem with z-index
Hi, If your trying to achieve the effect that 21 degrees make, you should take a look that they've used a full body background for both the main and navigation, second, they have used another footer background image to achieve the ending footer. Check it using firefox and rightclick on the maincontent - view background, probably you could get the idea and concept on how they implment the css. :) or follow this link: http://www.21degrees.com.au/style/default/img/banner.jpg By the way, I've checked their css document and I found no CSS Z-Index thing. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Aural Pleasure
Hi, Any opinions on going with a voice over approach. Perhaps Quicktime or FLASH. I know, I said the "F" word but the question is related to standards and captioning On Friday, January 7, 2005, at 08:35 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: As far as I'm aware, Emacspeak is the only browser that supports aural stylesheets CK __ "Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do." ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Connditional Comment / @import Problem in IE 5.0.1
Hi all, For quite a while, I've been using my spare time to improve the standards, CSS, usability, and accessibility of one of my projects. In doing so I've also been trying to move away from IE hacks in my CSS in favor of conditional comments, which for the most part has been a fairly seamless process. While making some adjustments to the main template (01) this morning, I noticed IE 5.0.1 would behaving oddly when I added a particular conditional comment. When I included the conditional comment, a rather large gap would appear at the top of the page. At first, I thought something in the IE stylesheet was causing the problem, but after further testing I realized that it was the comment itself that caused the issue, or rather, the comments position in the markup. If I place the comment above the @import (02) of my main stylesheet, everything seems to work fine; however, there is a single selector in the IE specific stylesheet that needs to override a selector in the main stylesheet, so the conditional comment *has* to come after the @import. When I move the comment below the @import, IE 5.0.1 (not 5.5 or 6.0) breaks (03). I can completely remove the CSS from the IE specific stylesheet--saving it as a blank document-- and the problem persists. Furthermore, and this just makes things weirder, if I use a , rather than @import, the problem vanishes. I also tested several other import methods, all of which, produce the same results as the method I originally used. I am using the "hacked", standalone versions of IE 5.0.1 and 5.5 for testing; however, I am aware of the issues with using conditional comments. This particular conditional uses [if IE], so the version of IE *should be* irrelevant. I only mention this to be sure all my conditions are straight, in case there is any question. Has anyone ever experienced something similar to this issue or know of any documentation that might help explain it? Of course, I could just be doing something stupid or overlooking something simple. I'll leave the comment in the "broken" position for now, so y'all can check it out if you like. 01: http://www.iqmax.com/iqmaxcss/ 02: http://www.iqmax.com/downloads/mike/beforeimport.gif 03: http://www.iqmax.com/downloads/mike/afterimport.gif @import method used: Conditional comment used: -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] problem with z-index
my own words: but doesn't suggest any solution. can you? i found a solution myself >>right after<< sending off my request for help... i set the header picture as the background image of my main container and added padding-top based on the height of the image. if anyone comes up with a more elegant solution, please do let me know! -- Thorsten ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] How to create a mark-up guide?
And all that Malarkey
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/css_markup_guides.html
has a recent post about how he creates sites with black and white drawings and
adds the div id's etc after the client has approved...
This made me think that I should go back to our re-designed web site and create
a similar sketch.
My first thought was add:
div {border:1px solid #000 !important; margin: 2px !important;}
to the style sheet to show the divs. Then I was wondering if there is a css2
method to show the id or class within the div?
Wouldn't that make it nice and easy to create the layout diagram for older
sites?
Any suggestions?
Ted
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Aural Pleasure
Chris Kennon wrote: I sure I could find this "Googling" but, a the list is very savvy, I've been much happier with the results. For a current project I'm authoring an aural style sheet. Would someone direct me to a good resource for aural stylesheets, and a freeware screen reader for MAC OS 10.2.8. As far as I'm aware, Emacspeak is the only browser that supports aural stylesheets http://emacspeak.sourceforge.net/ (which is one of the reasons why I never bothered with them in the first place) As for resources, Google's guess is probably the best you're going to get http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aural+stylesheets -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] problem with z-index
hi, i'm working on a design based off of http://www.21degrees.com.au/ and i'm running into problems with overlapping elements. here's my work so far (i coded "for the Fox" at first): html - http://www.thorstenpeh.de/test/devhelp/z-index/ css - http://www.thorstenpeh.de/test/devhelp/z-index/redesign-thpde.css if you compare the two pages, you surely notice that in the original, the white content area is pulled up a bit into the header graphic while in my version it is (apparently) not. my picture with the tree hides the pulled-up content area; if you remove the picture, the effect shows. 21degrees produced the effect with a graphic while i'm trying to use css positioning to achieve the result. i thought: let's throw in some z-indices and off you go, but that didn't work out. my css book here mentions that the hierarchical order in an html page can negate/confuse the z-index stuff, but doesn't suggest any solution. can you? thanks for suggestions, -- Thorsten ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site check [www.stgauderic.net]
Mac running in 9.2 and IE 5.1.4 shows some small bugs. Attaching a screen shot of the problem areas ... specifically the slogan line and separation of menu from header. Hope this helps. <>
[WSG] Aural Pleasure
Hi, I sure I could find this "Googling" but, a the list is very savvy, I've been much happier with the results. For a current project I'm authoring an aural style sheet. Would someone direct me to a good resource for aural stylesheets, and a freeware screen reader for MAC OS 10.2.8. _ "Before giving advice, be sure it's not best directed inward." -CK ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Decision Tree Project
Based upon some recent discussion related to how some content should be marked up (as semantically correct as possible), an idea was bandied around to possibly put together a decision tree. This process flow would start with the intended content and ask questions in an attempt to isolate the proper HTML structure to use in marking up the content. I encourage as many of you as are interested to please join up on the PHPBB forum I created for this on my website at http://www.webcudgel.com/wc-forum/index.php. Discussions will include what types of content will need to be added to this decision tree as well as what formats to use in publication of said tree (whether as a website, PDF, poster, etc.). I hope to get a lot of input as I think this is an easy way of introducing novices to web standards by helping them start with the content they already have and determine how it should be coded. Thanks in advance. _ Charles Martin http://www.webcudgel.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Site check www.stgauderic.net/en/
OK, understood. I'll try to be a lot more specific in future. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: 07 January 2005 11:49 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check www.stgauderic.net/en/ Chris Taylor wrote: > BrowserCam is great, but doesn't give you any help regarding > useability - other pairs of eyes are what is needed. Before trying BrowserCam I also used to post to places like here and CSS-Discuss to get a wider range of browsers/OS tests and recommendations for fixing any CSS issues that cropped up. However if I wanted to get a more general opinion on usability, design etc I'd choose a more general web design list like evolt, rather than one dedicated to CSS/Web standards. > Therefore > a "please check this in Mac/PC/WebTV/whatever" is pretty valid, as far > as I'm concerned. I think when requesting help from any mailing list, it's best to be as specific as possible as it avoids wasting other peoples time. I'm sure quite a few people would have responded telling you that it looks great on xyz browser, only to find that you know that already. Much better to explicitly ask for usability feedback if that was what you wanted. Probably even better to post to a general web dev mailing list or even a usability list. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site check www.stgauderic.net/en/
Chris Taylor wrote: BrowserCam is great, but doesn't give you any help regarding useability - other pairs of eyes are what is needed. Before trying BrowserCam I also used to post to places like here and CSS-Discuss to get a wider range of browsers/OS tests and recommendations for fixing any CSS issues that cropped up. However if I wanted to get a more general opinion on usability, design etc I'd choose a more general web design list like evolt, rather than one dedicated to CSS/Web standards. Therefore a "please check this in Mac/PC/WebTV/whatever" is pretty valid, as far as I'm concerned. I think when requesting help from any mailing list, it's best to be as specific as possible as it avoids wasting other peoples time. I'm sure quite a few people would have responded telling you that it looks great on xyz browser, only to find that you know that already. Much better to explicitly ask for usability feedback if that was what you wanted. Probably even better to post to a general web dev mailing list or even a usability list. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Site check www.stgauderic.net/en/
I agree in part with your first comment. The problem is that a lot of the time (I would guess) most people want a complete test in a browser/platform they don't have access to - useability, standards, validity etc etc. BrowserCam is great, but doesn't give you any help regarding useability - other pairs of eyes are what is needed. Therefore a "please check this in Mac/PC/WebTV/whatever" is pretty valid, as far as I'm concerned. I completely agree with your second point, I'll make sure I do that in future. ta Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Faaberg Sent: 07 January 2005 10:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site check > if people could check this site My response has nothing to do with your's or anybody's specific request but I think folks should specify something wrt web standards that they are requesting evaluation or feedback with/about in their message other than "please check this on your Mac browsers" or "please check this in your PC browsers". Also, it would be cool if folks would provide some parenthetical reference to what website we're talking about since "site check" occurs with great regularity - like "site check www.mywonderfulsite.com" in the email subject. See ya! Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Site check
> if people could check this site My response has nothing to do with your's or anybody's specific request but I think folks should specify something wrt web standards that they are requesting evaluation or feedback with/about in their message other than "please check this on your Mac browsers" or "please check this in your PC browsers". Also, it would be cool if folks would provide some parenthetical reference to what website we're talking about since "site check" occurs with great regularity - like "site check www.mywonderfulsite.com" in the email subject. See ya! Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Site check
Hi, I'd be very grateful if people could check this site, particularly on Mac and Linux platforms. It seems to run OK in FireFox 1, Mozilla 1.7.3, Opera 7.50 and IE 6, and it validates correctly. URL: http://www.stgauderic.net/en/ It will eventually have some textual content, and be available in a variety of languages. More information is available on request on the underlying structure of the site. Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. While I'm here I'd also like to know of a good mailing list regarding database development and coding for websites and web applications - MySQL, SQL Server, Access, XML etc. If anyone knows of one I'd appreciate the info. Thanks Chris Taylor Senior Web Developer Egton.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML complient in-browser Rich Text Editor.
Kupu is a client-side WYSIWYG editor that is written entirely in JavaScript, works on Internet Explorer as well as Mozilla based browsers and can be integrated into any type of webserver. It has a clean, object-oriented codebase and a flexible plugin API. It supports client-side cleanup (e.g. Word markup) and returns well-formed XML (very clean HTML that can be parsed easily on the server). To get a copy or get more information, go to the Kupu website at http://kupu.oscom.org. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
