RE: [WSG] validation logos - kitemarks?
An old chestnut. Standards badging is largely irrelevant to the client as they have no knowledge of or likely interest in the delivery mechanisms and markup/coding involved in development of a web presence. Neither too has the general public. That's point 1: fair ignorance of development. Since CSS, DTD markup compliance or WAI accessibility level badges are simply markers to recommendations and not Kite marks (like Corgi for British gas fitters, a recognised accreditation) they have no bearing on accountability or fitness for purpose, and their adoption is, at best, an indication that developers and, possibly, clients recognise best practice in the industry. That's point 2: no accountability in law or to a peer group. Where badging does kick in and I believe justifiably so is with inter-industry peer pressure and as a prompt for unclued wannabe developers to investigate further. A couple of years ago I had no idea what web standards or accessibility were about; I now know better. Part of the trigger was the use of badges on certain sites I happened upon. To the initiated, badges are often looked upon with smug derision; we don't need 'em cuz we're cool. Ivory tower syndrome. Don't get smug. I badge because I want fledgling developers to ask questions of and be a party to standards development. These are the guys we need to have commit to standards-compliant accessible development, as we do their tutors in educational establishments. A top down approach to development, a commitment by governments to sanction businesses who do not take 'reasonable efforts' to ensure their sites are accessible is a welcome - though largely toothless - effort towards recognising a moral requirement toward the rights of impaired web users. But until these sanctions are imposed with a fervour, which they won't because of the legal minefield involved when challenging *recommendations* not development *standards* (and the woolliness of the legislation), it's necessary to adopt a bottom up, critical mass approach. Until we, as an industry, are accredited with an internationally recognised set of development standards, which will mean formal exams toward formal qualifications, the best we can expect is to have wannabe developers look to us for guidance. That can start with a couple of badges on a site. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.visidigm.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.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] validation logos - kitemarks?
Hi all, I think that basically we all agree in principle. However, to take a couple of points: [1] Patrick's : It's a bit like plastering a nice big sticker on a new building saying built with bob's special concrete mix. As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers do not need to know this sort of stuff...they couldn't care less. Is that true? I would have thought that any responsible client of the builder would like to know that building regs were adhered to. (i.e., 'standards' are our 'building regulations' :-) Surely? Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard. Absolutely! Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance? Yep! There's the rub! [2] Kim: Maybe the stickers wont mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That way the stickers could turn into a kind off quality stamp in the long run. My (new) feelings exactly. [3] Kornel: I like that idea... So who (which one of us) is going to do it then? :-) [4] Mike: A nice summary, thank you. Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] absolute positioning
Its part of the spec I believe. An element is absolutly positioned within it's containing element ( which I think has to be block level for obvious reasons ). A basic example is that a single absolutly positioned element ( say a div#example ) within the body tag is positioned to the body tag which makes up the entire viewport - or window. Now wraping an extra div ( say div#example_wrap ) around the divi#example element the divi#example will then position itself to the coordinates within the div#example_wrap ( the containing element i.e. div#example_wrap in this case must have a relative or absolute position itself for it work in most browsers - just like Johnno said ). Relative positioning is a different ballgame. On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:50:16 +1100, Johnno Shadbolt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If an element (your image) is positioned with absolute, inside another element (a div) that is positioned with relative (it is easy to make divs center-align), it should follow the absolute positioning, but still be in the div. ** 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 **
[WSG] Web Standads Skyscraper - Anyone knows how to?
Hi, I am developing some different advertising and would like to know, how can i create a slide layer that appears on righr side of browser, only when the screen resolution is more than 1024x768 pixels. My layer should be 150 px x 600 and will be layered at right side of the page. Can anyone help me how can i, make this using WebStandards and some Javascript? thanks for help, Genau L. Jr Webdesigner/MEdia Developer www.meucarronovo.com.br/quemsomos.php ** 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] absolute positioning
Just give the element which you want to position the other element
relative to a poistion of relative and then give the inner elemennt a
position of absolute and specify toop,right etc...
example:
div#container {position:relative;}
div#container img.example {position: absolute; top:0; right:0;}
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:51:03 +, Dave O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its part of the spec I believe. An element is absolutly positioned
within it's containing element ( which I think has to be block level
for obvious reasons ). A basic example is that a single absolutly
positioned element ( say a div#example ) within the body tag is
positioned to the body tag which makes up the entire viewport - or
window.
Now wraping an extra div ( say div#example_wrap ) around the
divi#example element the divi#example will then position itself to the
coordinates within the div#example_wrap ( the containing element i.e.
div#example_wrap in this case must have a relative or absolute
position itself for it work in most browsers - just like Johnno said
).
Relative positioning is a different ballgame.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:50:16 +1100, Johnno Shadbolt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If an element (your image) is positioned with absolute, inside another
element (a div) that is positioned with relative (it is easy to make
divs center-align), it should follow the absolute positioning, but
still be in the div.
**
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
**
**
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] To display or not to display validation logos?
Has anyone written anything like this we could use? Also, excuse my slight ignorance here, but just because a page validates as XHTML and CSS compatible, does that make it accessible? Obviously it helps, but there is more to accessibility than that isn't there. I also use tables in my pages in a couple of places, for the main navigation links and for the 2 column layout of the main content area. Thanks, Stephen - Original Message - From: Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] To display or not to display validation logos? Perhaps we need a simple page to link to, explaining what standards are for,in terms that the non-tech viewer can appreciate? I like that idea... -- regards, Kornel Lesiski -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.306 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 25/02/2005 ** 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] To display or not to display validation logos?
No, Stephen, a standards-compliant site does not mean an accessible site -- but it goes a long way towards it. Accessibility has it own set of recommendations which sit atop those of pure compliant build, although building to standards often illustrates the developer's mindset: doing the job right :o) Cheers, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stevio Sent: 26 February 2005 14:00 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] To display or not to display validation logos? Has anyone written anything like this we could use? Also, excuse my slight ignorance here, but just because a page validates as XHTML and CSS compatible, does that make it accessible? Obviously it helps, but there is more to accessibility than that isn't there. I also use tables in my pages in a couple of places, for the main navigation links and for the 2 column layout of the main content area. Thanks, Stephen ** 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] To display or not to display validation logos?
Steven wrote: Also, excuse my slight ignorance here, but just because a page validates as XHTML and CSS compatible, does that make it accessible? True. It doesn't even necessarily mean that it's semantically correct, as there tends to be a trend in pages that just consist of a load of divs rather than appropriate elements such as paragraphs, lists, headings, etc. Standards compliance means more than just ensuring that web pages validate. Consider the number of people who add ECMAScript to their pages to add invalid attributes to the DOM, just so that it validates, and the author can continue to use features not included in the DOCTYPE. Best regards, Gez _ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.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] Attribute Values
Question: What's more in-spec: div id=hello/div Or div id='hello'/div Ciao ** 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] Attribute Values
What's more in-spec: div id=hello/div Or div id='hello'/div Both versions are acceptable, although the de-facto standard is to use double-quotes. Best regards, Gez _ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.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] Attribute Values
What's more in-spec: div id=hello/div Or div id='hello'/div http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.2 quote By default, SGML requires that all attribute values be delimited using either double quotation marks (ASCII decimal 34) or single quotation marks (ASCII decimal 39). Single quote marks can be included within the attribute value when the value is delimited by double quote marks, and vice versa. /quote So, both are theoretically acceptable. 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] Attribute Values
What's more in-spec: When talking about XHTML, it adheres to XML wellformness - so it's defined really simple: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-AttValue -- both are equivalent and thus sholud be supported in the same way. (I'd porsonally use double quotes to have it more compatible if there was a problem with older browsers) -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: alphanumeric.cz | janbrasna.com Stop IE! - http://www.stopie.com/ | http://browsehappy.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] Attribute Values
Jan Brasna wrote: What's more in-spec: When talking about XHTML, it adheres to XML wellformness - so it's defined really simple: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-AttValue -- both are equivalent and thus sholud be supported in the same way. (I'd porsonally use double quotes to have it more compatible if there was a problem with older browsers) Oh... great. I just chastised someone on a HTML Help forum for using single-quotes to delimit attributes. D'oh! -- -David R ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
