Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
It is also much easier to inform our visitors how they can fix
things at their end, if it actually works.
If you forgive the tongue in cheek tone:
Patrick,
no problem. Could have been me if English was my first language.
I might have added some
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
It is also much easier to inform our visitors how they can fix things at
their end, if it actually works.
If you forgive the tongue in cheek tone:
"Dear user, does the text on this page seem too big? Although most other
sites you may visit on a regular basis have text that is
Not sure if this is on-topic, but I've taken Russ's job and asked Dean
Edwards (of IE7 and WHATWG fame) a few questions regarding IE7, his
WaSP status, and general web speak. You can see it at
dantecubed.com/publications/dean-edwards-interview/.
--
Dante
dantecubed.com: Web Design, Development & m
On Fri, 20 May 2005 16:25:30 -0400, The Man With His Guide Dog At The Tent
Store <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am not sure if the following is off topic. I can not see why
http://infoforce-services.com/guidedog/index.htm scrolls fine in Firefox
1.013 and Not in IE6. Also I am not sure what is
This tangent has gotten quite interesting and turned out to be very
informative indeed
here is a basic prototype of a site I am making, still early doors yet
http://s107442706.websitehome.co.uk/kos5/flash/
I am using flashObject to place the swf in the page. users with a
version of flash les
Tom Livingston wrote:
I guess where I am going with this is that, IMO, no one here is
wrong. The _vast_ majority of users are going to see the site as
intended, and those who are not happy with the text size have the
ability to change it to suit them. If a user needs larger type due to
low visi
Hello again:
There is really a standard-problem: Your
meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
says that the page is saved as UTF-8 but the page is saved in ASCII.
Looking the source with FireFox 1.0 shows a lot of funny symbols, you
have a lot of Hex-code FFFD inside.
Best Regards
Juergen Auer
http
Juergen Auer wrote:
Search
Raising a Guide Dog Puppy
Before there is a missing quotation mark (it's not there, this is the
problem).
There's also about a hundred other validation issues with that markup.
This may require quite a bit of work to fix completely.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
On 5/20/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the
> > default size of the text displayed in their browser?
>
> I'm at a loss to think of any reason how an answer to this might be
> relevant to choosing whether to respect vis
On May 19, 2005, at 6:12 PM, russ - maxdesign wrote:
The font size discussion is interesting and relevant.
I found this while reading about styling forms:
From usability.com.au:
"Also, many users find the default font size on Websites is often too
small for comfortable reading. This only becomes a
On 20 May 2005 at 13:25, The Man With His Guide Dog At wrote:
>I can not see why
> http://infoforce-services.com/guidedog/index.htm scrolls fine in Firefox
> 1.013 and Not in IE6.
Hello,
FireFox shows links, so there must be an error with the html-
elements.
Search
Raising a Guide Dog
I am not sure if the following is off topic. I can not see why
http://infoforce-services.com/guidedog/index.htm scrolls fine in Firefox
1.013 and Not in IE6. Also I am not sure what is controlling my list color.
Any help is appreciated? And any comnments are welcome.
Angus MacKinnon
MacKinn
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Felix Miata wrote:
> > Outside web development discussion groups, the people over 40 I've
> > personally come in contact with are almost unanimous in complaining most
> > web sites have text that is too small,
> And from that sample, how many of those users know how
Definition lists are the new black.
I love them to death and they make me look thinner. Or something like that.
You can use a definition list with one term and one definition. I've used
them for photos with captions or galleries with multiple image/title
combinations that float next to each other
I dont think a list has to mean multiple entities...
I think one item on the list is perfectly fine.
Although I havn't checked the DTD - because maybe it requires two or more.
but AFAIK - it only requires ONE or more list title and definition...
:)
Peter Costello wrote:
Quick question about DLs
I w
Quick question about DLs
I want to use a definition list to mark up particular items throughout a page.
Definition Title
> Definition Data
I guess my question is, is it semantically ok to use a definition list
when the list has only one item (which technically is not a list)?
However, even thoug
I can't see what the point is. The W3C has no control over Java or
many other technologies that are proprietry or closed, but that does
not stop them from becoming or meeting W3C standards or compliance.
The original question asked why the W3C hadn't written a spec for
Flash. My answer still st
Patrick Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering
True, but that does mean that the W3C is in a position to release
a spec for the *format*.
I can't see what the point is. The W3C has no control over
Java or many
other technologies that are proprietry or closed, but that
does not stop
them fro
> Geoff Deering
> >True, but that does mean that the W3C is in a position to release
> >a spec for the *format*.
>
> I can't see what the point is. The W3C has no control over
> Java or many
> other technologies that are proprietry or closed, but that
> does not stop
> them from becoming or
Patrick Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering
It's actually the other way around, companies and organisation
developing technologies are encourage to develop them
according to W3C
recommendations.
That still does not detract from the fact that the Flash format
is not a W3C technology.
The U
Prabhath Sirisena wrote:
Until Flash becomes an open specification, we'll have the song and
dance. Making it an open spec won't happen because Adobe won't really
benifit from the deal.
Prabhath
http://nidahas.com
I don't think it has to be an open specification at all. It can remain
closed and
> Depends on the definition of "open specification", I guess.
Exactly. I was using the term "open" as in Free and Open Source.
And as you mentioned, Flash satay is as close as you can get to
keeping the code clean - sticking to the object tag and relying on the
cascade.
Prabhath
http://nidahas.
> Prabhath Sirisena
> Until Flash becomes an open specification, we'll have the song and
> dance. Making it an open spec won't happen because Adobe won't really
> benifit from the deal.
Depends on the definition of "open specification", I guess. Macromedia
have released the format spec publicly u
> designer
> Putting it at the simplest level, I think the question is:
> "given that Flash
> can be a powerful tool, and that it is sufficiently
> liked/desired to be
> given serious consideration, why do we have this song and dance to
> incorporate it into otherwise valid/compliant documents?
> Geoff Deering
> It's actually the other way around, companies and organisation
> developing technologies are encourage to develop them
> according to W3C
> recommendations.
That still does not detract from the fact that the Flash format
is not a W3C technology.
> The UAAG applies to Flash.
> Putting it at the simplest level, I think the question is: "given that Flash
> can be a powerful tool, and that it is sufficiently liked/desired to be
> given serious consideration, why do we have this song and dance to
> incorporate it into otherwise valid/compliant documents?
Until Flash becom
Surely, the point we are at with Flash is analogous to the early days of the
web, when you couldn't even put a picture in your document. You could only
have text. As time went on, it became desirable to include 'pictures' and
so the web (html) developed a stage further.
Putting it at the simples
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
And now I just realised that the original question was not about
accessibility, but about specifications in general (such as the
XHTML/CSS/etc ones). In which case, even more of a reason why the W3C
can't release a spec for Flash: it's not their technology. They can't
re
> Is flashObject the best method for encorperating flash into pages?
> as aposed to others plain mark up (object / embed), flash Satay, or sIFR
>
I think sIFR should be left out of this because it's goal is
different. You can't have general flash content with sIFR - it's for
typographical enh
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So.
On 5/19/05, Andy Budd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nancy Johnson wrote:
Is it true that the W3C has not done a spec for Flash? If that is so
why?
Because Flash is a proprietary product!
So, the W3C is the web's standards body, and they only defi
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
So, the W3C is the web's standards body, and they only define guidelines
for making official W3C technologies accessible.
And now I just realised that the original question was not about
accessibility, but about specifications in general (such as the
XHTML/CSS/etc ones).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So.
On 5/19/05, Andy Budd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nancy Johnson wrote:
Is it true that the W3C has not done a spec for Flash? If that is so
why?
Because Flash is a proprietary product!
So, the W3C is the web's standards body, and they only define guidelines
for making
32 matches
Mail list logo
