Re: [WSG] Web standards presentation

[Mike Brown]

Jan Brasna wrote:

Mike, this is awesome, I love the notes! ;)
Who was the target audience, please?



Thanks!

The audience was managers of websites, people who commission websites. 
Especially in the government sector. It wasn't designed as a "hands-on" 
presentation, but more as an introduction to web standards, why they are 
important, and what I think they encompass.


And yes, feel free to link to it.

Mike

**
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] Web standards presentation

[Thierry Koblentz]

Mike Brown wrote:
> if anyone is interested, I did a presentation on web standards last
> week and have put it online:
> http://govis.signify.co.nz

That's great.
Can we post that link to various NGs?

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.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 - lastminute.com

[Thierry Koblentz]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> Getting off topic (so perhaps email me back off list) but: which
> browsers exactly?

I'll reply here since it is to correct something I've previously said on the
list:
Now I've checked, I didn't find any beside NN6 (although NN4 offers the
option).
So that's the best proof you guys should include "print links" in your
documents, at least do it for people like me...
LOL

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.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 - lastminute.com

[Jan Brasna]

IMHO it's still on-topic - AFAIK all modern browsers can do print 
preview. IE4+, Gecko, Safari, Opera...


--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Web standards presentation

[Jan Brasna]

Mike, this is awesome, I love the notes! ;)
Who was the target audience, please?

--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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 - lastminute.com

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:


I was talking about the user, not the designer. Most browsers do not offer a
"Print Preview" option


Getting off topic (so perhaps email me back off list) but: which 
browsers exactly?


--
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] Web standards presentation

[Mike Brown]

if anyone is interested, I did a presentation on web standards last week 
and have put it online:

http://govis.signify.co.nz

I hate to do the "best viewed in" thing :), but it's best viewed in 
Mozilla/Firefox in fullscreen mode. It uses Eric Meyer's S5 presentation 
thingie.


If you print out, or look in print preview, there's speaking notes for 
each slide.


It takes a slightly different tack to other arguments I've seen for web 
standards and even has a Pulp Fiction theme :)


Mike

**
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 - lastminute.com

[Thierry Koblentz]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> unecessary drain their print cartgridge.

INK *cartridge*!

I'll let you guess. 
1. English is not my native language
2. I'm a kindergarten dropout 
;-)

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.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 - lastminute.com

[Thierry Koblentz]

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
>> In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print.

> There is a way: 'testing', but I agree on that browsers don't do their
> print-job the same way. Think Gecko is worst on print-jobs at the
> moment.

Hi Georg,
I was talking about the user, not the designer. Most browsers do not offer a
"Print Preview" option, so many people are reluctant to print a page not
knowing what they'll get. For example, many would not try to print a page
thinking that a colorfull banner, sidebar or footer (elements not related to
the content they are interested in) would unecessary drain their print
cartgridge.

> - Don't know about the "new window - preview" though. Not my "thing".

It does not have to be a new window, but at least it shows them what they'd
get on paper.

> - Providing available alternatives in clear view, may ease access for
> many.

> - How best to do that, may be the next question.

I think the first link in a document (before the skipnav even) could be
attached to an "accessibility" page. Such page would address user's
preferences (text-size, contrast) a list of accesskeys (I know this one is
tricky), the CSS signature for the site and much more. I believe that would
help any user to know right away if the content of the site will be
"accessible" for them, regarding their own "issues" (whatever they are).
There are many sites out there offering more or less the same content, it
would be less frustration for the user if he/she could find out right away
if the site he/she is about to visit implemented any steps to facilitate
their navigation of choice, reading (contrast, text-size), etc.
I just think it is a waste of time and a lot of frustration for people to
have to "discover" how much a site is accessible for them when it is so easy
for a designer to make that information available to them early in their
visit.

> How far off from the original thread are we now?

Make sure to change the subject line in your next post
;-)

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.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] CSS Hack?

[Rowan Lewis]

Nice find!

I've tested (using your test page) on my copy of Internet Explorer:

First: blue (not effected)
Secont: red (effected)
Thrid: black (not effected)

Hope that helps you.

On 5/22/05, Gunlaug Sørtun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cb2 Web Design wrote:
> > It is a "empty comment hack": html/**/body selector, that seems to be
> >  applied only by I.E. 6.x
> 
> > http://www.cb2web.com/tut_csshack.shtml
> 
> Haven't seen that variant in the wild yet.
> 
> My general response to this, and any hack, is in the headlines and
> start-paragraphs on this page:
> 
> 
> If you need that hack; test and document it well, and use it. I can't
> really see the need for another IE6 hack. MSIE "conditional comments"
> are reliable -- other hacks are not.
> 
> regards
> Georg
> --
> http://www.gunlaug.no
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 


-- 

Rowan Lewis (AKA. The Wolf)
**
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 - lastminute.com

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:


In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print.

...
There is a way: 'testing', but I agree on that browsers don't do their
print-job the same way. Think Gecko is worst on print-jobs at the
moment. We also have no idea about print-setups around, since printers
and software are an endless set of variables.

- Don't know about the "new window - preview" though. Not my "thing".

As long as all browsers do not give "easy access" to text-resizing 
options, I believe we should offer these "text-resize widget" on 
every page. Do not forget that users may access the Internet with 
browsers they are not familiar with.

...
We may make it unnecessary for browsers to provide "easy access" at all,
but I guess it is acceptable (kind of) as long as it is only an option.

The way I see this is that the user should not have to guess about 
printing or think about how to make the document more legible.


"Don't make me think" comes to mind...

Ok, I see this along the same lines as to 'not rely on
language-negotiation' for multilingual sites (Norwegian looking for
Spanish text, using a browser in Moscow).

- Providing available alternatives in clear view, may ease access for many.
- How best to do that, may be the next question.

I still think the 'less than a few hundred alternative ways' in
browsers, are better than the 'at least a few million alternative ways'
on sites. If browser-makers can't agree on how to do it, then I'm not
sure we can either. I may be wrong though.

Also, some of the ways these options can/must be implemented, are far
from reliable across browser-land with all the optional browser-settings
available. Someone may recognize a "borrowed" browser, but its owner's
preferred settings may make it into a completely different animal which
may even render all our nice options totally useless.

How far off from the original thread are we now?

Life on the web sure can be fun at times... :-)

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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 - lastminute.com

[Thierry Koblentz]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Very true, and I for one am (paradoxically, perhaps) always the first
> to complain when some quarters suggest things like "let's put a print
> button or a text resize widget right on the page, because users may be
> too uneducated to know how to do it themselves". However, as I said,

In most browsers, there is no way to know how the page would print. So I
believe a "printer friendly page" button/link is great info for the user.
Usually, I create such link to open the document in a new window so it acts
more like a "print-preview" link from which the user can use the regular
browser print button.

Re: text-resizing I think it is the same idea. As long as all browsers do
not give "easy access" to text-resizing options, I believe we should offer
these "text-resize widget" on every page. Do not forget that users may
access the Internet with browsers they are not familiar with. So the user
who is "borrowing" a computer that does not have a "familiar browser"
installed would have to "waste" time finding out how to change the user's
settings in a browser he/she has never seen before. And who wants to mess
with someone else's settings/preferences?
;-)

The way I see this is that the user should not have to guess about printing
or think about how to make the document more legible.

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.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] CSS Hack?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Cb2 Web Design wrote:

It is a "empty comment hack": html/**/body selector, that seems to be
 applied only by I.E. 6.x



http://www.cb2web.com/tut_csshack.shtml


Haven't seen that variant in the wild yet.

My general response to this, and any hack, is in the headlines and
start-paragraphs on this page:


If you need that hack; test and document it well, and use it. I can't
really see the need for another IE6 hack. MSIE "conditional comments"
are reliable -- other hacks are not.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] CSS Hack?

[Cb2 Web Design]

I may have "crashed" into another I.E. CSS bug that I have used to provide
this browser with a particular rule that will not be applied by, for
instance, Firefox or Opera.

It is a "empty comment hack": html/**/body selector, that seems to be
applied only by I.E. 6.x

So far I haven't found it documented, maybe I haven't checked enough.
Furthermore, my testing browsers are limited to a few running under Windows
XP Pro. Can you please take a look and provide me some additional results,
or if it is already documented, if possible, so that I can see if it fits my
needs?

Testing page available at:

http://www.cb2web.com/tut_csshack.shtml

Thank you in advance.

Carlos Simoes

**
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 - lastminute.com

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:


As long as user-ignorance is used as an excuse for not doing a proper
job at our end, then even this web design community will fail and end up
preserving ignorance among ourself *and* the users.


Very true, and I for one am (paradoxically, perhaps) always the first to 
complain when some quarters suggest things like "let's put a print 
button or a text resize widget right on the page, because users may be 
too uneducated to know how to do it themselves". However, as I said, 
it's a gradual process. As more and more high profile sites adopt the 
correct way, we'll have to live with a compromise, but nonetheless be 
prepared to work to good practice once it's more commonly established.



I don't see a problem with small fonts. I _do_ see a problem with _any_
font-size when it is combined with unprepared design-methods.

When I, as a user, visit a page with font-size set at around 9px, then I
don't see any problems and probably won't notice, as long as the page
can take my minimum font size of 12px (or whatever). However, if I _have
to switch_ to an alternative stylesheet on that page for it to work,
then I might say a few words that I won't repeat in public -- not even
in Norwegian.


Sure thing. I wasn't advocating using fixed font sizes and such, but 
(for the time being) breaking the "no font size should be set smaller 
than 1em / 100%".



So my point is that as long as a page/site is working reasonably well
with available and what should among web designers be well known
browser-options, then anyone may add as many options and stylesheets and
whatever else they like, to solve problems in a (hopefully short)
transitional period.


My thoughts exactly. Good stuff :)

--
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
**