Short answer: you can't. And, given general browser capabilities when it
comes to scaling/resampling of images, a site that uses a resized
background indiscriminately can't possibly look good at all resolutions.
Probably best to make an image that fades off to whatever colour your
Andrew Krespanis
not adding a 'for' attribute kills half the purpose of
using a label 0_o
Without a for attrib, clicking the label will not affect
(focus/activate) the input element nested within.
Probably worth clarifying that this holds true only for our
good old friend Internet
On 8/2/05, Ben Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good catch. Now we're talking a good excuse for regular expressions.
Instead of my recommendation of:
a[i].getAttribute('href').toUpperCase().indexOf(HTTP://) == 0
...I now recommend:
On 8/2/05, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, K-Meleon all cope just as well with an
implicit label, making it clickable. Not sure about Safari...anybody
care to do a super-quick check?
From what I remember, Safari doesn't support clickable labels at all.
Not so cool. Mental note -
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:32 +0100, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Probably worth clarifying that this holds true only for our
good old friend Internet Explorer. Mozilla, Firefox, Opera,
K-Meleon all cope just as well with an implicit label, making
it clickable. Not sure about Safari...anybody care to do
Hi folks
The following website uses a Javascript function and a target layer to
display a new image every time the page refreshes.
http://www.theleadsgroup.co.uk/
This works fine in IE browsers and in Firefox/Mozilla browsers it seems to
not display the images at all?
Anything I am doing
Derek wrote:
From what I remember, Safari doesn't support clickable labels at all.
Not so cool.
That's right.
Here's a little bit of JavaScript that levels the playing field and
will make labels clickable in any DOM-capable browser:
function focusLabels() {
if
G'day
The following website uses a Javascript function and a target layer to
display a new image every time the page refreshes.
http://www.theleadsgroup.co.uk/
This works fine in IE browsers and in Firefox/Mozilla browsers it seems to
not display the images at all?
Anything I am doing wrong
Hi Ben all @WSG:
On 8/2/05, Ben Logan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following website uses a Javascript function and a target layer to
display a new image every time the page refreshes.
http://www.theleadsgroup.co.uk/
This works fine in IE browsers and in Firefox/Mozilla browsers it seems
(copied to w3c-wai-ig for possible clarification of UAAG)
Derek Featherstone
Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, K-Meleon all cope just as well with an
implicit label, making it clickable. Not sure about Safari...anybody
care to do a super-quick check?
From what I remember, Safari doesn't support
Hey Bert
Thanks for the tip off there!
Will look at your method.
Cheers
Ben
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bert Doorn
Sent: 02 August 2005 10:44
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Firefox JS Image function
G'day
The
Hello everyone,
I would really appreciate your comments about our recently redeveloped
http://www.salmonrecipes.net/ site.
Please do not be scared to be critical. I'm keen to improve the site
in any way possible, so please let me know what you think we could do
better.
FYI, I'm not convinced
Hi David,
I would really appreciate your comments about our recently redeveloped
http://www.salmonrecipes.net/ site.
Please do not be scared to be critical. I'm keen to improve the site
in any way possible, so please let me know what you think we could do
better.
Beautiful site. Um, not
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:46 +0100, David Nicol wrote:
I would really appreciate your comments about our recently redeveloped
http://www.salmonrecipes.net/ site.
Just quickly... wow. I didn't know a site about fish could look so
good :P Except for the flickery monstrosity at the top (banner ad
Prabhath,
Thanks for your thoughts about the Advanced Search - I totally agree
that we need to improve this element. We'll experiment with some
ideas.
Regarding the banner, we will be selling this space again soon. I'm
not sure if it would be sensible to retain a 'veto' on the banner
designs
yes, labels are clickable for system level checkboxes in MacOS X
(10.3.5 at least)
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
On 2 Aug 2005, at 9:54 PM, Patrick Lauke wrote:
+1 from me on that one. I'll email Dave later today (if people can
confirm
that it can be interpreted as a possible UAAG
Beautiful! It's just that the banner ad is rather jarring in its
present location. Anything you can do about that? When I see
salmonrecipes.com with the ad right next to it, it's a bit confusing.
Others have given you just the input I would have given. Obviously you
put a lot of thought
David Nicol wrote:
Hello everyone,
I would really appreciate your comments about our recently redeveloped
http://www.salmonrecipes.net/ site.
David
Nice stuff(I mean Salmon), David. I had to go rather extraordinary means
to find any problem-- if, in fact, some of these browsers are even
On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:54 pm, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Now, as I'm not a Mac person I don't
know if OS X's system wide convention for checkboxes and such (in
things
like OS dialog boxes, for instance) is indeed that you can
click the label to activate/focus.
Oh, yes they are, at least since
Nicely done! I have a quick question for you (or anyone)... what is the purpose of this code?
#content-ctr:after{ display:block; visibility:hidden; content:.; clear:both; height:0; }/* \*/* html #content-ctr{height:1%}/* */
--
Thanks!
Matt Harris
www.focusontheclouds.com
On 8/2/05, David Laakso
Leslie,
Thanks for your input - we are working on the banner ad issue now. The
short term solution is to find a better advert to place on the site -
in the longer term, I think we may find an altogether better way to
use this space.
David (Laakso)
Many thanks for the BrowserCam link - I must
Initial comment, since the site is all about Salmon, probably not worth
repeating it in the navigation buttons:
Cooking Salmon - Cooking
Buy Salmon - Buy
Salmon Resources - Resources
Apart from that, initial look, looks nice. And it being lunch time and all!
Regards
Ed Henderson
Web Man
Matt,
I'm reliably informed by our in-house CSS 'guru' that you'll find your
answer here@
http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html
Hope this makes some sense.
Cheers
David
On 8/2/05, Matt Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicely done! I have a quick question for you (or
Mark Lundquist wrote:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 7:51 PM, Matthew Ohlman wrote:
Jon Trelfa wrote:
[...]
Javascript in a script element is another story, though. There you'll
routinely find '' and '', and those do need to be escaped. But again,
it has nothing to do with hiding the Javascript
Ed
I'm inclined to agree with you about there being no need to duplicate
'salmon' so much.
We did debate this quite a lot in the office, and I suspect we'll
change this next time we do any work on the menu system.
cheers
David
On 8/2/05, Ed Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Initial
Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote:
In light of the Broadleaf discussion/brawl the other week, I have a
new proposal for you. In this case, bandwidth was critical due to the
existing site’s traffic base and formed a major design goal.
http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/
David,
Tidy Online will eliminate all the white space on your file.
The page is dynamically generated, hence all the weird tabbing that steps in
an out. I'll get a server side filter working shortly that does that kind of
stuff.
Why are you using XHTML 1.1?
Why not? Am I missing something
Thanks, David!On 8/2/05, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,I'm reliably informed by our in-house CSS 'guru' that you'll find youranswer here@http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html
Hope this makes some sense.CheersDavid
Lauke Patrick
Mental note 2 -
send something off to Dave Hyatt to find out if this can be/will be
fixed.
+1 from me on that one. I'll email Dave later today (if
people can confirm
that it can be interpreted as a possible UAAG requirement, so
it adds a bit
more clout to the
Hi,
Found this article on styling form elements (http://www.picment.com/
articles/css/funwithforms/), unfortunately, it fails in Safari. Any
suggestions or filters for making a suitable presentation in Safari?
C
**
The discussion list
Hi,
Don't have time to nit-pick, going for Salmon. You've certainly
achieved your marketing goals!
C
On Aug 2, 2005, at 3:46 AM, David Nicol wrote:
Hello everyone,
I would really appreciate your comments about our recently redeveloped
http://www.salmonrecipes.net/ site.
Please do not be
Hi,
I opened a blank CSS document in Dreamweaver, this was inserted at
the beginning:
@charset utf-8;
I get that it's importing the utf-8 character set, is this needed in
the CSS document?
C
**
The discussion list for
Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote:
David,
Tidy Online will eliminate all the white space on your file.
The page is dynamically generated, hence all the weird tabbing that steps in
an out. I'll get a server side filter working shortly that does that kind of
stuff.
Why are you
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:35:34 -0400, David Laakso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
readable, usable, accessible content
Is the page breaking in one of your browsers?
--
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
Leslie Riggs
I opened a blank CSS document in Dreamweaver, this was inserted at
the beginning:
@charset utf-8;
I get that it's importing the utf-8 character set, is this
needed in
the CSS document?
I don't use that; I declare the character encoding in the webpage.
The
Tom Livingston wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:35:34 -0400, David Laakso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
readable, usable, accessible content
Is the page breaking in one of your browsers?
No, this page
http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/Dashboard/Default.ashx is not
breaking in any of my
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:36:39 -0400, David Laakso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, this page
http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/Dashboard/Default.ashx is not
breaking in any of my browsers.
Regards,
David Laakso
So, XHTML 1.1 is bad because?
--
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Hi again everyone,
Thanks for your continued positive comments. FYI, we have changed the
banner ad to something more in-keeping with the rest of the site. Hope
you like it.
Felix ... thanks for the many links. I'll look at them all, and willl
discuss the matters in question with the team here.
Hi,
When is the at rule needed, other than @import, I understand. But
@page @media @charset. I've never seen them used in practical settings?
C
On Aug 2, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Leslie Riggs
I opened a blank CSS document in Dreamweaver, this was inserted at
the
I have been looking at methods to produce dot leaders, and many seem to
use tables to do it. Others seem to have classitis. I have knocked up a
method using a dashed background gif in a list item, whilst trying to
keep the code to a minimum.
It seems to work OK in FF, IE5.5 and 6, Opera 8,
Tom Livingston wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:36:39 -0400, David Laakso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No, this page
http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/Dashboard/Default.ashx is not
breaking in any of my browsers.
Regards,
David Laakso
So, XHTML 1.1 is bad because?
Hi Tom,
Tatham has
Hello. my first post.
[C wrote]:
When is the at rule needed, other than @import, I understand. But
@page @media @charset. I've never seen them used in practical settings?
@page isn't supported by many browsers, and annulled in CSS2.1.
@media isn't, too. Because most people use external CSS
On Aug 2, 2005, at 1:45 AM, Andrew Krespanis wrote:
On 8/2/05, Ben Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good catch. Now we're talking a good excuse for regular expressions.
Instead of my recommendation of:
a[i].getAttribute('href').toUpperCase().indexOf(HTTP://) == 0
...I now recommend:
At 11:13 AM 8/2/2005, designer wrote:
I have been looking at methods to produce dot leaders, and many seem to
use tables to do it. Others seem to have classitis. I have knocked up a
method using a dashed background gif in a list item, whilst trying to keep
the code to a minimum.
...
I'd be
Hello list,
Two things if you can spare a moment or two.
http://www.mlinc.com/test/trans_test_intra.html
1. Are the embedded styles here at all wacky? In Opera Mac, resizing the
page causes the text links to jump around...
2. If the CSS is ok, does anyone know, in FF Mac (1.0.5) and Opera
Tom Livingston wrote:
Hello list,
Two things if you can spare a moment or two.
http://www.mlinc.com/test/trans_test_intra.html
1. Are the embedded styles here at all wacky? In Opera Mac, resizing
the page causes the text links to jump around...
2. If the CSS is ok, does anyone know, in FF
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:12:52 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Livingston wrote:
Hello list,
drop down menu in ff 1.0.6 w2k sp4 works, but resize to 800x600 using
dev tool bar and it doesn't.
hth,
dwain
David,
only errors left involve the embed tags and I don't know how to make
Ben Curtis wrote:
But, honestly -- fractions of a millisecond. The only concerns I have
for the equation are:
1- if it's unobtrusively applied, then is it bullet proof (that is,
can it give a false positive a non-scriptor will have to contend
with)?
2- is it easy to read, understand, and
Tom Livingston wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:12:52 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Livingston wrote:
Hello list,
drop down menu in ff 1.0.6 w2k sp4 works, but resize to 800x600 using
dev tool bar and it doesn't.
hth,
dwain
David,
only errors left involve the embed tags and I
Jim Allan wrote:
UAAG does not require explicit or implicit labeling of form controls. Nor
does the HTML 4.01 specification [1].
And we're not disputing that, as it's squarely a WCAG issue at that point.
UAAG requires that the user agent:
1) provide a content focus for enabled
From: Tom Livingston
So, XHTML 1.1 is bad because?
Is there an issue that XHTML 1.1 should be served as media type
application/xhtml+xml and should not be served as text/html?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
As I understand it current browsers aren't well equipped to deal
with
Thanks for clearing that up Ben!
Always glad to be told I'm wrong if I can walk away from it having
learnt something ;)
Cheers,
Andrew.
On 8/3/05, Ben Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is outdated information, apparently. I had heard the same, and
was curious if things had changed since
David,
One of the main advantages of XHTML for us is that we can use XML storage
for the CMS, and just plug this straight into the page. The whole thing is
XML. :-)
Thanks,
Tatham Oddie
Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea
www.fueladvance.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is what you're looking for:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/
Tom Livingston wrote:
only errors left involve the embed tags and I don't know how to make
the Validator happy with it.
djn
--
Dejan Kozina
Dolina 346 (TS) - I-34018 Italy
tel./fax: +39 040 228 436 - cell.:
Chris Kennon wrote:
Found this article on styling form elements
(http://www.picment.com/ articles/css/funwithforms/),
unfortunately, it fails in Safari. Any suggestions or filters for
making a suitable presentation in Safari?
Chris,
Styling forms can be an exercise in frustration. 456 Berea
55 matches
Mail list logo
