RE: [WSG] Converting the heathen: never again

[Glen Wallis]

Any business owner with half a brain would march that person straight out
the door. 

Not only would I forward the offending email to management with a polite
assurance that I had not YET made the companies name public, but I would
follow it up with all the messages of outrage and disgust that this post has
aroused.


**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Al Sparber]

SunUp wrote:

Hi folks,



My own fault, I asked for it, obviously.
I will now be a "good little backyard hobbyist web-designer" as they
called me (actually, it's my day job too), and never mention 
standards

again.



I don't think you need to go back to 10th grade, but - for your own 
sake - you might want to read Genesis 4:9 :-)


--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that 
repairs

are scheduled for next Tuesday".




**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Geoff Deering]

Lea de Groot wrote:



On 27/02/2006, at 4:08 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote:


Not to mention the fact that the people who implemented those
bohemoths can't always separate standards advice from personal
vilification - no matter how polite, rational, independently
verfiable...



I think its important to understand that, for a lot of people who  
actually work on a site, when you say "your site doesn't validate/   
isn't accessible/ doesn't work in my browser" what they hear is "your  
skills are no good / you don't know how to do your job/ say goodbye  
to that next payrise"
It takes incredible tact to tell people what a problem is without  
making it feel to them like a personal attack - and I don't know  
about you, but I'm a geek; tact isn't on my strong list :)


I'm not saying "don't confront" - no way! But I am saying that if you  
can't reach the right audience (the people who sign off on the bills,  
quite often, not the developer) then don't be surprised when they act  
like you have hit them in the face with a wet fish.


Actually, Sunny, have you thought about maybe you hit a home run and  
got all the guy's hot buttons?
Maybe (s)he knew all those things were a problem and couldn't bear  
them being brought up by (cough, splutter) a *customer*



Lea
~ although I still can't believe the gall of a response like that:  
'your problems with our site are your own problem.' Amazing! Can you  
imagine going into a supermarket and, upon asking for help finding  
the eggs, being told that the supermarket layout is your problem;  
find them yourself? 



There are so many ins and outs to this.  Basically, even if you have a 
very good client interface protocol, and you are not finding fault with 
their work, even when they are working with you and you are refining 
their design, everyone has so much *personal* investment in their 
design, it's very hard to be constantly presenting the business case for 
why you are doing what you are doing.


I find myself constantly inheriting the hidden web wannabe in projects 
lately.  They are not there during the initial discussion and signoff 
with the client, but somehow the client manages to bring them on board, 
and they seem to live in a world of complete creative freedom where 
there are no basic engineering principles to adhere too (accessibility, 
standards, usability, topography, etc).


What makes it worse, is that when you have to cover the basics in this 
area they want a private 24/7 mentoring relationship, or the whole thing 
transmitted to them in a day or two, when it takes ages of practice and 
study to get to this level, and when you say there are undergraduate and 
post graduate degrees on these topics, and they are so large it takes 
lots of dedicated time to understand, they are left highly offended.


Oh, and just as a pointer on supermarket design, there are many 
deliberately seemingly irrational locations of items in a supermarket so 
that it does not aid the user to easily find what they want, so that 
they have to walk past many other items, which they may not usually walk 
past, in the hope that they will purchase more items just buy the 
distance walked and items browsed.  That is why milk, which is one of 
the most commonly purchased items is in a shelf usually the most further 
from the checkout.


Regards
Geoff
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Lea de Groot]

On 27/02/2006, at 4:08 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote:


Not to mention the fact that the people who implemented those
bohemoths can't always separate standards advice from personal
vilification - no matter how polite, rational, independently
verfiable...


I think its important to understand that, for a lot of people who  
actually work on a site, when you say "your site doesn't validate/   
isn't accessible/ doesn't work in my browser" what they hear is "your  
skills are no good / you don't know how to do your job/ say goodbye  
to that next payrise"
It takes incredible tact to tell people what a problem is without  
making it feel to them like a personal attack - and I don't know  
about you, but I'm a geek; tact isn't on my strong list :)


I'm not saying "don't confront" - no way! But I am saying that if you  
can't reach the right audience (the people who sign off on the bills,  
quite often, not the developer) then don't be surprised when they act  
like you have hit them in the face with a wet fish.


Actually, Sunny, have you thought about maybe you hit a home run and  
got all the guy's hot buttons?
Maybe (s)he knew all those things were a problem and couldn't bear  
them being brought up by (cough, splutter) a *customer*



Lea
~ although I still can't believe the gall of a response like that:  
'your problems with our site are your own problem.' Amazing! Can you  
imagine going into a supermarket and, upon asking for help finding  
the eggs, being told that the supermarket layout is your problem;  
find them yourself? 

--
Lea de Groot
Brisbane, Australia
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Ben Buchanan]

> >I think you have come across a key lesson for the standards community:
> >techies know about standards, they are not ignorant, they just have
> >their own reasons (however lame) for not following them.

...which is why they can be a tough group to pitch to. They can be far
more set in their ways than management.

There are plenty of ignorant techies though, they're not all aware of standards.

> I also think there are a lot of people who work in big organisations,
> companies and even universities, that know that to raise these issues is
> to put their job on the line.  Some developers who have a good
[snip]

Even if you aren't at risk of losing your job, you can certainly make
yourself unpopular if you speak the truth about tag soup/inaccessible
systems. Particularly big, expensive enterprise applications which
cost millions.

Not to mention the fact that the people who implemented those
bohemoths can't always separate standards advice from personal
vilification - no matter how polite, rational, independently
verfiable...

Ben

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Paul Dwyer]

I have been courting disaster with a potential client on these points exactly.
I am risking losing a potentially valuable contract with my
standardista (and I am pretty moderate) standpoint. Heck, I'd just
like to get their sites to validate, but they are old-skool asp guys
who learned "all there was to learn" 7 years ago.

Sheesh, is it worth it?

On 2/26/06, Geoff Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Montoya wrote:

> I also think there are a lot of people who work in big organisations,
> companies and even universities, that know that to raise these issues is
> to put their job on the line.

—pd—
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Serdar Kılıç]

Well at least they're not using tables for layout :-)

On 27/02/06, SunUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I hereby publicly declare that my days of complaining to website
> authors that I cannot view their site at 800x600, and then opening my
> big mouth about other dubious issues I notice on their site, are now
> over.

--
Cheers,
Serdar Kilic
http://weblog.kilic.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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Justin Owens]

> I dropped a line to my ISP (ostensibly to enquire about my account)
> and mentioned I could not find certain information on their website
> (and suggested it might be a usability issue), that the horizontal
> scrolling was giving me RSI (joke), commented on their massive use of
> javascript in the , and their use of CSS in the , and for
> good measure commented on some validation issues (missing alt text, no
> closing s etc). I have been soundly trounced and put back in my
> box.

Do you have any other choices for ISPs? If so, I would seriously
consider switching.
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Geoff Deering]

Christian Montoya wrote:


On 2/26/06, SunUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


Hi folks,

I hereby publicly declare that my days of complaining to website
authors that I cannot view their site at 800x600, and then opening my
big mouth about other dubious issues I notice on their site, are now
over.
   



Ah, but when annoying little standardistas like me tell others to make
their sites accessible and validate their XHTML, I'm being too harsh.
/rant

I think you have come across a key lesson for the standards community:
techies know about standards, they are not ignorant, they just have
their own reasons (however lame) for not following them.

 



I also think there are a lot of people who work in big organisations, 
companies and even universities, that know that to raise these issues is 
to put their job on the line.  Some developers who have a good 
understanding of these principles will just shut up for their own sake 
as they have a mortgage and family to feed... the consequences of 
raising such issues are that great.  And even if you do become 
successful, just watch yourself get shafted by the person further up the 
ladder, who takes the credit for it.


There are also developers in these large organisations that make their 
living from writing code patches to address the short comings in the 
core approach.  They have a vested interest in the problems not being 
solved.  They love such challenges.  And if you raise too many issues to 
say their needs to be a fundamental overhaul of the approach and system, 
you are basically told to STFU by everyone, not because of lack of 
credibility of your argument, but because it is stepping on too many toes.


There is more than simple reasoning at play here.

--
Geoff Deering

-
Geoff
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Ben Buchanan]

Hi,

> I hereby publicly declare that my days of complaining to website
> authors that I cannot view their site at 800x600, and then opening my
> big mouth about other dubious issues I notice on their site, are now
> over.
[snip]

I'm astonished at the tone - although not especially surprised by the
content - of their reply. Even if they thought you were being the
biggest pain in history, they should remain polite when replying.

Their arguments don't hold water of course; but they're clearly not
receptive to any suggestion that they might change. I find it
particularly interesting that they justify heavy scripting to "cater
to the widest audience possible" but they are quite willing to
discount anyone with a screen resolution (or window size) below
800x600...!

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/January/res.php still shows
800x600 as 21% of the market. I doubt that's 21% of people actually
running that resolution, instead I suspect it's a proportion of users
with non-maximised screens as well as those with the actual
resolution.

Ben
[sorry if this came through twice - trying to get Gmail to use a
second email address...]

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Ray Cauchi]

Hi there

http://www.ilisys.com.au/
Get a new ISP dudedon't just stand there and break
Ray
At 02:16 PM 27/02/2006, you wrote:
Hi folks,
I hereby publicly declare that my days of complaining to website
authors that I cannot view their site at 800x600, and then opening
my
big mouth about other dubious issues I notice on their site, are now
over.
I dropped a line to my ISP (ostensibly to enquire about my account)
and mentioned I could not find certain information on their website
(and suggested it might be a usability issue), that the horizontal
scrolling was giving me RSI (joke), commented on their massive use
of
_javascript_ in the , and their use of CSS in the ,
and for
good measure commented on some validation issues (missing alt text,
no
closing s etc). I have been soundly trounced and put back in
my
box.
When I could not find what I was looking for I was told:
"I recommend that this issue in this case has not been a
usability
issue but instead
has been a logic issue on the clients side, and I would recommend
that
you re-attend
year 10-12 english classes in order to know this in future
cases."
When I complained about horizontal scrolling I was told:
"I would recommend that you take a look around the real world,
not
just your own room and classroom, and see that these days even
seniors
are using the resolution of 1024x768. And from a design standpoint,
fixed width is definitely a good idea, due to the complexities that
arise from fluid layouts. And you do have a choice, you have the
choice of increasing your resolution, or alternatively to scrolls
when
you want to see anything to the left or down on the website. To the
best of my abililty that looks like a choice, albiet one that you
may
not enjoy. But then again, I am sure the world does not revolve
around
you."
When I commented on the huge amount of _javascript_ in the  I
was told:
"unobtrussive _javascript_ does not work on a number of browsers
short
of the newest, and as such, since [our] site was designed to cater
to
the widest audience possible, inline _javascript_ was deemed necessary
to perform the tasks that were required in these cases."
_javascript_ pulled from linked files doesn't work in some
browsers?
As for the CSS that was in the  (body
{margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px):
"CSS was actually designed to be part of the header. It is only
since
that point that separate CSS files have been designed to store this
layout information. While myself, I prefer to have the CSS file
seperated out from the rest of the code, as this makes for a more
efficient and clean source code file, it is by no means required,
and
it is definitely not the whole point of CSS, but simply a very
useful
side-effect."
and..
".. could not be solved with a simple margin:0 as you have
stated,
which is only the newest standard in relation to this issue, but
which
does not resolve the issue in the browsers that this code is
targetted
at. It also does not render correctly in most older browsers due to
the fact that it is a newer standard."
CSS was designed to be part of the head?
margin:0; is "new" and won't work for some browsers?
As to validation:
"the W3C are self-appointed, and the standards they impose are
self-regulated and are only recommended standards. Additionally, our
developers are well acquiantted with the W3C, however, they are also
well aware of when it is necessary to break these standards in order
to create efficient, less bandwidth code."
My own fault, I asked for it, obviously.
I will now be a "good little backyard hobbyist web-designer" as
they
called me (actually, it's my day job too), and never mention
standards
again.
Just thought I'd share. Sorry if this is list clutter.
(not so) sunny
**
The discussion list for 

http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See

http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**


Best Regards
Ray Cauchi
Manager/Lead Developer

( T W E E K ! )
PO Box 15
Wentworth Falls
NSW Australia 2782
| p:+61 2 4757 1600
| f:    +61 2 4757 3808
| m:    0414 270 400
| e:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| w:
   

http://www.tweek.com.au 

Re: [WSG] Converting the heathen: never again

[Christian Montoya]

On 2/26/06, SunUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I hereby publicly declare that my days of complaining to website
> authors that I cannot view their site at 800x600, and then opening my
> big mouth about other dubious issues I notice on their site, are now
> over.

Ah, but when annoying little standardistas like me tell others to make
their sites accessible and validate their XHTML, I'm being too harsh.
/rant

I think you have come across a key lesson for the standards community:
techies know about standards, they are not ignorant, they just have
their own reasons (however lame) for not following them.

Often it is fruitless to try and argue with them. Egos get hostile,
excuses are made, and you are told to back off. I don't even bother. I
think the best you can do is just wait until they come along with one
of these questions:

- how can I make my pages load faster?
- how can I make my layout flexible?
- how can I meet accessibility checkpoints?
- how can I cater to more browsers?
- how can I make my website more successful?

and then educate them, as un-condescendingly as possible, on
standards/css/usability/etc.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Page veiwing

[Felix Miata]

On 06/02/26 21:36 SunUp apparently typed:


Lachlan Hunt wrote Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:34:29 -0800:



If you don't mind me asking, what are your reasons for making this decision?



Purely based on font size. ... and in response to this:



Steve Olive Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:20:03 -0800 wrote:

...just because you use higher resolutions doesn't mean you have smaller text...



... *nod* I know. I have messed with that several times. It all ends
up looking most peculiar. When I go high-res + large fonts, it gets
the ... what did someone call it... "squiggly jaggies" or something.


Maybe this will be helpful? 
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/images/FontSizeEquiv1600x1200.png

http://grc.com/ctwhat.htm
--
"Love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:31 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/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
**

Re: [WSG] Converting the heathen: never again

[Lachlan Hunt]

SunUp wrote:
When I could not find what I was looking for I was told: "I recommend 
that this issue in this case has not been a usability issue but 
instead has been a logic issue on the clients side, and I would 
recommend that you re-attend year 10-12 english classes in order to 
know this in future cases."


They obviously fail to understand the concept of usability.  It's not 
about their ability to use the site, it's about the user's ability, and 
the fact that they have chosen to completely disregard this usability 
issue is astounding.


When I complained about horizontal scrolling I was told: "I would 
recommend that you take a look around the real world, not just your 
own room and classroom, and see that these days even seniors are 
using the resolution of 1024x768.


They need to realise that screen resolution is irrelevant.  I suggest 
you inform them that it's the viewport size that matters, and even if a 
user has their screen resolution set to 1024x768 or higher, their 
browser window may not be much larger than 800px wide, either because 
they don't maximise it or they use a side bar or anything else that 
reduces the viewport size.


Personally, on my 1280x768 screen, my browser sits at around 900px wide. 
 When I used to use a 1024x768 screen on older machines, it would have 
been less than 800px, because I don't like maximised windows.


And you do have a choice, you have the choice of 
increasing your resolution, or alternatively to scrolls when you want 
to see anything to the left or down on the website.


How is that a choice?  In their case, that would be more of a 
requirement to effectively use their site!  Perhaps you should politely 
remind them of the meaning of the word "choice".


When I commented on the huge amount of javascript in the  I was 
told: "unobtrussive javascript does not work on a number of browsers 
short of the newest,...


That's a load of rubbish.  There are, of course, some features that 
won't work in older browsers, but that doesn't mean unobtrusive script 
cannot be written for them.



Javascript pulled from linked files doesn't work in some browsers?


I don't think either of you fully grasp the concept of unobtrusive 
javascript.  It is not merely script which has been externally linked, 
it is one that exhibits no obtrusive behaviours and degrades gracefully 
when not fully supported or not supported at all.  It is, in fact, 
entirely possible to have unobtrusive javascript that is contained 
wholly within the document, rather than an external file, although an 
external file is considered to be best practice.


As for the CSS that was in the  (body 
{margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px): 
... ".. could not be solved with a simple 
margin:0 as you have stated, which is only the newest standard in 
relation to this issue,


I would like to know where they got this information from.  The 'margin' 
shorthand property has been around for as long as the individual 
properties have been.  They all exist as part of CSS 1 and have been 
reasonably well implemented in browsers.  Although there are many box 
model related bugs, AFAIK none of them relate to the use of 'margin' 
instead of 'margin-top', ' -right', ' -bottom' or ' -left'.


but which does not resolve the issue in the 
browsers that this code is targetted at.


Ask them to name the browsers that they believe the 'margin' shorthand 
property (or, indeed, any other feature they claim can't be used) will 
not work in.


As to validation: "the W3C are self-appointed, and the standards they 
impose are self-regulated and are only recommended standards.


While that is technically true and there are some cases where the W3C 
recommendations don't reflect the interoperable behaviour found in most 
browsers, their standards need to be followed as closely as possible to 
achieve maximum interoperability.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[Lea de Groot]

On 27/02/2006, at 1:16 PM, SunUp wrote:


I will now be a "good little backyard hobbyist web-designer" as they
called me (actually, it's my day job too), and never mention standards
again.



These guys are professional service providers?
If the tone of the message was as bad as it sounds I'd consider  
forwarding it to senior management there!


Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Brisbane, Australia
**
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] Converting the heathen: never again

[SunUp]

Hi folks,

I hereby publicly declare that my days of complaining to website
authors that I cannot view their site at 800x600, and then opening my
big mouth about other dubious issues I notice on their site, are now
over.

I dropped a line to my ISP (ostensibly to enquire about my account)
and mentioned I could not find certain information on their website
(and suggested it might be a usability issue), that the horizontal
scrolling was giving me RSI (joke), commented on their massive use of
javascript in the , and their use of CSS in the , and for
good measure commented on some validation issues (missing alt text, no
closing s etc). I have been soundly trounced and put back in my
box.

When I could not find what I was looking for I was told:
"I recommend that this issue in this case has not been a usability
issue but instead
has been a logic issue on the clients side, and I would recommend that
you re-attend
year 10-12 english classes in order to know this in future cases."

When I complained about horizontal scrolling I was told:
"I would recommend that you take a look around the real world, not
just your own room and classroom, and see that these days even seniors
are using the resolution of 1024x768. And from a design standpoint,
fixed width is definitely a good idea, due to the complexities that
arise from fluid layouts. And you do have a choice, you have the
choice of increasing your resolution, or alternatively to scrolls when
you want to see anything to the left or down on the website. To the
best of my abililty that looks like a choice, albiet one that you may
not enjoy. But then again, I am sure the world does not revolve around
you."

When I commented on the huge amount of javascript in the  I was told:
"unobtrussive javascript does not work on a number of browsers short
of the newest, and as such, since [our] site was designed to cater to
the widest audience possible, inline javascript was deemed necessary
to perform the tasks that were required in these cases."

Javascript pulled from linked files doesn't work in some browsers?

As for the CSS that was in the  (body
{margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px):
"CSS was actually designed to be part of the header. It is only since
that point that separate CSS files have been designed to store this
layout information. While myself, I prefer to have the CSS file
seperated out from the rest of the code, as this makes for a more
efficient and clean source code file, it is by no means required, and
it is definitely not the whole point of CSS, but simply a very useful
side-effect."
and..
".. could not be solved with a simple margin:0 as you have stated,
which is only the newest standard in relation to this issue, but which
does not resolve the issue in the browsers that this code is targetted
at. It also does not render correctly in most older browsers due to
the fact that it is a newer standard."

CSS was designed to be part of the head?
margin:0; is "new" and won't work for some browsers?

As to validation:
"the W3C are self-appointed, and the standards they impose are
self-regulated and are only recommended standards. Additionally, our
developers are well acquiantted with the W3C, however, they are also
well aware of when it is necessary to break these standards in order
to create efficient, less bandwidth code."

My own fault, I asked for it, obviously.
I will now be a "good little backyard hobbyist web-designer" as they
called me (actually, it's my day job too), and never mention standards
again.

Just thought I'd share. Sorry if this is list clutter.

(not so) sunny
**
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] Positioning a graphic

[Lachlan Hunt]

Angus at InfoForce Services wrote:
I appologize if this is off topic. The validator does not like "float: 
center;".


That's because the value is undefined for the 'float' property.

 What is the correct way to center an image? IE6 shows a 
centered Scottish flag which I would like and Firefox 1.5 does not.


IE is wrong.  There are various ways to center a box.  You can set 
'text-align' on the parent element, which will center all content.


p { text-align: center; }
/* where the img is a child of this element, just use an appropriate 
selector */


The other way is to use auto for left and right margin.

img { display: block; margin: 0 auto; )

IE 5.x doesn't support this method, but that shouldn't matter since it's 
obsolete anyway.  You can just let it degrade gracefully in it.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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] Positioning a graphic

[Angus at InfoForce Services]

I appologize if this is off topic. The validator does not like "float: 
center;". What is the correct way to center an image? IE6 shows a centered 
Scottish flag which I would like and Firefox 1.5 does not.


HTML: http://infoforce-services.com/personal/mackinnon_namehistory.php

CSS: http://infoforce-services.com/css/layout.css


Angus MacKinnon
MacKinnon Crest Saying
Latin -  Audentes Fortuna Juvat
English - Fortune Assists The Daring
Web page http://www.infoforce-services.com
Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. 2nd Vice president
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] Page veiwing

[SunUp]

>If you don't mind me asking, what are your reasons for making this decision?

Purely based on font size. ... and in response to this:

>just because you use higher resolutions doesn't mean you have smaller text...

... *nod* I know. I have messed with that several times. It all ends
up looking most peculiar. When I go high-res + large fonts, it gets
the ... what did someone call it... "squiggly jaggies" or something.
Perhaps I'll try again.

>.. have a go at Opera's 'Show window size' preference.

I'll do that, thanks.

and thanks to the other responses and information.

sunny
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**