[WSG] css generating i.e security pop up
Hi, Im using the pure css - alphaimageloader hack for png transparency. The problem is that its setting of a security warning in ie 6. The pngs will only show up if you click ok and allow the script. How should i handle this? Is there anything i can do to make this less obtrusive? www.mcmonagle.biz/arena7 -best kevin mcmonagle *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] css generating i.e security pop up
This behaviour is by design, for security reasons when the script is sourced locally (ie. if you load the website and script from your local machine) you will see this alert; I don't get the message and neither will other visitors. On 28/02/07, kevin mcmonagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Im using the pure css - alphaimageloader hack for png transparency. The problem is that its setting of a security warning in ie 6. The pngs will only show up if you click ok and allow the script. How should i handle this? Is there anything i can do to make this less obtrusive? www.mcmonagle.biz/arena7 -best kevin mcmonagle *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] css generating i.e security pop up
kevin mcmonagle wrote:
Im using the pure css - alphaimageloader hack for png transparency.
The problem is that its setting of a security warning in ie 6.
The pngs will only show up if you click ok and allow the script.
www.mcmonagle.biz/arena7
-best
kevin mcmonagle
No clue.
But this may fix the nick in the footer:
#footer{width: /*826px*/825px; } re-set
~dL
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
[WSG] Content negotiated links: why so bad?
Hi folks, I followed a recent thread here on how people manage their links, and I made a request to our organisation's webmaster to allow MultiViews for my department's website (which I manage, and which is part of a large public organisation). I have a penchant for short, usable URLs that don't show file names, and would like to link to /mydept/training/ rather than /mydept/training.htm. His response: paste My main concern would be with how content-negotiated links get handled by search engines (both Google and Thunderstone). There is also a potential issue if there is more than one page in a folder that satisfies the content criteria. Additionally, even if we were to allow MultiViews, it is essential that the URL in any links within the pages still be the correct full one. Given the structure of the department site, I am not sure that there is any great advantage to be gained. /paste I'm not sure I fully understand his concerns, and wondered if someone could enlighten me as to why he is reluctant to do this, why it would be A Bad Thing when it seems pretty innocuous to me. Or perhaps I should just get over it, use *.htm everywhere, and move on to more important issues. .. ? lib. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Recommendations for Usability sub-contractor
Hi, We are looking for someone reliable (and good) to subcontract Usability work out to. Can anyone recommend a company/business who could be suitable for on site work in the Canberra area? Thanks, Sarah *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Content negotiated links: why so bad?
On 01/03/2007, at 9:31 AM, libwebdev wrote: Hi folks, I followed a recent thread here on how people manage their links, and I made a request to our organisation's webmaster to allow MultiViews for my department's website (which I manage, and which is part of a large public organisation). I have a penchant for short, usable URLs that don't show file names, and would like to link to /mydept/training/ rather than /mydept/training.htm. His response: paste My main concern would be with how content-negotiated links get handled by search engines (both Google and Thunderstone). Google sends the http accept header with text/html as its preference. Apache will serve whatever content best matches that. Thunderstone sends whatever accept header you set it to send, so the consequences of that are up to you and how you set it. There is also a potential issue if there is more than one page in a folder that satisfies the content criteria. Then the one the user agent prefers (indicated by it accept header) gets sent. This concern is uselessly ambiguous, though. What kind of situation is he imagining, exactly? Additionally, even if we were to allow MultiViews, it is essential that the URL in any links within the pages still be the correct full one. How does he define correct ? Any one of the possible content types is correct depending on what user agent is requesting the page. If an XML browser requests a page which contains full links to html documents, this would be incorrect. Given the structure of the department site, I am not sure that there is any great advantage to be gained. /paste what special qualities of the site's structure is he talking about here? I'm not sure I fully understand his concerns, and wondered if someone could enlighten me as to why he is reluctant to do this, why it would be A Bad Thing when it seems pretty innocuous to me. is seamless multiple language support, and seamless multiple browser support into the future important to the company? Are clean, easy to remember URL's important? What are the actual drawbacks? I've read carefully though his concerns and he doesn't seem to specifically state any. So, it seems to me that while he said he has concerns, what he listed as concerns are rather strange constructed mythologies designed to appear like concerns, but which are not. Or perhaps I should just get over it, use *.htm everywhere, and move on to more important issues. .. ? lib. You could. To play devil's advocate here, what percentage of your target audience would be able to take real advantage of this change? Is that percentage worth the trouble of arguing with him, and is it worth the trouble of implementing the change? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommendations for Usability sub-contractor; SEC=UNCLASSIFIED
Sarah, Why don't you contact 'Hitser' currently providing Usability training and also consultancy. Usability consulting includes: Accessibility evaluations Expert reviews Forms design Information architecture design Usability testing User interface design Wesite: www.hiser.com.au Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or phy phone on 02 9954 8970. Regards Anh Nguyen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sarah Hughes Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2007 10:58 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommendations for Usability sub-contractor Hi, We are looking for someone reliable (and good) to subcontract Usability work out to. Can anyone recommend a company/business who could be suitable for on site work in the Canberra area? Thanks, Sarah *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommendations for Usability sub-contractor; SEC=UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Sarah, I would not recommend that a government department employs anyone who does not themselves conform with W3C document validation or the requirements of the 1992 disability Discrimination Act. hiser.com.au don't seem to write validated documents and their home page is full of inaccessible forms with no fieldset of legend tags. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hiser.com.au%2F If validity and accessibility are cousins of useability then the whole family could be in trouble. If you do contact hiser insist on training involving W3C valid documents which are accessible, Tim Anderson http://www.hereticpress.com On 01/03/2007, at 11:53 AM, Nguyen, Anh MS wrote: Sarah, Why don't you contact 'Hitser' currently providing Usability training and also consultancy. Usability consulting includes: Accessibility evaluations Expert reviews Forms design Information architecture design Usability testing User interface design Wesite: www.hiser.com.au Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or phy phone on 02 9954 8970. Regards Anh Nguyen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sarah Hughes Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2007 10:58 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommendations for Usability sub-contractor Hi, We are looking for someone reliable (and good) to subcontract Usability work out to. Can anyone recommend a company/business who could be suitable for on site work in the Canberra area? Thanks, Sarah *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Content negotiated links: why so bad?
I appreciate your comments, Breton, thank you. At 11:19 AM 1/03/2007 +1100, Breton Slivka wrote: Given the structure of the department site, I am not sure that there is any great advantage to be gained.' what special qualities of the site's structure is he talking about here? No special qualities. It's very simple. /dept/ contains all *.htm files including the site index, with css/javascript/images/otherstuff in their own /dirs/. Pretty basic. Maybe that's his point: little advantage. is seamless multiple language support, and seamless multiple browser support into the future important to the company? Are clean, easy to remember URL's important? Nope, to easy URLs (forgive me, I don't understand the relationship between MultiViews and language/browser support). The webmaster I'm talking to is responsible for URLs that end like this *.cfm?doc_id=n ... and thinks it's perfectly acceptable (just one of the many many reasons I'm glad our dept's website is NOT in the organisation's CMS). In fact, I think he quite likes them, and certainly doesn't seem to think usable URLs are an issue in any way at all. what percentage of your target audience would be able to take real advantage of this change? Probably a very small one. However, the last usability study I did on my site (the webmaster hasn't done one of those, has he, nah, course not), a couple of users actually mentioned how they preferred my dept's style of URL to the organisation's. I was just trying to make it even better. I think /dept/training/ just looks way cooler and more professional than /dept/training.htm Perhaps I'll just let this one go; there are sure to be bigger issues down the track more worth my time. *sigh* thanks again though, i really did want to understand more about his response. lib. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommendations for Usability sub-contractor; SEC=UNCLASSIFIED
I think best would be people reply to Sarah off-list, because: - we don't want to get into a debate as to which usability consultants are good or not, or even what makes a good usability consultant - those of us outside of Canberra have very limited interest in the subject :) Mike who, believe it or not, is actually on the WSG Core team *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Content negotiated links: why so bad?
organisation). I have a penchant for short, usable URLs that don't show file names, and would like to link to /mydept/training/ rather than /mydept/training.htm. Sounds a lot like you'll get resistance, although I agree that not showing extensions has some benefits. I'd shoot for a middle of the road - make sure that all index pages are documented/distrubuted without the index.html and try to avoid promoting anything other than an index :) More of a social hack than a technical solution, but sometimes policy requires it. cheers, Ben -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
