Re: [WSG] Free Web Hosting With No Adds - ADMIN

[russ - maxdesign]

> We will soon be offering free webhosting services via

ADMIN

Please make all replies to Marvin offlist as he requested!
This is wy off topic

Thanks
Russ
Official off-topic police




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Free Web Hosting With No Adds

[Robert DC. Reyes, mcp]

We will soon be offering free webhosting services via
http://www.turfsiteph.net


brgds,
Bob Reyes

On 7/20/07, Marvin Hunkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


  Hi.
looking for a free web hosting, and most of them have banner adds.
do you know of any good free webhosting, without banner adds, and do not
have a credit card, that allows php, asp, my sql, access, cgi-bin access?
if so, e-mail me off list and let me know.
cheers Marvin.

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--
Get Affordable Webhosting & Domain Name
at http://www.turfsiteph.net
(+63) 0916.320.1513
Affordable Pinoy Webhosting!
TurfSite Computing, Inc.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Free Web Hosting With No Adds

[Marvin Hunkin]

Hi.
looking for a free web hosting, and most of them have banner adds.
do you know of any good free webhosting, without banner adds, and do not have a 
credit card, that allows php, asp, my sql, access, cgi-bin access?
if so, e-mail me off list and let me know.
cheers Marvin.

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Maybe you should try Foxit Reader 2.0 http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

PDF's won't be going away anytime soon, particularly from Government websites. 
There is also zero chance of having all PDF's done as HTML due to staffing and time constraints. The best you'll get is a link to an RTF/DOC and PDF version with some as HTML.

What really bugs me are the people who supply the content with large hi res pictures in the PDF and get annoyed when we send it back saying shrink it.
We manage to keep the majority of them under 3 MB (preferably 1MB or less) but that is a losing battle for some PDF's.

Brett. 



On Fri Jul 20 10:57 , 'Michael MD' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:

> I'm all about "web conventions."  I didn't realize having a blank target

> didn't follow web standards.  Is that documented somewhere?

>



This one still bothers me ...



The alternatives I've seen invariably require _javascript_ and some of those 

_javascript_ methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited 

for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors)



I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are forcing 

pdf's to open in a new browser window with _javascript_.

I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with a 

locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning!

- at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline 

viewing!

(or better don't use pdf - use html! )



Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to have 

almost everything as pdf



Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they 

fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites that 

force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same 

level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows.









 









***

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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

RE: [WSG] Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser!

[Jermayn Parker]

I think of your 5 steps, number one is the most practable...

the others are good in a 'perfect' world but this aint and if most
other gov sites are like mine (new design coming tom), they will not
happen.

All of my pdfs are direct from the different areas and so I dont create
the pdfs and we dont get the option of producing a html/ doc version



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 10:51:33 am >>>
I, for one am enjoying this discussion :)

My 2c:

1) Let the user know it's a PDF *and* what size the PDF is, eg by
putting something like (12Kb PDF) beside the link. I'm on dial up at
home and it grates my backside when sites don't let me know how big the
file is

2) If you can, use Acrobat Pro to autotag your PDF's. It's far from
perfect but it's a start

3) Never ever assume a tagged PDF is 'screen reader friendly'. A
partially sighted woman gave a (fantastic) presentation at a conference
I attended recently where she 'showed' a screen reader opening a PDF and
also showed how Acrobat rendered the doc in ZoomText. It was absolutely
illegible and the screen reader couldn't make head or tail of it.

4) Push back on your departments to change the workflow so you get raw
content and (in a perfect world) time to mark it up.

5) Get a search tool that indexes the raw text of PDF content and lets
you point users to the text version if they want it. Again, not perfect
but better than nothing.

Like most government employees, I've got a lot of work to do in this
area, but it really does need to be done :)

Paul



The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] (Phillipe) margin problem in Firefox

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Tee G. Peng wrote:


 Phillipe wrote in CSS-D:



It is a bug in Gecko. [1]

Here is your list, simplified.

The top one is wrong, the bottom one is fixed.

li.poster {-moz-float-edge:content-box;}
does all the magic.

(one could argue about the semantics of your list construction,  
but css-d is not the place for that).




For reference, this is the post on CSS-D




OK Phillipe, please tell me what I did in-correctly with this  
construction.


(1) The List not being semantical for the comments markup?


A list is perfectly appropriate for comments - I use it myself.
That was not my point, actually.


[...]

(2) The P inside the LI ?
Added P tag for the comment message because there will be people  
leaving more than one paragraph of texts and I don't want a break  
in between.


(3) The numbering should be placed inside the 'poster' class  
instead of giving its own class?
I think placing the numbering inside the  li.poster class is more  
appropriate, but I don't want to do that because adding a new LI is  
more straight forward and easier to position the mustard box :)
Did it with a guilt but decided to go lenient for myself. Now you  
mentioned it, I feel very bad and uneasy even without hearing what  
you are to say


My problem with using a  just for adding a number to the comment.

I understand what you're trying to do - styling the list number for  
the comment, which, out-of-the-box and with current css specs, is not  
possible. (css3 makers/generated contents would allow many  
possibilities).


I would use the following structure:


%number John Doe on Jul 7, 11:34 AM
comment here



substitute an appropriate level of heading for your needs
float the span, adjust margins to taste

That is about what I do on this now-defunct site :


(and that uses Texpattern behind the scenes).
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser!

[Paul Bennett]

I, for one am enjoying this discussion :)

My 2c:

1) Let the user know it's a PDF *and* what size the PDF is, eg by putting 
something like (12Kb PDF) beside the link. I'm on dial up at home and it grates 
my backside when sites don't let me know how big the file is

2) If you can, use Acrobat Pro to autotag your PDF's. It's far from perfect but 
it's a start

3) Never ever assume a tagged PDF is 'screen reader friendly'. A partially 
sighted woman gave a (fantastic) presentation at a conference I attended 
recently where she 'showed' a screen reader opening a PDF and also showed how 
Acrobat rendered the doc in ZoomText. It was absolutely illegible and the 
screen reader couldn't make head or tail of it.

4) Push back on your departments to change the workflow so you get raw content 
and (in a perfect world) time to mark it up.

5) Get a search tool that indexes the raw text of PDF content and lets you 
point users to the text version if they want it. Again, not perfect but better 
than nothing.

Like most government employees, I've got a lot of work to do in this area, but 
it really does need to be done :)

Paul


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] (Phillipe) margin problem in Firefox

[Tee G. Peng]

 Phillipe wrote in CSS-D:



It is a bug in Gecko. [1]

Here is your list, simplified.

The top one is wrong, the bottom one is fixed.

li.poster {-moz-float-edge:content-box;}
does all the magic.

(one could argue about the semantics of your list construction, but  
css-d is not the place for that).




OK Phillipe, please tell me what I did in-correctly with this  
construction.


(1) The List not being semantical for the comments markup?

I have doubt for this myself as I thought DL or even simply P tag is  
more appropriate. Yet 10 blog sites I checked, only one use div class  
with P tag. The rest are OL and LI


(2) The P inside the LI ?
Added P tag for the comment message because there will be people  
leaving more than one paragraph of texts and I don't want a break in  
between.


(3) The numbering should be placed inside the 'poster' class instead  
of giving its own class?
I think placing the numbering inside the  li.poster class is more  
appropriate, but I don't want to do that because adding a new LI is  
more straight forward and easier to position the mustard box :)
Did it with a guilt but decided to go lenient for myself. Now you  
mentioned it, I feel very bad and uneasy even without hearing what  
you are to say.


tee




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser!

[Jermayn Parker]

pdfs are not going to go away (and docs are not the answer)

in Nielsons article (who is over rated and take his opinion with a
grain of salt) he says pdfs are for print and I agree but for most
Government websites they need these pdfs that we all hate and as I said
in an earlier email html versions is not always an option.

So the question remains how do we make a linked pdf presented and
operational the best??




>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 10:08:52 am >>>
On 2007/07/19 11:23 (GMT+1000) Webb, KerryA apparently typed:

> Jermayn wrote:

>> I work at one of the those government places that has those
horrible
>> pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt
agree
>> more.

> And I work with people who build such sites, and I don't have a
problem
> with PDFs per se.

As a rule, I do. Most are apparently made by and for the people who
design
inaccessible mousetype web sites, not for normal or low vision web
users.

> If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let
them

Efficient and effective only from a publisher's perspective, not from
a
user's perspective. Pdfs are for printing. Ecologically aware people
are not
interested in killing trees just to get a little "freely available"
information.

> do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.

It's rare that pdfs are published to be univerally accessible, so the
end
result is that as a group, pdfs are a scourge. Nielsen is too polite
about
it: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html 
-- 
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting, and training in righteoousness."
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***


**

The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound
transmission. 

**


The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser!

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/07/19 11:23 (GMT+1000) Webb, KerryA apparently typed:

> Jermayn wrote:

>> I work at one of the those government places that has those horrible
>> pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt agree
>> more.

> And I work with people who build such sites, and I don't have a problem
> with PDFs per se.

As a rule, I do. Most are apparently made by and for the people who design
inaccessible mousetype web sites, not for normal or low vision web users.

> If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let them

Efficient and effective only from a publisher's perspective, not from a
user's perspective. Pdfs are for printing. Ecologically aware people are not
interested in killing trees just to get a little "freely available" information.

> do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.

It's rare that pdfs are published to be univerally accessible, so the end
result is that as a group, pdfs are a scourge. Nielsen is too polite about
it: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html
-- 
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting, and training in righteoousness."
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Jermayn Parker]

I think the problem is that the links are not easily reconised that it
is a pdf document you are opening



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 9:23:44 am >>>
Jermayn wrote:
> 
> I work at one of the those government places that has those horrible
> pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt agree
> more.
> 

And I work with people who build such sites, and I don't have a
problem
with PDFs per se.

If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let
them
do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.

Kerry 
  
---
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any
attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose,
nor disclose its contents to any other person.
---


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***


**

The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound
transmission. 

**



The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[dwain]

Bruce wrote:
Personally and from a usability I feel pdf's belong in the office, not 
on the web. As a definite download link and have a choice between 
viewing it as html or a pdf download. I hate seeing pdf becoming more 
popular.


i think that offering a substantial amount of information, like a manual 
or book, in pdf format is a good way to provide information to users who 
want it.  html has the limitation of not being able to download all of 
the information, especially if it's on more than one page and not 
packaged to be completely downloaded in one fell swoop.


the gutenberg project offers books in text and html formats.  i think 
that some of the books are offered in pdf, but don't quote me on that.  
the pdf format is not sinister and as web designers and developers, we 
might as well get used to the fact that pdf is going to be on the web in 
increasing numbers.


dwain


--
Dwain Alford
http://www.alforddesigngroup.com
"The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression."  Kandinsky



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[dwain]

Michael MD wrote:

I'm all about "web conventions."  I didn't realize having a blank target
didn't follow web standards.  Is that documented somewhere?

- at least give them the option to right-click and download it for 
offline viewing! 
the option is already there if you know about it.  how do you propose to 
let the user know they can right-click the link and download it?

just curious about your solution to this.

dwain

--
Dwain Alford
http://www.alforddesigngroup.com
"The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression."  Kandinsky



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Webb, KerryA]

Jermayn wrote:
> 
> I work at one of the those government places that has those horrible
> pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt agree
> more.
> 

And I work with people who build such sites, and I don't have a problem
with PDFs per se.

If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let them
do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up.

Kerry 
  
---
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all 
copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should 
not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other 
person.
---


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Jermayn Parker]

I work at one of the those government places that has those horrible
pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt agree
more.

I used to believe that you only "open in new window" for pdfs but now
only just realise that maybe its not best practise and could be thought
about more.
how would you create a html page for a 60 page pdf?? it is not a
theasable option.

I would probably suggest a pdf icon/ img next to the link so people
know it is a pdf and then can save it or open it.
others??



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 8:57:45 am >>>
> I'm all about "web conventions."  I didn't realize having a blank
target
> didn't follow web standards.  Is that documented somewhere?
>

This one still bothers me ...

The alternatives I've seen invariably require javascript and some of
those 
javascript methods give the user less choice and are also not well
suited 
for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors)

I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are
forcing 
pdf's to open in a new browser window with javascript.
I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute
with a 
locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning!
- at least give them the option to right-click and download it for
offline 
viewing!
(or better don't use pdf - use html! )

Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to
have 
almost everything as pdf

Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or
they 
fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites
that 
force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same

level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows.




 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm 
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm 
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***


**

The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound
transmission. 

**


The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Bruce]

Personally and from a usability I feel pdf's belong in the office, not on 
the web. As a definite download link and have a choice between viewing it as 
html or a pdf download. I hate seeing pdf becoming more popular.


Bruce P
bkdesign

- Original Message - 
From: "Michael MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:57 PM
Subject: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] 
To target or not




I'm all about "web conventions."  I didn't realize having a blank target
didn't follow web standards.  Is that documented somewhere?



This one still bothers me ...

The alternatives I've seen invariably require javascript and some of those 
javascript methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited 
for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors)


I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are 
forcing pdf's to open in a new browser window with javascript.
I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with 
a locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning!
- at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline 
viewing!

(or better don't use pdf - use html! )

Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to 
have almost everything as pdf


Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they 
fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites 
that force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the 
same level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows.










***
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]
***

please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Michael MD]

I'm all about "web conventions."  I didn't realize having a blank target
didn't follow web standards.  Is that documented somewhere?



This one still bothers me ...

The alternatives I've seen invariably require javascript and some of those 
javascript methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited 
for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors)


I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are forcing 
pdf's to open in a new browser window with javascript.
I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with a 
locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning!
- at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline 
viewing!

(or better don't use pdf - use html! )

Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to have 
almost everything as pdf


Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they 
fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites that 
force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same 
level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows.










***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] To target or not

[Jermayn Parker]

We as web designers provide a service to our customers and clients of
the website etc 

so in doing that we need to provide a service that allows the user to
browse the website the way *he/ she* prefers and we cannot "force" the
user to browse the way 'we' like it. This means that you do not open a
new window (of external links) and you let the user do what they want.
Most people use the BACK button and others open in new window.

I once heard a saying which I think everyone needs to follow as
designers
"Your website is built and exists to solve the users problem"
so do not create more problems for them



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 5:16:13 am >>>
I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in
a
separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks
on a
link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back
button 20
times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or
potential
customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor
cannot
click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X)
button, and
voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.



The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Gaspar]

IN wcag 2, a draft of 17th May of 2007 you can see:

» http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#consistent-behavior

Guideline 3.2 Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways

3.2.1 On Focus: When any component receives focus, it does not
initiate a change of context. (Level A)

#changes of context
   change of:
  1.user agent;
  2.viewport;
  3.focus;
  4.content that changes the meaning of the Web page.
   Note: A change of content is not always a change of context. Small
changes in content, such as an expanding outline or dynamic menu, do
not change the context.

#viewport
   object in which the user agent presents content
   Note 1: The user agent presents content through one or more
viewports. Viewports include windows, frames, loudspeakers, and
virtual magnifying glasses. A viewport may contain another viewport
(e.g., nested frames). User agent user interface controls such as
prompts, menus, and alerts are not viewports.
   Note 2: This definition is based on User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 Glossary.

I believe that force user to open in new window is force to change the
context. I think is more wise give to the user the chanse to choose
open or not open in new window.

And what we could do is get a way of make that job easier, and not
choose for the user.


On 19/07/07, Philip Kiff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Joyce Evans wrote:
> I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites
> in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. [...]

I think that the weight of public opinion has been steadily turning against
this view over the past 10 years or so.  I would be interested in knowing if
there is any current research that supports the theory that opening links in
new windows will somehow keep visitors interested in your site longer.  Sure
it may keep them *stuck* there longer, but does that keep them *interested*?
My impression is that in 2007 the reverse is true.

There is certainly a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence that suggests
that for a certain percentage of web users, nothing infuriates them more
than forcing causing a new window to pop-up unexpectedly when you click on a
link.  I personally now use a JavaScript snippet to strip all
target="_blank" entries from the DOM before rendering pages are rendered in
my browser.

From a web standards perspective, the argument against opening links in new
windows dates back to the very first W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (1999), if not before:

Guideline 10.1
Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause
pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window
without informing the user. [Priority 2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-interim-accessibility

See also, the WCAG "Techniques" document notes for 10.5:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#no-new-windows

Lastly, if one really must spawn new windows with certain links, then I
quite like the method suggested by Bill Posters (note that this is
apparently still a Work In Progress):
http://test.newplasticarts.co.uk/dom-js/flag-toggle-external-links/

Phil.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--
Make it simple for the people
--
http://www.artideias.com

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] To target or not

[Joyce Evans]

Oops.  My response was posted "after" Philip Kiff gave some web standards
links.  Thanks.

Joyce Evans

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joyce Evans
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] To target or not

I'm all about "web conventions."  I didn't realize having a blank target
didn't follow web standards.  Is that documented somewhere?

Joyce Evans

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Lane
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:45 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] To target or not

My suggestion is simple: let it be the content and presentation that 
keeps people on your site, not gimmickry.  Most smart web surfers use 
Firefox or Opera or a lesser browser that is nonetheless tabbed.  If I 
want to stay on a page, I open links from that page in new background 
tabs while I continue to read the page.

I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my 
browsing should work, breaking web conventions (note, web conventions 
exist for a reason... they're what people expect - I recommend people 
think long and hard before they break them).

If I click on a link on their site I expect it to open in my current 
window - if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, 
because that's not how I work.  I see that approach as indicating a 
designer still in a very IE5.5-6 mindset: primitive.  Sites that try to 
manipulate me don't pique my interest, they put me right off (and, 
needless to say, I don't go back).

Dave

Joyce Evans wrote:
> I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a
> separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks on
a
> link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
> visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
> different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button
20
> times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential
> customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot
> click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button,
and
> voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.
> 
> Joyce Evans
> Niche Marketing
> www.nichemktghouston.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] To target or not
> 
> Hello List,
> 
> I was curious what others opinions were on this issue...
> 
> Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do 
> you think is better?  Having the window opening up with JavaScript or 
> just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. 
> 
> I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for 
> accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups.  
> Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if 
> it is an external site, etc.
> 
> What does everyone think?
> 
> Matthew

-- 
Dave Lane == Egressive Ltd == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == +64 21 229 8147
+64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = no software patents
http://egressive.com  we only use open standards: http://w3.org
Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com


***
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]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] To target or not

[Stuart Foulstone]

Leaving aside that the user wouldn't need to click the back button 20
times to return to your site, as you suggest.

Presuming you do not link to your competitors, I would think you provide
external links to things which are not present on your site.

If users are looking for something not on your site and follow an external
link they will not return to your site either way. If what the user is
looking for is not on your site or on that of the external link, their
most likely action is to go somewhere else.

If, when users find what they are looking for, and later find your browser
window still open, they will be annoyed and will remember your site - but
for the wrong reasons.




On Thu, July 19, 2007 10:16 pm, Joyce Evans wrote:
> I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a
> separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks on
> a
> link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
> visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
> different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button
> 20
> times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential
> customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot
> click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button,
> and
> voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.
>
> Joyce Evans
> Niche Marketing
> www.nichemktghouston.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] To target or not
>
> Hello List,
>
> I was curious what others opinions were on this issue...
>
> Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do
> you think is better?  Having the window opening up with JavaScript or
> just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants.
>
> I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for
> accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups.
> Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if
> it is an external site, etc.
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> Matthew
> --
> Matthew Ohlman
> www.ohlman.com
>
>
> ***
> 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]
> ***
>
>



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] To target or not

[Michael Yeaney]

> -Original Message-
> Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do 
> you think is better?  Having the window opening up with JavaScript or 
> just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. 
> 
> I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for 
> accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups.  
> Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if 
> it is an external site, etc.

Just to chime in, albeit a bit late...

I for one **prefer** working with multiple windows/tabswith the way I
work, it helps me to not lose my place when browsing around 5-7 sites at a
time (and usually bouncing back and forth waiting for them to finish
loading) - yeah, I'm one of those hyper-browsers - one site/page at a time
drives me insane.

However, I absolutely agree it depends on the target audience and the
context that the window is opened in.  Some places it will work, and others
it will not.  Leave it to your user research and testing to figure out what
works best for you.

Cheers,
Mike


***
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] To target or not

[Joyce Evans]

I'm all about "web conventions."  I didn't realize having a blank target
didn't follow web standards.  Is that documented somewhere?

Joyce Evans

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Lane
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:45 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] To target or not

My suggestion is simple: let it be the content and presentation that 
keeps people on your site, not gimmickry.  Most smart web surfers use 
Firefox or Opera or a lesser browser that is nonetheless tabbed.  If I 
want to stay on a page, I open links from that page in new background 
tabs while I continue to read the page.

I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my 
browsing should work, breaking web conventions (note, web conventions 
exist for a reason... they're what people expect - I recommend people 
think long and hard before they break them).

If I click on a link on their site I expect it to open in my current 
window - if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, 
because that's not how I work.  I see that approach as indicating a 
designer still in a very IE5.5-6 mindset: primitive.  Sites that try to 
manipulate me don't pique my interest, they put me right off (and, 
needless to say, I don't go back).

Dave

Joyce Evans wrote:
> I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a
> separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks on
a
> link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
> visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
> different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button
20
> times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential
> customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot
> click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button,
and
> voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.
> 
> Joyce Evans
> Niche Marketing
> www.nichemktghouston.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] To target or not
> 
> Hello List,
> 
> I was curious what others opinions were on this issue...
> 
> Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do 
> you think is better?  Having the window opening up with JavaScript or 
> just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. 
> 
> I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for 
> accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups.  
> Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if 
> it is an external site, etc.
> 
> What does everyone think?
> 
> Matthew

-- 
Dave Lane == Egressive Ltd == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == +64 21 229 8147
+64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = no software patents
http://egressive.com  we only use open standards: http://w3.org
Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com


***
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] margin problem in Firefox

[Tee G. Peng]

On Jul 19, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Kepler Gelotte wrote:




Not #comments li.msg_left as you assumed. Adding a margin-left:  
5px; to your
#comments li.poster and #comments li.myresponse definitions will  
fix the

problem:

Hi Kepler,

Thanks for the suggestion. It doesn't quite work though as it throws  
Safari and Opera (I am sure IE too but haven't check) to the  
opposite, where the 'poster' class background moving to left, I  
already tried adding margin in that two classes.


See screen shot taken from Safari.
http://zhujili.com/ss.png

I noticed you added 'scroll' for the background element. What is good  
for this? Because I don't see any effect in the browsers. I must  
admit I never use scroll though as never occur to me it's of useful.



Best,

tee



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] To target or not

[Philip Kiff]

Hassan Schroeder wrote:
> I've done usability tests where users *preferred* off-site links to
> open in another window.

I find that surprising.  I am sure you are right, however, that it is all
about context.  Certainly if you sat down in a room full of 20- to
25-year-olds today you would not find that the majority of those users
*preferred* off-site links spawning new windows.  My impression is that the
more a user knows about how to use their web browser, the less they like
windows or tabs opening up without their consent.  As more and more people
become better and better with their web browsers, fewer and fewer will want
off-site links to open up in new windows or tabs.

This almost seems like common sense to me now.  Should I be rethinking this?
Aren't there any current studies that demonstrate this?

Phil.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] To target or not

[Philip Kiff]

Joyce Evans wrote:
> I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites
> in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. [...]

I think that the weight of public opinion has been steadily turning against
this view over the past 10 years or so.  I would be interested in knowing if
there is any current research that supports the theory that opening links in
new windows will somehow keep visitors interested in your site longer.  Sure
it may keep them *stuck* there longer, but does that keep them *interested*?
My impression is that in 2007 the reverse is true.

There is certainly a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence that suggests
that for a certain percentage of web users, nothing infuriates them more
than forcing causing a new window to pop-up unexpectedly when you click on a
link.  I personally now use a JavaScript snippet to strip all
target="_blank" entries from the DOM before rendering pages are rendered in
my browser.

>From a web standards perspective, the argument against opening links in new
windows dates back to the very first W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (1999), if not before:

Guideline 10.1
Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause
pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window
without informing the user. [Priority 2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-interim-accessibility

See also, the WCAG "Techniques" document notes for 10.5:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#no-new-windows

Lastly, if one really must spawn new windows with certain links, then I
quite like the method suggested by Bill Posters (note that this is
apparently still a Work In Progress):
http://test.newplasticarts.co.uk/dom-js/flag-toggle-external-links/

Phil.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Hassan Schroeder]

Dave Lane wrote:

I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my 
browsing should work, breaking web conventions 


Opening new windows *is* a web convention, of long standing, your
lack of approval notwithstanding.  :-)

...  if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, 
because that's not how I work. 


But that's /you/ -- *not* everyone.

I've done usability tests where users *preferred* off-site links to
open in another window. There are other circumstances where opening
new windows -- help, typically -- is desirable, even necessary.

It's all about context.

--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-938-0567   === http://webtuitive.com

   dream.  code.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest

[Cook, Karen]

 


Hi,
I'm back in the office on Tuesday 24th July. I hope it can wait until then.
Karen




Sensis. Australia's leading information resource.

Making complex lives simpler by helping you find, buy and sell.

www.sensis.com.au - www.yellow.com.au - www.whitepages.com.au - 
www.citysearch.com.au - www.about.sensis.com.au
www.whereis.com.au - www.gostay.com.au - www.justlisted.com.au - 
www.tradingpost.com.au - www.linkme.com.au
www.invizage.com.au - www.telstra.com.au - www.smallbusiness.sensis.com.au - 
www.universalpublishers.com.au
www.carshowroom.com.au

Sensis cares for the environment - think before you print.

This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the recipient 
and may be confidential and/or legally privileged.
Sensis Pty Ltd disclaims liability for any errors, omissions, viruses, loss 
and/or damage arising from using, opening or transmitting this email.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, interfere with, 
disclose, copy or retain this email and you should notify the sender 
immediately by return email or by contacting Sensis Pty Ltd by telephone on 
[+61 3 8653 5000]

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] margin problem in Firefox

[Kepler Gelotte]

Hi Tee,

The indentation appears to be coming from 

#comments li {
margin-left:96px;
}

Not #comments li.msg_left as you assumed. Adding a margin-left: 5px; to your
#comments li.poster and #comments li.myresponse definitions will fix the
problem:

#comments li.poster {
background:#2E2F30 url(images/curve-top.jpg) no-repeat scroll right
top;
padding:5px 0pt 5px 25px;
width:auto;
margin-left:5px;
}

#comments li.myresponse {
background:#CC8C0B url(images/myresponse_ctop.jpg) no-repeat scroll
right top;
padding:5px 5px 5px 18px;
width:auto;
margin-left:5px;
}

Regards,
Kepler Gelotte

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tee G. Peng
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:04 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] margin problem in Firefox

Hi,  I don't seem able to solve this very simple position problem for  
the comment area.

First I wasn't sure whether I should use OL or UL or P or DT for the  
comment (my first question), after looking at some blogs I decided to  
go with OL (with a question mark hanging in my head), everything  
seemed working as expected until I started adding pretty background  
colors/images and Firefox doesn't obey my rule. Been spending last 4  
hours trying to figure what I did wrong with Firefox but I am unable  
to see the error.

Pleaseee lend me your crystal clear eyes.

There shouldn't be a gap for the mustard background (#1, #2...)  and  
the 'john doe on july 15, 11:34am' gray background
http://zhujili.com/index-new.html
codes in question:

#comments li {margin-left:96px; /* because the gray background image  
is 96px wide}


#comments li.msg_left {font-size:1em;
background:#cc8c0b;
padding:5px;
float:left;
width:30px;
margin-left:51px; /* this one is causing the problem in Firefox but

I need this declared because I wanted the the box stay 51px away from  
the left */
color:#ddd;font-weight:bold;}

It appears that in Firefox, the li.poster inherits the "margin-left: 
51px" from the li.msg_left which I can't make sense of it.
#comments li.poster {width:auto;padding:5px 0 5px  
15px;background:#2E2F30 url(images/curve-top.jpg) no-repeat right top;}



thanks!

tee


***
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] To target or not

[paul tutty]

I think adding a css class that displays an icon that quite obviously
denotes that the link will open a new window has been banded around for
awhile now. I know that I have used it in the past, but must admit on this
particular subject to, depending on the project's needs, use transitional
doctype and target blank anyway or utilize a javascript. Interesting to see
what this brings out from others!

Paul Tutty
http://www.codethirteen.com
Part-time Freelancer, full time helicopter pilot.

On 19/07/07, Joyce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a
separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks on
a
link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button
20
times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential
customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot
click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button,
and
voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.

Joyce Evans
Niche Marketing
www.nichemktghouston.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] To target or not

Hello List,

I was curious what others opinions were on this issue...

Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do
you think is better?  Having the window opening up with JavaScript or
just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants.

I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for
accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups.
Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if
it is an external site, etc.

What does everyone think?

Matthew
--
Matthew Ohlman
www.ohlman.com


***
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]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] My Website

[Stuart Foulstone]

Hi Marvin,

On your pages at http://startrekcafe.bravehost.com there is a problem,
from a usability/accessibility viewpoint, with the hover background colour
on your standard links, i.e. across the top (Sbar) and bottom (footer).

The hover background in styles.css is mid-green.  This is fine for the
"section508.link" which you probably intended it for, but it is also
cascading on to all other standard links.

This produces blue link text on a green background which is extremely
difficult for fully-sighted people to read let alone those with low
vision.

Hope this helps.

Stuart


> On Jul 15, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Marvin Hunkin wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>> check out my website at the bottom of this message.
>> cheers Marvin.
>> Check out my home page at http://startrekcafe.bravehost.com
>


-- 
Stuart Foulstone.
http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk
BigEasy Web Design
69 Flockton Court
Rockingham Street
Sheffield
S1 4EB
Tel. 07751 413451


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Dave Lane]

My suggestion is simple: let it be the content and presentation that 
keeps people on your site, not gimmickry.  Most smart web surfers use 
Firefox or Opera or a lesser browser that is nonetheless tabbed.  If I 
want to stay on a page, I open links from that page in new background 
tabs while I continue to read the page.


I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my 
browsing should work, breaking web conventions (note, web conventions 
exist for a reason... they're what people expect - I recommend people 
think long and hard before they break them).


If I click on a link on their site I expect it to open in my current 
window - if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, 
because that's not how I work.  I see that approach as indicating a 
designer still in a very IE5.5-6 mindset: primitive.  Sites that try to 
manipulate me don't pique my interest, they put me right off (and, 
needless to say, I don't go back).


Dave

Joyce Evans wrote:

I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a
separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks on a
link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20
times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential
customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot
click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and
voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.

Joyce Evans
Niche Marketing
www.nichemktghouston.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] To target or not

Hello List,

I was curious what others opinions were on this issue...

Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do 
you think is better?  Having the window opening up with JavaScript or 
just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. 

I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for 
accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups.  
Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if 
it is an external site, etc.


What does everyone think?

Matthew


--
Dave Lane == Egressive Ltd == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == +64 21 229 8147
+64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = no software patents
http://egressive.com  we only use open standards: http://w3.org
Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Diego La Monica]

Hi

Joyce Evans:


I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a
separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks on
a
link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button
20
times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential
customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot
click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button,
and
voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.



Diego La Monica:
I wonder: who should decide where open new links you or the visitors of your
site?
I think they should be the last ones.

--
Diego La Monica
Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0
Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550)
W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member
Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu )
phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382
MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264
Web: http://diegolamonica.info


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] To target or not

[Joyce Evans]

I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a
separate window, so you don't lose the visitor.  If the visitor clicks on a
link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the
visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20
different pages.  Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20
times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential
customer.  If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot
click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and
voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be.

Joyce Evans
Niche Marketing
www.nichemktghouston.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] To target or not

Hello List,

I was curious what others opinions were on this issue...

Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do 
you think is better?  Having the window opening up with JavaScript or 
just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. 

I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for 
accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups.  
Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if 
it is an external site, etc.

What does everyone think?

Matthew
-- 
Matthew Ohlman
www.ohlman.com


***
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] My Website

[Tee G . Peng]

On Jul 15, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Marvin Hunkin wrote:


Hi.
check out my website at the bottom of this message.
cheers Marvin.
Check out my home page at http://startrekcafe.bravehost.com


Hi Marvin,

I am a Star Trek fan. :)

Is there anything particular you would like us to look at?

I understand that this site is your school assignment and that it's a  
site makes for visual impaired in particular (are people with this  
disability use screen reader only? I doubt.) - first  I must said the  
color contrast is too much for my eyes to bear, especially the galaxy  
background image. My thought is, they must have a way to accommodate  
normal users and users who are visual impaired so that their stays at  
your site are an enjoyable experience.


Also, there must have a purpose and information provided for a  
website, but I don't see it quite clearly. First your headline states  
that it's a 'Star Trek Portal' but you also tell us we can find  
information on Star Trek and Disability. Ok, fine, but what is your  
objective for the site? Are the two topic equally important?


Do you want to make a site for both Star Trek portal and information  
about disability? Or are you actually wanting to make a site about  
Star Trek that is built with accessibility in mind so that people  
with disability can view it regardless what browsers /screen readers  
they use?


Also, as a Star Trek fan, I expect too see some background info on  
the homepage about Stark Trek (it can either be one the series or all  
series, it doesn't need to be like this page in wikipedia (http:// 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek) but a bit of information will be  
very useful. I see you have provided many star trek links in other  
page, however  Providing background info on Start Trek on the  
homepage can help and motivate your visitors who may not  know what  
Star Trek is,  to stay a bit longer at your site



tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] margin problem in Firefox

[Tee G. Peng]

Hi,  I don't seem able to solve this very simple position problem for  
the comment area.


First I wasn't sure whether I should use OL or UL or P or DT for the  
comment (my first question), after looking at some blogs I decided to  
go with OL (with a question mark hanging in my head), everything  
seemed working as expected until I started adding pretty background  
colors/images and Firefox doesn't obey my rule. Been spending last 4  
hours trying to figure what I did wrong with Firefox but I am unable  
to see the error.


Pleaseee lend me your crystal clear eyes.

There shouldn't be a gap for the mustard background (#1, #2...)  and  
the 'john doe on july 15, 11:34am' gray background

http://zhujili.com/index-new.html
codes in question:

#comments li {margin-left:96px; /* because the gray background image  
is 96px wide}



#comments li.msg_left {font-size:1em;
background:#cc8c0b;
padding:5px;
float:left;
width:30px;
	margin-left:51px; /* this one is causing the problem in Firefox but  
I need this declared because I wanted the the box stay 51px away from  
the left */

color:#ddd;font-weight:bold;}

It appears that in Firefox, the li.poster inherits the "margin-left: 
51px" from the li.msg_left which I can't make sense of it.
#comments li.poster {width:auto;padding:5px 0 5px  
15px;background:#2E2F30 url(images/curve-top.jpg) no-repeat right top;}




thanks!

tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Diego La Monica]

Hi,
Gaspar:


But all this examples doesnt still force the users to open a new window!?!



Not all, WindowedLinks doesn't force user, but let the user to choose by a
common function on the page.

So i not use target="blank", it's the somethink, or i have turn off

javascript to be forced to open in a new Window!?



No, you have to turn on javascript to allow the script to open the desired
links in a new window

I many times think in this, and think in a way of using a class="" or

rel="" to a , this activate a javascript function that take the
href="" in question and creat after that element another  elemente
but with target="_blank" and just a image that everyone use for "new
window".



It isn't wrong but (IMHO) it's too complex less usable.

I know that this will duplicate the code, but just on fly, and the

user will not be forced to open in new window, he have the possibility
to choose. Or anything of this is wrong?



The only thing that results not correct (nothing is wrong ;-) ) to me is
that a user whit disabilities that uses Screen Reader to browse the site,
finds the first link and could loose the second one or could be bored for
the duplicated information.
But could be a good idea.

See you!

--
Diego La Monica
Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0
Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550)
W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member
Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu )
phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382
MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264
Web: http://diegolamonica.info


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] To target or not

[Gaspar]

But all this examples doesnt still force the users to open a new window!?!
So i not use target="blank", it's the somethink, or i have turn off
javascript to be forced to open in a new Window!?

I many times think in this, and think in a way of using a class="" or
rel="" to a , this activate a javascript function that take the
href="" in question and creat after that element another  elemente
but with target="_blank" and just a image that everyone use for "new
window".

I know that this will duplicate the code, but just on fly, and the
user will not be forced to open in new window, he have the possibility
to choose. Or anything of this is wrong?


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***