Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On 2007/08/08 10:04 (GMT+1200) Matthew Cruickshank apparently typed: > Rob Kirton wrote: >> I contacted the Firefox development team prior to release 2 and suggested >> exactly what you have suggested, i.e. give the users an obvious prompt to >> re-size text i.e. in the default browser menu. It saves on both the users >> having to discover and remeber specialist key strokes and also save the web >> developer having to supply for each page. >> I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline. I'm >> not holding my breath... > Perhaps they were hinting at the full page zoom. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4821 is full page zoom, getting heavy attention in hopes it will be part of Gecko 1.9. More likely it was this 7 year old enhancement request: "feature to zoom so that majority of text on a page is user's default size" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31961 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108391 was since fixed, might have been part of what was referred to. There are a lot of really old enhancement request bugs open that would make Gecko friendlier, among them: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24846 7.5 years https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45848 7 years https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217523 4 years https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259856 3 years https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86194 tracks various user power enhancements. -- " It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."George Washington 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: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
Rob Kirton wrote: I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline. I'm not holding my breath... Perhaps they were hinting at the full page zoom. See http://urltea.com/15zr?full-page-zoom (from http://planet.mozilla.org/ ) .Matthew Cruickshank http://docvert.org << Convert MS Word to HTML, RSS, or any XML. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
Alastair I contacted the Firefox development team prior to release 2 and suggested exactly what you have suggested, i.e. give the users an obvious prompt to re-size text i.e. in the default browser menu. It saves on both the users having to discover and remeber specialist key strokes and also save the web developer having to supply for each page. I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline. I'm not holding my breath... I can only agree with previous comments about average web users and their lack of knowledge abou text resizing, having at one time run a number of classes for such people. Maybe one day the browser vendors will catch on. -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton Personally, I wouldn't > complain about that, but I would suggest that increase/decrease text > buttons are in the default browser chrome. > > Kind regards, > > -Alastair > > 1] http://alastairc.ac/2007/05/user-agent-improvements/ > > > > > *** > 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] setting fontsize in body
Rick Lecoat wrote: Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their default text set according to their requirements, or is it ... > they don't know that there's any other way? From lots of usability testing (including with people with visual impairments), and training people (not on browsers, but asking out of curiosity), I'm quite confident that few people know about changing the font-size. This was backed up not long ago by a very disappointing study that showed less than 1% of people visiting the site had changed their font settings. (Disappointing in terms of the results.) I thought I'd bookmarked it, but hopefully someone else did? Felix Miata wrote: > The only reasonable current assumption is that the users' > defaults are exactly as they want and/or need them to be. I find it a strange belief that people must use the defaults because they choose to. There are many scenarios where people stick with even silly defaults, either through ignorance or not caring enough to change them. (Or changing the wrong mechanism, as someone mentioned people changing screen resolutions.) You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their settings, otherwise they wouldn't have cared. The popularity of font-sizing widgets on sites is further evidence of users not knowing about font-size settings/zooming. (Not that I agree with doing that [1]). Even IE allows you to override the font settings, but it makes so many sites look rubbish that most people wouldn't. We are caught in something of a catch-22, as so many sites use small fonts compared to the default, or simply reducing the default because so many people don't know how to change it. Felix Miata wrote: > the web browser makers who made the default defaults equal > to what ordinary users prefer That decision was from about 13 years ago, surely? Unless I missed something earlier in the thread, I doubt they did any research into it then, and it would be out dated now if they did. Now they can't change the defaults because it would "break the web". Personally, I wouldn't complain about that, but I would suggest that increase/decrease text buttons are in the default browser chrome. Kind regards, -Alastair 1] http://alastairc.ac/2007/05/user-agent-improvements/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:01:04 +0100, David Dorward wrote: > This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor eyesight and > needing > larger font sizes? > Sorry, David, Your comment makes me smile. Being retired, I assist at a computer training lab where students of all adult ages learn computer skills - web design; MS Office; Photoshop etc. I use a 15" notebook with 1400 x 1050 resolution at home. The lab has just installed 19" LCD monitors, native resolution 1280 x 1024. To me, text on the lab computers looks huge by comparison. Invariably, when I turn on my workstation, I find the monitor resolution reset to a lower resolution by someone from the morning class. I also observe that a significant number of students also reset their monitors - some of them to 800 x 600. (!) This phenomenon seems unrelated to age. (FWIW - I am 71 1/2. And, yes, I need glasses.) Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On 2007/08/07 07:28 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed: > Claiming that the average user has configured any browser to her/his > personal taste is simply wishful thinking. For any designer to think he can do better than the web browser makers who made the default defaults equal to what ordinary users prefer, and virtually all the same as each other, is ludicrous. The minority of users who find the default defaults excessively different from what they find acceptable should be able to discover a solution, while the majority have been given approximately or even exactly what they prefer. Thus, assuming users have actively configured their own browsers to suit their own needs is immensely less evil than the rude imposition of a designer's arbitrary fraction of their defaults. -- " It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."George Washington 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: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
At 15:28 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >A few years ago, I taught a basic HTML class to employees of a large >*high-tech* company. Out of hundreds of students, only a handful had >any idea they could change their default text, or -- note -- anything >else that involved *using* the menus at the top of the browser. They >simply never explored them. > >This continues to be true of every /non-developer/ I've dealt with >personally or professionally. > >I've had clients/usability test participants rave about how wonderful >it was having an on-page font resizer. Not one realized that was also >duplicated functionality. Not one. > >Claiming that the average user has configured any browser to her/his >personal taste is simply wishful thinking. Phew. I was beginning to think I was some sort of lone heretic for even thinking this stuff. Of course, accepting that use of a default text size is possibly more due to inertia than to choice doesn't do much to constructively help us decide how best to size text. If not by simply setting content text to 100%, then how? Current wisdom would appear to say "use default text size, and people who want it smaller than that (because they find the design ugly at default sizes) will know what to do and will probably already have amended their default settings". But it seems that most won't. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
At 14:24 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >Actually there is no material difference in nominal browser default sizes. >http://lists.css-discuss.org/mailman/private/css-d/2006-January/057975.html Very interesting link, thanks Felix. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
Rick Lecoat wrote: What I'm asking is: Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their default text set according to their requirements, or is it possible that a large number of those people (particularly those people who will most benefit from an accessibly designed site) are simply viewing pages at default size because, to put it bluntly, they don't know that there's any other way? It's not only possible, it's highly probable. A few years ago, I taught a basic HTML class to employees of a large *high-tech* company. Out of hundreds of students, only a handful had any idea they could change their default text, or -- note -- anything else that involved *using* the menus at the top of the browser. They simply never explored them. This continues to be true of every /non-developer/ I've dealt with personally or professionally. I've had clients/usability test participants rave about how wonderful it was having an on-page font resizer. Not one realized that was also duplicated functionality. Not one. Claiming that the average user has configured any browser to her/his personal taste is simply wishful thinking. -- 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] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On Tue, August 7, 2007 11:24 pm, Felix Miata wrote: > Given that most browsers in most environments nominally default to 12pt, > and > that more people prefer 12pt than any other size, any proposition that a > site > should be styled such that most text is not the user's default size is > unsupportable. > At least for user's reading the Latin, Cyrillic and Greek scripts. For other scripts preferred fonts sizes may be either 14pt or 16pt depending on the script. Although font metrics can also impact on required font sizes. Andrew -- Andrew Cunningham Research and Development Coordinator Vicnet State Library of Victoria Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On 2007/08/07 04:28 (GMT-0700) Tee G. Peng apparently typed: > On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:01 AM, David Dorward wrote: >> I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor >> default, only smaller and harder to read. > clearleft dot com comes to mind. That's a Clagnut-styled page. In a roundabout way, http://clearleft.com/ is a 100% of default-styled page, but if you have a minimum font size set and use a Gecko browser, its text will be bigger for any minimum size more than 9/16 of your default. How much bigger will depend on the spread between default size and minimum size. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html -- " It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."George Washington 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: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On 2007/08/07 12:54 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: > I just wondered how accurate the idea > that 'type that is smaller than the user's specified browser default is > too small to for that user to read' really is? Because we don't know > that they /did/ specify it. The browser vendor probably specified it. I've been unable to find any scientific study anywhere that's reports anything other than that more users prefer 12pt than any other size... > At the same time, however, I also accede to David Dorward's point that > browsers go through much usability testing before release. > Of course, if we are to trust that usability testing to provide an > accurate gauge of what the majority of people consider a comfortable > reading size, then the fact that different browsers specify different > default sizes slightly undermines that. Actually there is no material difference in nominal browser default sizes. http://lists.css-discuss.org/mailman/private/css-d/2006-January/057975.html Given that most browsers in most environments nominally default to 12pt, and that more people prefer 12pt than any other size, any proposition that a site should be styled such that most text is not the user's default size is unsupportable. -- " It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."George Washington 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: [WSG] When to use image replacements?
Hi Lee, I think Image replacement is probably best to use if you are developing for Mobiles; as these are becoming more relevant. You don't want people to have to scroll past 10 navigation images in their mobile browser everytime the page loads. The logo should be a graphic as you want people to see it in a mobile browser. > Images with relevant copy > For example, if you visit Panic's website here: http://www.panic.com/ > coda/ > and go to the books tab, there is a picture of a book with some > relevant copy a user would find interesting. Again would this be a > candidate for image replacement? I think these would be a normal candidate for IR, as the icons will take a long time to load in a Mobile Browser, plus you'll need to scroll past them every time. Better to just have a text link. However, these are all apps that wouldn't work on a mobile anyway, so not sure how relevant it would be in this case! As far as print goes, I would imagine as a guess you want to take things like navigation and buttons out of the page you are printing anyway and just show the "body" content of that page. I am sure this wouldn't apply to all cases of course. There is of course sIFR if you want your graphic titles to be enlarge-able as well, if you aren't aware already. Cheers On 06/08/07, Kit Grose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The biggest issue I see with image replacement (which I, too, use > ridiculously often) is with printing. > > Most browsers remove background images from printing, and since image > replacement usually makes extensive use of background images, the > print will usually only list the text (which clients tend to dislike). > > This has got one specific benefit, though: if your logo is usually > set reversed (white on dark), you're not left printing a badly anti- > aliased, low-resolution white image on white paper. > > So my advice is to use image replacement for navigation, buttons, > etc., but not for logos or images that you require to be able to be > printed by a grandmother. > > Cheers, > > Kit Grose > > > *** > 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] setting fontsize in body
It's all starting to sound to me like the only way to deal with all the ifs and maybes is to set up our own options - use the browser default size as a base and provide a switch for the user to set their own preferences for your site in case they haven't fathomed the mysteries of their browser buttons and menus yet. We can guarantee neither that users will or will not have used the in-built text-size otions (and with so many sites out there still using small text, it's not really practical for anybody to just set a text size and stick with it - you really need to be au fait with the keyboard shortcuts and switch according to site to make comfortable use of the facility) and all we really know is that some people may need to. For me, I think I'll go and look into PHP sessions and see how I can set up my site so they can specify what size font they want to use when they visit and have that size persist on their return :-) Caitlin Rowley, B. Mus. (Hons), Gr. Dip. Design Composer, musicologist, web designer http://www.minim-media.com/listen/ On 7 Aug 2007, at 12:54, Rick Lecoat wrote: At 12:13 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: does Jakob Nielsen's research count as creditable research? Absolutely, of course. I would like to draw your attention to his Alertbox column, where he repeatedly states that tiny text is one of the worst design mistakes. To quote from his "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html : "Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained about small font sizes or frozen font sizes;" And nobody could make a case for type that is to small to read being acceptable. No me, certainly. But I just wondered how accurate the idea that 'type that is smaller than the user's specified browser default is too small to for that user to read' really is? Because we don't know that they /did/ specify it. The browser vendor probably specified it. At the same time, however, I also accede to David Dorward's point that browsers go through much usability testing before release. Of course, if we are to trust that usability testing to provide an accurate gauge of what the majority of people consider a comfortable reading size, then the fact that different browsers specify different default sizes slightly undermines that. -- Rick Lecoat *** 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] setting fontsize in body
At 12:01 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised. >> Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of >> the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the >> user's settings, is a good one, it does /itself/ make the assumption >> that the default has been chosen /proactively/ by the user. > >No, it assumes that the user has either chosen the size they like or >isn't sufficiently dissatisfied with the vendor supplied (after much >usability testing) default to find out how it can be changed. Yes, but the amount of dissatisfaction required to get someone to figure out how to make a change could be considerable, especially in an situation like using a computer where many people find anything that steps beyond beyond the very obvious and hand-held-step-by-step to be quite daunting and intimidating. But I take your point about browser vendors doing exhaustive usability testing prior to product release. >> And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation >> who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech- >> savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size >> can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and >> think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that >> there's >> nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE." > >This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor >eyesight and needing larger font sizes? Yeah, that's them. I wasn't disputing that people want bigger type as they get older, that's a no-brainer. I was simply speculating whether some people are viewing with size-16 text because they don't know how to change it when they'd be quite happy with, say, size-14. >I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor >default, only smaller and harder to read. True enough. Of course 'harder to read' is subjective and doesn't just work in a downward direction. Content text set at 120 pixel height would be pretty hard to read as well ;-) -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
At 12:13 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >does Jakob Nielsen's research count as creditable research? Absolutely, of course. >I would like to draw your attention to his Alertbox column, where he >repeatedly states that tiny text is one of the worst design mistakes. >To quote from his "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" at >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html : > >"Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many >votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained >about small font sizes or frozen font sizes;" And nobody could make a case for type that is to small to read being acceptable. No me, certainly. But I just wondered how accurate the idea that 'type that is smaller than the user's specified browser default is too small to for that user to read' really is? Because we don't know that they /did/ specify it. The browser vendor probably specified it. At the same time, however, I also accede to David Dorward's point that browsers go through much usability testing before release. Of course, if we are to trust that usability testing to provide an accurate gauge of what the majority of people consider a comfortable reading size, then the fact that different browsers specify different default sizes slightly undermines that. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:01 AM, David Dorward wrote: This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor eyesight and needing larger font sizes? I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor default, only smaller and harder to read. clearleft dot com comes to mind. I headed for that direction too, but was horrify to see the body text of my site shouting boldly at friends and clients' PC monitors. I think this is the problem we constantly facing here because too many website are with smaller fonts and that people suffer (they probably don't know they can use the zoom in /enlarge fontsize feature) too much, so my friends and some unweb-savvy clients, although have 1280 and higher resolution for their monitors, they all changed it to 1024. I bet they would have changed it to 800 pixel if their monitors allow it. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
Hi Rick, > And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation > who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech- > savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size > can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and > think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that there's > nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE." does Jakob Nielsen's research count as creditable research? I would like to draw your attention to his Alertbox column, where he repeatedly states that tiny text is one of the worst design mistakes. To quote from his "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html : "Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained about small font sizes or frozen font sizes;" which then links to the famous "Let Users Control Font Size" at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html Cheers, jens. -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body
On 7 Aug 2007, at 11:37, Rick Lecoat wrote: However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised. Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the user's settings, is a good one, it does /itself/ make the assumption that the default has been chosen /proactively/ by the user. No, it assumes that the user has either chosen the size they like or isn't sufficiently dissatisfied with the vendor supplied (after much usability testing) default to find out how it can be changed. And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech- savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that there's nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE." This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor eyesight and needing larger font sizes? I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor default, only smaller and harder to read. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Please help! CSS/IE Link Color Problem
At 19:23 (London time), on 4/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >In the light of the pseudoclass and class having the same name and >smart-alec browsers trying to correct perceived errors, could this >then be a case of misinterpretation by IE6? Might it not be better to >avoid using 'reserved' words for class/id names in case this sort of >thing happened (I guess a test would be, if the class name were >changed, does IE6 still not recognise the issue)? It's not something >I've ever encountered myself, just wondering... I agree with this; although I don't know if it is the root of Cole's problem, I would always try and avoid using reserved names for other purposes (in this case, as noted, you've given your class the same name as an existing pseudoclass that most browsers (not IE) will recognise and act on automatically. Whilst it's true that it /shouldn't/ make any difference (in an ideal, bug-free world) because .active and :active are /technically/ different, I would say 'why take the chance'? Cole: Try renaming your css class to a non-reserved word like 'activated', update the markup accordingly, and see if it helps. It might not, but at least then you'll know that your problem is definitely NOT caused by using a reserved name, and can cross it off the list of suspects. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Shop Products Markup
I dont have any knowledge of Foxycart or Modx CMS im afraid. There are several thousand reasons to why someone would want to use XML, and as you already mentioned it does get used for Web Feeds and Web Services, only because by creating them in XML they are available on a number of different platforms because XML isn't software or machine dependent. Using XML purely to add semantic value to elements isn't really one of them though, its like OTT, its likely to be that a machine wont see it the way you expect it to. James Jeffery ClearVue Media Faraday Warf, Aston Science Park, Birmingham On 8/7/07, Tee G. Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:45 AM, James Jeffery wrote: > > > Depends on what you want to achieve. You can use the microformats > > hReview to provide product reviews, but i dont think there is > > anything specific for listing products. > > > > You could use XML, but only if you had real reason to, if your > > using XML for the sole purpose to add semantic meaning to your > > products i wouldn't bother with it. You can add just as much > > semantic meaning using Classes. Example: > > > > > > Harry Potter > > Some Author (I really dont know :P) > > > > > > > > If you are going to create a centralized service based around your > > e-commerce site and plan to create your own software, widgets, > > toolbars and stuff then XML might be a better option, but before > > you use XML you would need a reason to in the first place. > > > > Hi James, I am curious as to the 'but before you use XML you would > need a reason to in the first place' comment. What kind of reason it > have to be? > > I am asking this because I was exploring the Foxycart script with > Modx CMS for one of my site. Foxycart people said that JSON/XML data > feed prevents duplication of data. I really love what I have learned > and have implemented (with TVs in Modx) so far, however the monthly > fee and the launche date of Open Source Magento kind of put me in > limbo with the Foxycart. > > 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] setting fontsize in body
At 23:09 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >The only reasonable current assumption is that the users' defaults are >exactly as they want and/or need them to be. Assuming otherwise with anything >other than medium, 1em or 100% in body flowing through to main content >unaltered could somehow be any improvement is thus an inexcusably rude >imposition. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html I fully understand and appreciate the above argument, and the link provided makes a strong and persuasive case. No question about that. However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised. Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the user's settings, is a good one, it does /itself/ make the assumption that the default has been chosen /proactively/ by the user. In other words, the user has looked at text displayed using the default text size and thought "That's just right for me" or "That's not right for me, I'll change it in my browser settings". And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech- savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that there's nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE." What I'm asking is: Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their default text set according to their requirements, or is it possible that a large number of those people (particularly those people who will most benefit from an accessibly designed site) are simply viewing pages at default size because, to put it bluntly, they don't know that there's any other way? Now, I'm NOT saying that this /is/ the case. I'm really not. But I'd love to know if there is any research data on this subject because, whilst I'm all for using default sizing if it really IS about respecting the viewer's choices, it would be a shame if it turned out that all we were really supporting was a lack of awareness of browser settings and forcing people to look at slightly uglier pages than they might otherwise want or need to. I'm not convinced by my own argument, I'm just throwing the idea out there for discussion, is all. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Shop Products Markup
On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:45 AM, James Jeffery wrote: Depends on what you want to achieve. You can use the microformats hReview to provide product reviews, but i dont think there is anything specific for listing products. You could use XML, but only if you had real reason to, if your using XML for the sole purpose to add semantic meaning to your products i wouldn't bother with it. You can add just as much semantic meaning using Classes. Example: Harry Potter Some Author (I really dont know :P) If you are going to create a centralized service based around your e-commerce site and plan to create your own software, widgets, toolbars and stuff then XML might be a better option, but before you use XML you would need a reason to in the first place. Hi James, I am curious as to the 'but before you use XML you would need a reason to in the first place' comment. What kind of reason it have to be? I am asking this because I was exploring the Foxycart script with Modx CMS for one of my site. Foxycart people said that JSON/XML data feed prevents duplication of data. I really love what I have learned and have implemented (with TVs in Modx) so far, however the monthly fee and the launche date of Open Source Magento kind of put me in limbo with the Foxycart. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Shop Products Markup
Hi, Just wanted to ask when you build an e-commerce site, do you markup the products in any additional markup to give them more meaning or interoperability? and by that I mean microformats or XBL or just XML? Thanks, Elle http://designbyelle.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Shop Products Markup
Depends on what you want to achieve. You can use the microformats hReview to provide product reviews, but i dont think there is anything specific for listing products. You could use XML, but only if you had real reason to, if your using XML for the sole purpose to add semantic meaning to your products i wouldn't bother with it. You can add just as much semantic meaning using Classes. Example: Harry Potter Some Author (I really dont know :P) You get the picture, the mark-up there is probably not the best, but its for demo a purpose. If you are going to create a centralized service based around your e-commerce site and plan to create your own software, widgets, toolbars and stuff then XML might be a better option, but before you use XML you would need a reason to in the first place. Hope that helps, if anything is unclear feel free to ask again. Its to early for me, my eyes are not fully awake at this moment. On 8/7/07, Elle Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Just wanted to ask when you build an e-commerce site, do you markup > the products in any additional markup to give them more meaning? and > by that I mean microformats or XBL or just XML? > > Thanks, > Elle > > http://designbyelle.com.au > > > *** > 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] ***
[WSG] Shop Products Markup
Hi, Just wanted to ask when you build an e-commerce site, do you markup the products in any additional markup to give them more meaning? and by that I mean microformats or XBL or just XML? Thanks, Elle http://designbyelle.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Shop Products Markup
Hi, Just wanted to ask when you build an e-commerce site, do you markup the products in any additional markup to give them more meaning? and by that I mean microformats or XBL or just XML? Thanks, Elle http://designbyelle.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
