Smashing Magazine have done an article on loads of different types. Most
should be easy to make accessible:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/10/23/online-calendars-and-date-pickers/
Rob
--
Rob Mason
t/a Sponge Project
www.spongeproject.co.uk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have two questions regarding images added via CSS.
1) I added an image for each bullet via CSS .box ul li. How do I specify alt
text in this situation? Do I add alt text in the HTML...even though there
would be no image if CSS was disabled?
Since it adds no meaning/information, it doesn't
Hi James,
Ok, that's good statement. I like it.
Aesthetic goes in CSS and therefore no need for ALT text.
Cheers,
P.s. My wife was flattered by your compliment. :-)
*
From: James Jeffery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Oct
Hi,
So...again with reference to http://phd.london.edu/ygrushkacockayne/ I
am on track to add the WCAG conformance logo:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html and the XHTML compliance
could also be added (and CSS I suppose)...
However, my client (my wife) is none too happy about me adding
On 10/27/07, Simon Cockayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So...how can I spread the good word of valid CSS, XHTML and
WCAG...without spoiling the site with verbose text or logos?
To be honest, I wouldn't bother. If the client doesn't want it, and
it's not adding anything to the site, why are you
Simon Cockayne wrote:
However, my client (my wife) is none too happy about me adding the
logo(s)...as she believes that will spoil the clean feel of the
site.
And I'd say he's right. To the end user of the site, it's completely
irrelevant.
So...how can I spread the good word of valid CSS,
There is really no hard and fast rule that states all presentational
images should be background images, there are plenty of situations
where is is not practical or inappropriate, as others have stated if
an images is purely for presentation than an empty alt attribute
(alt=) is appropriate.
Not
Dave Woods wrote:
http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/
A bit old now, but could still be of some use...
http://www.webaim.org/articles/evaluatingwithfirefox/
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned.
I am having an issue and I can't seem to see the whole picture
objectively.
Thanks to your influences, it has become my second nature to have
'skip to content' in every site I do (sites I have control over the
design and layout); when I do markup coding, clients often ignore the
'skip
On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Tee G. Peng wrote:
... so I came out with this technique:
teesworks.com/ (move your mouse to the top to see the result).
Haven't show it to client yet. Been working on this site in the
last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise'
Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am getting
so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up. There is no
way to miss it everytime I move the cursor to the top.
Leaving aside considerations as to whether you should actually be
bothering after the client
At 7:44 PM -0700 10/27/07, Tee G. Peng wrote:
I am having an issue and I can't seem to see the whole picture objectively.
Thanks to your influences, it has become my second nature to have
'skip to content' in every site I do (sites I have control over the
design and layout); when I do markup
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/22/07, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you tried outlook 2007 Lately? the way it reads/displays html has
been THE issue ever since it was released.
No. I'd assumed it displayed the same as OE6 or
Tee G. Peng wrote:
teesworks.com/
Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am
getting so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up.
If I, the site builder, find it annoying, what will the users find ?
As a user I find that kind of visual flicker highly
14 matches
Mail list logo
