Re: [WSG] Validating Flash
Tim MacKay provided the following information on 27/03/2008 4:37 PM: Hi List, My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain elements -- not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors from HTML Tidy and the validator about the object and embed tags, which wrecks my validated markup. What is the standards-compliant way to embed Flash elements so that my site validates and stops throwing errors? Thanks, Tim Hi Tim, I always use the following code and my pages always validate. Is it standards compliant? Someone can answer that for me perhaps... Andrew script type=text/javascript AC_FL_RunContent( 'codebase','http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0','width','180','height','185','title','Wonderful','src','swf/my_wonderful','quality','high','pluginspage','http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer','movie','swf/index_testimonial' ); //end AC code /script noscript object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=swf/my_wonderful.swf width=100 height=100 param name=movie value=swf/my_wonderful.swf / param name=quality value=high / /object /noscript *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Validating Flash
Use swfobject, check my web site http://www.pureflash.net, see how I embed my swfs and make it that way, it will work. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Freedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim MacKay provided the following information on 27/03/2008 4:37 PM: Hi List, My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain elements – not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors from HTML Tidy and the validator about the object and embed tags, which wrecks my validated markup. What is the standards-compliant way to embed Flash elements so that my site validates and stops throwing errors? Thanks, Tim Hi Tim, I always use the following code and my pages always validate. Is it standards compliant? Someone can answer that for me perhaps... Andrew script type=text/javascript AC_FL_RunContent( 'codebase','http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0','width','180','height','185','title','Wonderful','src','swf/my_wonderful','quality','high','pluginspage','http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer','movie','swf/index_testimonial http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0%27,%27width%27,%27180%27,%27height%27,%27185%27,%27title%27,%27Wonderful%27,%27src%27,%27swf/my_wonderful%27,%27quality%27,%27high%27,%27pluginspage%27,%27http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer%27,%27movie%27,%27swf/index_testimonial' ); //end AC code /script noscript object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=swf/my_wonderful.swf width=100 height=100 param name=movie value=swf/my_wonderful.swf / param name=quality value=high / /object /noscript *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- http://www.pureflash.net web designer and interactive media developer *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Validating Flash
Hi Tim, Already we had some discussion related to this. Please refer the mails with heading *The correct way of placing a swf file into a XHTML webpage*. Here, you can find some information. Thanks! Venkatesan M On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Tim MacKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi List, My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain elements – not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors from HTML Tidy and the validator about the object and embed tags, which wrecks my validated markup. What is the standards-compliant way to embed Flash elements so that my site validates and stops throwing errors? Thanks, Tim *** 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] Validating Flash
Hi Tim, For XHTML 1.0 Strict I use: object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=swf/flash-file-name.swf width=xxx height=xxx param name=movie value=swf/flash-file-name.swf / param name=play value=true / param name=quality value=best / pAlternative content for users if plug-in fails to load./p /object Kind Regards, Kane Tapping Web Standards Developer Web and Content Management Services Griffith University. 4111. Australia. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630 Tim MacKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27/03/2008 03:37 PM Please respond to wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To wsg@webstandardsgroup.org cc Subject [WSG] Validating Flash Hi List, My question is about embedding Flash on html pages (just certain elements – not talking about full flash sites). I always get errors from HTML Tidy and the validator about the object and embed tags, which wrecks my validated markup. What is the standards-compliant way to embed Flash elements so that my site validates and stops throwing errors? Thanks, Tim *** 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] floats and ie7
thanks for the heads up on ie6. i added the width to the rule. thanks for the article as well. i read it and still don't know any more than i did before i read it. maybe because i'm tired. i bookmarked it for later perusal. makes me wonder when ms will get it right in their browsers. maybe they just like messing with designers and developers. kind of makes ballmer's remarks of his love for web developers sound hollow. anyway, thanks for the tip. i went back into the netscape css and got rid of some stuff after a few more chapters in zeldman's book. i am trying to do the same thing with my art site, but i'm hitting a brick wall with font sizes in nn4. i was looking at the redesign of the index page in nn4 and the font seems to get larger as i scroll down the page. i've put it away for now, but i may give another try at a later date. btw, does nn4 like ems, percentages or pixels for font sizes? cheers, dwain On 3/27/08, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks thierry for your response. there was no width set on the nav div and that was the culprit. after my bout with the nn4 style sheet i guess i was brain dead. let me know when you will be in alabama Hi Dwain, It does not need a width, it needs hasLayout [1]. If it works with a width it is because width is one of the properties that triggers hasLayout in IE. zoom does this, but also position:absolute, display:inline-block, height, float and a few others. In any case, keep width if you see that it works the way you want. As a side note, if you want to fix the display issue in IE 6 (your images ), you'll need to insert the following: #adgpix {width: 242px;} imho, it is a good habit to always set a width on floats. I believe it used to be in the specs and I guess old browsers know that ;) [1] http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- dwain alford 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: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]
Please clarify dwain. have you got two examples, one shrink-wrapping (??) the other not? Do you mean one div will only be as large as the content within it and the other will retain a fixed size regardless of content? Joe On Mar 27 2008, at 05:07, dwain wrote: after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will shrink wrap their contents while others don't. any takers? dwain -- dwain alford 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] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Web Standards in India
I completely agree with you'll when you say that most designers in India are still unaware of web standards, accessibility, interaction and usability. If you guys are in Mumbai on the 29th of March, and interested in Web standards and accessibility you'll can check out BarCamp Mumbai at IIT Powai. Check it out at: http://www.barcampmumbai.org/ See you'll there. Regards, Jonathan D'mello On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Alexander Gounder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, thought I'll butt in here. I from Amchi Mumbai. I accidentally stumbled on Web standards as I was learning White Hat SEO, I've been on the list for a little less than a year and have picked quite a few useful tips. Though I still am bad with using webstandards and still use tables, as I'm still struggling to find a place where and more importantly time when, I could learn some nice HTML layouting using Divs. Its only lately that I have seen so many Indians replying to posts out here. So I thought I too will contribute and have added a new section for Web Standards ( here http://www.website-designers-india.com/viewforum.php?f=6 ) on our Indian Website Designers Forum. Would like it if you guys could come and contribute, with your queries and more importantly resolutions to someone else's queries. I know that the forum is not as convenient as a mailing list but then again the resolutions would be there for others to see. Last but not the least Amrinder, you've got a great looking site, keep it up. Thanks Alexander Gounder www.ecreeds.com www.gounder.co.in www.orlem.in On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Amrinder Sandhu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Friends I am a web standard designer from India where there is very less awareness about terms like Web Standards, Usability, Accessibility and User experience. I want your help and advice as to make Web Standards known to people here in India. Also, I would like to know any Indians who are member of WSG so that we can get in touch and help India to know and follow Web Standards. Hope for great support from you all. I will appreciate the suggestions and advices from all my WSG friends. Thanks and Regards, Amrinder Freelance Web Designer. www.awayback.com Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. live !!! *** 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] ***
[WSG] Best password strength indicator?
Am looking for an intuitive and elegant example of a password field with an strength indicator that updates as you type each character. I've seen plenty around, and off the top of my head I quite like Google's* (although I'd say it should show small amount of red graph to begin with, portraying instantly that the line is a strength indicator). * https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount Can anyone let me know if there's one they feel is significantly better than that? I'm keen for one that is compact. Some are over the top and make the user have to think an unnecessarily extra amount. For instance, this MSN one contains intuitive elements but is cluttered with too much instruction. https://accountservices.passport.net/reg.srf?roid=2sl=1vv=400lc=1033 Sigurd Magnusson, SilverStripe *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Best password strength indicator?
tried moo tools or JQuery? Joe On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:37, Sigurd Magnusson wrote: Am looking for an intuitive and elegant example of a password field with an strength indicator that updates as you type each character. I've seen plenty around, and off the top of my head I quite like Google's* (although I'd say it should show small amount of red graph to begin with, portraying instantly that the line is a strength indicator). * https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount Can anyone let me know if there's one they feel is significantly better than that? I'm keen for one that is compact. Some are over the top and make the user have to think an unnecessarily extra amount. For instance, this MSN one contains intuitive elements but is cluttered with too much instruction. https://accountservices.passport.net/reg.srf? roid=2sl=1vv=400lc=1033 Sigurd Magnusson, SilverStripe *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Why is u deprecated?
I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for forms because u was used to show which letter was the access key. Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really sorry there is no alternative as there is with b and i. Does anyone know an alternative to xmp? I know you can use entitiy codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Perhaps they could bring those two back. IceKat Joseph Ortenzi wrote: Very good points b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic. u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention. I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click underlined text so keep it out please... I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention. Joe On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote: Hi, Usability. Users expect link-text to be underlined. Many user studies found that when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined text several times before they gave up). Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start styling their link colours as they thought fit. Even though this styling often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined text to mean links. This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it was u. b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you want to style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that em and strong confer. On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote: Hi, I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been deprecated while b and i are still allowed. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [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] ***
[WSG] :: dropdown menus ::
Hi I am stuck with dropdown menus. They are working fine in IE-7, and firefox and the evil IE6 doesn't render it. Should I use javascript or CSS for this. Here is my code: ** XHTML code ** div id=main_nav ul id=menu li id=nav_home class=menu_active aHome/a/li lia href=about.htmlAbout Us/a/li lia href=products.htmlRetail Products/a ul lia href=#Milk Powders/a/li lia href=#UHT Milk/a/li lia href=#Butter/a/li lia href=#Cheese/a/li lia href=#Liquid Products/a/li lia href=#Juices/a/li /ul /li lia href=ingredients.htmlDairy Ingredients/a ul lia href=#Milk Powder/a/li lia href=#Whey Powder/a/li lia href=#Milk Proteins/a/li lia href=#Butter Fat Products/a/li lia href=#Cheese/a/li /ul /li lia href=importexport.htmlExports/Imports/a/li li id=nav_contacta href=contact.htmlContact Us/a/li /ul div class=clear/div /div !--End main_nav-- ** CSS Code ** #main_nav { clear: both; position: relative; margin-top: 3px; border: 1px solid red; } #menu li { float: left; position: relative; } #menu li ul { position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 31px; display: none; background-color: #309DCF; } #menu a { background: #309DCF url(../images/menubck_18.gif) scroll repeat-x left top; } li ul li { background: url(../images/menubck_18.gif) repeat-x left top; border:1px solid #fff; } ul li a { display: block; text-decoration: none; padding: 6px 40px; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: #FFF; } li li a { padding:4px 5px 4px 37px; width:120px; border-left:none; } ul #nav_home a { width: 30px; border-left: none; } * html li a { width:auto; } /* Fix IE. Hide from IE Mac \*/ * html ul li { float: left;} * html ul li a {height:1%;} /* End */ #menu li:hover ul, #menu li.over ul { display:block; } #menu a:hover { background-attachment: scroll; background-image: url(../images/menuhoverbck_18.gif); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: left top; background-color: #de5a03; } ** javascript code ** startList = function() { if (document.alldocument.getElementById) { navRoot = document.getElementById(nav); for (i=0; inavRoot.childNodes.length; i++) { node = navRoot.childNodes[i]; if (node.nodeName==LI) { node.onmouseover=function() { this.className+= over; } node.onmouseout=function() { this.className=this.className.replace( over, ); } } } } } window.onload=startList; Please Help! Thanks in advance. Regards, Amrinder Freelance Web Designer www.awayback.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Best password strength indicator?
I Like the following: http://www.passwordmeter.com/ Show the strength as you type, with a detailed explanation of that strength. You can download the script: http://www.passwordmeter.com/pwd_meter.zip Have fun! Gregorio Espadas gespadas [at] gmail [dot] com On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Sigurd Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am looking for an intuitive and elegant example of a password field with an strength indicator that updates as you type each character. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]
is it on this page? http://www.alforddesigngroup.com/ On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:47, dwain wrote: with my haslayout problem, the div around the pictures shrink wrapped while the nav div, containing a ul, and along with the ul sized to 100% of the wrapper. dwain On 3/27/08, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please clarify dwain. have you got two examples, one shrink-wrapping (??) the other not? Do you mean one div will only be as large as the content within it and the other will retain a fixed size regardless of content? Joe On Mar 27 2008, at 05:07, dwain wrote: after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will shrink wrap their contents while others don't. any takers? dwain -- dwain alford 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] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- dwain alford 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:07 AM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will shrink wrap their contents while others don't. any takers? Block level elements such as DIV will be 100% of the width of their parent container, unless they are floated - in which case they can either have an explicit width set via CSS, or they will shrinkwrap their contents. -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote: I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether. (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...) Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Because it's against accessibility of a webpage. On 27/03/2008, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- -- Diego La Monica (IWA/HWG) Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 W3C Protocols and Format Working Group member for IWA/HWG Web Skill Profiles WG Member (http://skillprofiles.eu ) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Skype: diego.la.monica mobile +393337235382 - Web: http://diegolamonica.info - http://jastegg.it [ Le uova si sono schiuse! ] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html
Michael I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
For acessibility and usabilitty issues i think we shouldn't use this. http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam77-0.htm http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Apr/0100.html []'s 2008/3/27, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- []'s - Rochester Oliveira http://webbemfeita.com/ Viva a Web-Bem-Feita Web Designer Curitiba - PR - Brasil *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html
Andrew of course you are right there, however if the brief says so -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote: I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether. (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...) Andrew *** 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] a target=” blank” not part of x html
Has the same problem. Target is not xhtml. Are people arguing web standards prohibit opening a new page in a new browser or tab? Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Rob Kirton wrote: Michael I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, *Michael Horowitz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Michael Horowitz wrote: I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml It's not part of XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional -- it's part of XHTML 1.0 Frameset. Choose the doctype you want to validate to. Or use the JavaScript approach. Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choices :-) FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** 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] a target= blank not part of xhtml
Hi Michael, If I recall / understood correctly, the opening of a new browser window was seen by the W3C as functionality and therefore consigned to scripting. As for web standards prohibiting opening of new windows, this AA requirement is a little ambiguous for my taste: 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. The WCAG Samuari Errata states: Do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. * Plain text is the strongly preferred method of informing the user. Use of any other method must be reserved for cases where plain text is unreasonably difficult or impossible. * The title attribute on a hyperlink a element can suffice in the unique case of legacy pages that are unreasonably difficult to update. It is not sufficient in newly-created pages or other circumstances. This shows more clearly shows that opening new windows is not deemed illegal. However, it gives little indication as to when it is acceptable to open a new window. Jackob Neilsen rates it in his top 10 design mistakes http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html This one talks about opening non html docs in a new window: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/open_new_windows.html Ant -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Horowitz Sent: 27 March 2008 16:36 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml Has the same problem. Target is not xhtml. Are people arguing web standards prohibit opening a new page in a new browser or tab? Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Rob Kirton wrote: Michael I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, *Michael Horowitz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-1 0-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Re: WSG Digest (Out of office until Tuesday 1 April)
Hi, I am currently away from the office and will return on Tuesday as a married man. I will attend to you email at that time. If the matter is urgent, please contact Elise Fitzgerald on 9268 2962 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am contactable on my mobile if my urgent attention is required, 0414 259 797... Note, I will not answer my phone during the ceremony, 4-5pm on Saturday. Regards, Mark. _ This message (including any attachments) is intended solely for the addressee named and may contain confidential and or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the Ministry of Transport (MoT). Whole or parts of this e-mail may be subject to copyright of the Ministry or third parties. You should only re-transmit, distribute or use the material for commercial purposes if you are authorised to do so. Please visit us http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au or http://www.131500.info *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I see your point, Thom. The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good practice, IMO. Most people would just close the reader thinking they would be back on the page they left .. and they're not. I have seen many questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they wanted to be. In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy. Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** 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] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]
On 3/27/08, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is it on this page? http://www.alforddesigngroup.com/ yes -- dwain alford 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: [WSG] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]
On 3/27/08, Matthew Pennell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:07 AM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: after my experience tonight i was wondering why some divs will shrink wrap their contents while others don't. any takers? Block level elements such as DIV will be 100% of the width of their parent container, unless they are floated - in which case they can either have an explicit width set via CSS, or they will shrinkwrap their contents. i had no width set on the nav ul or the nav div and they both went to 100%. the div didn't shrink wrap the div and ul. dwain -- dwain alford 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: [WSG] Why is u deprecated?
On 27 Mar 2008, at 12:32, IceKat wrote: I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for forms because u was used to show which letter was the access key. Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really sorry there is no alternative as there is with b and i. Access keys have other problems, and while an underline might be a convention to indicate such things on some systems, it is hardly universal (or useful to blind users). Does anyone know an alternative to xmp? CDATA markers in XHTML documents (served with the right content type). I know you can use entitiy codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Set up a macro in your text editor to do it. -- 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Thomas Thomassen wrote: Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. Making assumptions about users' needs and behavior is your job as a designer/developer. Which is not to say everyone makes the best possible decisions. :-) Not everything built with (X)HTML is a brochureware site; people build browser-based applications, and sometimes even full-fledged frame use makes sense (e.g. JavaDoc, for one). As far as opening windows -- click on the Help menu item in your browser or another desktop application right now, and tell me if the help screen takes over your entire application window space, or, just possibly, *opens a new window*. Wow. Maybe this *is* an acceptable behavior *for some circumstances*. Horses for courses... -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === 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] :: dropdown menus ::
On 27 Mar 2008, at 12:44, Amrinder wrote: I am stuck with dropdown menus. Uh Oh. http://www.message.uk.com/index.php?page=81 They are working fine in IE-7, and firefox and the evil IE6 doesn't render it. Should I use javascript or CSS for this. JavaScript. You can't minimise accessibility problems (such as those involved with tracking the mouse down a narrow column while suffering from arthritis) with CSS alone. -- 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On 27 Mar 2008, at 15:44, Michael Horowitz wrote: I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml You read wrong. It is not part of Strict (HTML or XHTML), it is part of Transitional. Why not. Opening new windows is behaviour and thus out of scope for a markup language that describes document structure and semantics. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank- xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ Not really - that makes it harder to filter out target=_blank with a proxy. Sticking to a single window is usually a better idea. http:// diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html -- 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] why do some divs shrink wrap and others don't [OT?]
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:41 PM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i had no width set on the nav ul or the nav div and they both went to 100%. the div didn't shrink wrap the div and ul. That would be correct behaviour, unless you are saying that they were floated. -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On 27 Mar 2008, at 16:31, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Michael Horowitz wrote: I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml It's not part of XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional It is part of Transitional. -- it's part of XHTML 1.0 Frameset. Frameset is for frameSET documents, i.e. those with a frameset instead of a body. They aren't suitable for most pages on the web. They include the target attribute because the alternative content section lets you use anything in Transitional. -- 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On 27 Mar 2008, at 16:09, Rob Kirton wrote: I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD Don't do that. _new is not (X)HTML. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#h-6.16 Paraphrasing: Except for the reserved names (_blank, _self, _parent, _top), frame target names must begin with an alphabetic character -- 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Sure, there are cases where you would wish to open a new window. But I wouldn't compare a website and a web application, or desktop application. For websites I don't see the need to pop up windows left and right because the links lead off-site. This is something that's often done with the intent of keeping the user on the site. However, that won't help if the user is really done at that site, just creates extra steps for the user to do so. Frames and popup windows is fine features to use in web based applications. I'll agree to that. I've used it when making some HTA applications myself. But as I said, it's a different fish from websites. -Thom - Original Message - From: Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Thomas Thomassen wrote: Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. Making assumptions about users' needs and behavior is your job as a designer/developer. Which is not to say everyone makes the best possible decisions. :-) Not everything built with (X)HTML is a brochureware site; people build browser-based applications, and sometimes even full-fledged frame use makes sense (e.g. JavaDoc, for one). As far as opening windows -- click on the Help menu item in your browser or another desktop application right now, and tell me if the help screen takes over your entire application window space, or, just possibly, *opens a new window*. Wow. Maybe this *is* an acceptable behavior *for some circumstances*. Horses for courses... -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Thomas Thomassen wrote: Frames and popup windows is fine features to use in web based applications. I'll agree to that. Which is exactly my point -- why remove (or even deprecate) a useful capability because it's been abused by some? -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === 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] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Rob Kirton wrote: of course you are right there, however if the brief says so I know, I know... sigh / I'm in the middle of half a dozen conversations in which which I'm being commanded to make hideous assaults on usability - but I do feel duty-bound in every case to point out that it is a usability issue, and the possible repercussions. But, heck, what do any of us know, right? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
As for PDFs I find it ok that they open in a new window. As a personal preferance. But for regular links I feel that it's best leaving them alone. I've seen many novice computer users get confused when a link opens in a new window as they don't allways realise they're now navigating in a new window. When they want to navigate back to where they where they find that the back button suddenly doesn't work and they fumble trying to find their way back. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I see your point, Thom. The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good practice, IMO. Most people would just close the reader thinking they would be back on the page they left .. and they're not. I have seen many questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they wanted to be. In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy. Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** 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] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** 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] Why is u deprecated?
em and strong are NOT for screen readers. they are for the semantic markup. screen readers do not render em and strong, they read it as plain text. 2008/3/27, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for forms because u was used to show which letter was the access key. Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really sorry there is no alternative as there is with b and i. Does anyone know an alternative to xmp? I know you can use entitiy codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Perhaps they could bring those two back. IceKat Joseph Ortenzi wrote: Very good points b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic. u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention. I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click underlined text so keep it out please... I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention. Joe On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote: Hi, Usability. Users expect link-text to be underlined. Many user studies found that when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined text several times before they gave up). Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start styling their link colours as they thought fit. Even though this styling often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined text to mean links. This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it was u. b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you want to style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that em and strong confer. On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote: Hi, I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been deprecated while b and i are still allowed. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [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] *** -- []'s - Rochester Oliveira http://webbemfeita.com/ Viva a Web-Bem-Feita Web Designer Curitiba - PR - Brasil *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I have seen that too Thom .. and you have a good point. I have also had clients specifically request that while they want to link to other sites, they don't want the user to be off their site either. And even I don't do frames. ;) Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml As for PDFs I find it ok that they open in a new window. As a personal preferance. But for regular links I feel that it's best leaving them alone. I've seen many novice computer users get confused when a link opens in a new window as they don't allways realise they're now navigating in a new window. When they want to navigate back to where they where they find that the back button suddenly doesn't work and they fumble trying to find their way back. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I see your point, Thom. The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good practice, IMO. Most people would just close the reader thinking they would be back on the page they left .. and they're not. I have seen many questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they wanted to be. In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy. Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** 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] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
I agree, where possible, you shouldnt make decisions for your visitors. Users will return to a website using the back button if they want to. Darren Lovelock Munky Online Web Design http://www.munkyonline.co.uk/ http://www.munkyonline.co.uk T: +44 (0)20-8816-8893 _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Maben Sent: 27 March 2008 16:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote: I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether. (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...) Andrew *** 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] Why is u deprecated?
But semantic mark-up such as em and strong is there for user-agents such as screen-readers to use. That they do not currently render them as different from normal text does not mean that it is not the intention. We create Web standards that user-agents can work towards implementing (if they wish) not the other way round. On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:17 pm, Rochester oliveira wrote: em and strong are NOT for screen readers. they are for the semantic markup. screen readers do not render em and strong, they read it as plain text. 2008/3/27, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for forms because u was used to show which letter was the access key. Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really sorry there is no alternative as there is with b and i. Does anyone know an alternative to xmp? I know you can use entitiy codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Perhaps they could bring those two back. IceKat Joseph Ortenzi wrote: Very good points b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic. u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention. I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click underlined text so keep it out please... I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention. Joe On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote: Hi, Usability. Users expect link-text to be underlined. Many user studies found that when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined text several times before they gave up). Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start styling their link colours as they thought fit. Even though this styling often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined text to mean links. This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it was u. b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you want to style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that em and strong confer. On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote: Hi, I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been deprecated while b and i are still allowed. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [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] *** -- []'s - Rochester Oliveira http://webbemfeita.com/ Viva a Web-Bem-Feita Web Designer Curitiba - PR - Brasil *** 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] restricting width in the body tag
Chris, it is all design. This list is (in my observation) more about standards-compliant design than it is about the standards themselves. Some of it is tag-level accessibility, some of it about wider user experience issues. But it is all design. Cheers, Andrew Andrew Boyd Consultant SMS Management Technology M 0413 048 542 T +61 2 6279 7100 F +61 2 6279 7101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] About SMS: Ground Floor, 8 Brindabella Circuit, CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609 www.smsmt.com SMS Management Technology (SMS) [ASX:SMX] is Australia's largest, publicly listed Management Services company. We solve complex problems and transform business through Consulting, People and Technology From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2008 1:16 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] restricting width in the body tag William Donovan wrote: Hi all, I wanted to ask a question of better practice and current standards view. Is it better to have a header and footer stretch across the width of the browser window or be restricted to the width of the defined. left aligned content area. Leaving lots of vacant white space for people with wider screen resolution. (the question arises as people are becoming concerned about laptop users with 1600 pixel wide computer screens) and if it is to be restricted in width, should the styling restriction be applied to the body tag? Thank William This, to me, sounds like a design decision and doesn't seem related to web standards at all. Review your targeted viewers, and assess your design and usability in whatever environments your viewers will be using Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management Technology does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception or interference. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Horowitz Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:45 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10- strict-conversion/ If you really need to open a new window, this JS solution may help as it does not require extra markup: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Why is u deprecated?
I think that b and i are equivalent to u and that they probably should be deprecated. They probably will be in HTML5 (though I haven't looked). In my opinion, those are purely style, not semantic, and should be done with CSS. Joseph Ortenzi wrote: Very good points b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic. u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention. I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click underlined text so keep it out please... I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention. Joe On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote: Hi, Usability. Users expect link-text to be underlined. Many user studies found that when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined text several times before they gave up). Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start styling their link colours as they thought fit. Even though this styling often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined text to mean links. This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it was u. b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you want to style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that em and strong confer. On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote: Hi, I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been deprecated while b and i are still allowed. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I second that. Originally I had the target solution, then (to make it XHTML-compliant) an inline JS solution. With the next redesign I will throw it out altogether and just indicate external links through CSS, but leave it to the user to decide on new windows. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Yes but you choose to do so rather than being forced to do so. Usability tests still show that opening a new window confuses people. They can't work out whey they can't go back and don't seem to be aware of the task bar. I'm not sure how users react to tabbed browsers but in my own limited experience its very much the same, they seem totally unaware of the tab bar. Nancy Gill wrote: I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** 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] ***