Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:29 AM, James Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the point is > that any good user interface has multiple pathways to the same end result. In > the scrollbar case we can use: > * the keyboard > * the scroll wheel > * the scrollbar drag > * the scrollbar buttons > * any other device that can trigger a scroll event... > > In that instance, who is to say that what someone else does is wrong? Mr. user interface himself Jef Raskin contradicts this point in "the Humane Interface" and I would tend to agree. Having too many ways to do something increases the amount of mental burden. Having an interface like this is asking the user to learn all the different ways to accomplish something. And then once they've done that, they must decide what is the best way, each time they do it. Any good user interface has precisely one way to get something done- the best way (and this is measurable objectively, contrary to what you imply), and discards all the other ways. Then you only have to learn ONE thing for that task, develop it into a habit, and it becomes a subconscious gesture. Having a zillion ways to do something is a Microsoftian philosophy that you can see in MS Windows, MS Excel and MS Word through and through. Using any of those products gives me a headache, I must say. As for why people use google instead of an address bar? Because that's what you do for everything! In order to use it you only have to learn to do that one thing, rather than learning: 1. If it's a word or phrase use google, and 2. What a URL looks like, recognising when it's valid, and deciding to put it into the address bar. Option 2 requires expertise most people don't have, and don't want to bother learning- and it puts a burden on them to make a decision, which increases stress levels. The penalty for getting it wrong is that it doesn't work! wheras the penalty from using google is so soft that most people don't even notice the 4 extra seconds they spend clicking a link. So I can see quite clearly why people would tend to use the nicer, more user friendly function, that works every time, rather than risk the address bar for the vague promise of maybe being a little faster. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] possible to make absolute position moves down with fontsize resize?
On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:00:37 -0700, tee wrote: > Lately I have coded many templates that clients wanted an element that aligns > horizontally and has it stayed at the bottom of a content block. The only way > I could > think is using absolute position, but it creates an overlapping problem with > font size > resize. I am curious if there is a technique that I am totally unaware of > (already > googled and visited the archive of css-d). > > example ($xx/month): > http://lotusseedsdesign.com/s/raz_compare_plans.html > Just one more tiny suggestion to add to those you already have: If you use a min-height specified in EMs, it would adjust better for text re-sizing. For some reason, sizing nearly everything in pixels is viewed as easy and efficient. I find I have to be super-careful when using fixed pixel sizes for anything, given the many and varied ways that this or that browser or operating system affects text sizes. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:01:01 +0100 (BST), Stuart Foulstone wrote: > > But that's not because lots of people don't know how to use the address bar, > its > because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to type partial URL's into Google rather > than typing > the whole URL into the address bar - plus if you make a slight error you get > prompted > for the correction rather than just told it doesn't exist. > > Experienced IT literate people do this too. > Personally, for an address like http://www.example.com/ I just type the "example" bit, hold down the Ctrl key, and press enter. Works in most browsers. But then, I have worked with computers daily for almost 50 years. (This last comment to counter the "age" arguments.) Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] PHP Standards
Hi Using both Tidy (1) and HTML Purifier (2) can improve tag soup no end -- although even they have their limits. They also add a bit to processing time, especially HP as it is written in PHP - you can solve that issue with page caching, though. (1) php.net/tidy (2) htmlpurifier.org HTH James On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:56:25 am Andrew Boyd wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Andrew Maben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > Are you asking about PHP Standards or (X)HTML Standards within the > > context of PHP? Even the sloppiest of PHP (or any server-side scripting) > > can deliver impeccable standards-compliant markup, and conversely even > > the most carefully crafted PHP can deliver the most hideous tag soup. > > Though I think you will find that following best practices will be > > mutually reinforcing. > > > > If you're interested in PHP Coding Standards, a Google search will open > > the door to a wealth of information, and there are PHP mailing lists as > > well. > > > > For (X)HTML Standards, this list is an extraordinarily useful resource, > > and if you spend a little time with the archive you can find many useful > > links. > > > > good luck, > > > > Andrew > > Andrew, > > good point. Generating web standards-compliant (X)HTML with PHP is one > thing, and writing re-usable code is another. > > If I could make a small plug on behalf of the latter - please people, take > the time to document your code properly. The life/job/sanity you save may > be your own. > > Best regards, Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
Hi Reading through all the replies on this topic is quite interesting. The one thing that you can be sure about in web work of any kind is (aside from taxes) that users will interact with an interface in ways we never dreamed of - using their fridge, a keyboard, a mobile, the "wrong" address bar and possibly even a fair degreee of shouting, among others. Whether these are minor or major differences the end goal is: that the user can use an application and reach there intended goal with the minimum of fuss. Take the scrollbar point - I learnt this while I was watching my father-in-law, who has just learnt how to use Gmail and Skype. When he wants to scroll a page he goes and finds the up or down button and clicks repeatedly on it. For some of us this might seem inefficient but the point is that any good user interface has multiple pathways to the same end result. In the scrollbar case we can use: * the keyboard * the scroll wheel * the scrollbar drag * the scrollbar buttons * any other device that can trigger a scroll event... In that instance, who is to say that what someone else does is wrong? The only time something is classically "wrong" is when the user cannot control the interface in the way they want (user or interface is wrong) OR when they do control the interface in a normal fashion for the day and the interface fails to handle that interaction (interface is wrong). Note that the user should control the interface, not the other way round, and when something does go wrong then a user should be able to back out and try again easily. Examples like typing in an address into the google bar or the multitude of ways that one can upload an image to Flickr fall under the same banner. The discussion about "willful ignorance" may not be because the person is confronted by interacting with machine but because they have tried in the past and something has scared them off. I worked with someone many years back whose bug reporting system was "the widga-ma-doo is not working". Most people, given enough time, will get the basics. Some people won't - just as I won't probably understand heart surgery. It's all relative. Stepping back for a moment, you can see how all these examples can fall under the "Web2.0" (i dislike that term) way of doing things - which to paraphrase Jeff Veen is, among others, about "Openness, not control". Use-more interfaces are the ones general enough to be controlled in ways that we as the developers may not have thought about - with a user getting the end results they wished. An icon is an interface that is useful - it responds to clicks, keyboard controls and can optionally be configured. Do icons in your web pages respond to that interaction? most do not. Use-less interfaces are those which attempt to control the user interaction to a point where it may be impossible to continue. If I took the scroll buttons away from (or moved them) my father-in-law would probably get very frustrated with "Email". A message saying "Do not click the back button" is another use-less interface. If you need to supply that message then your application is not working correctly. Period. An even simpler one is "Hit Ctrl+Q to quit the application" - a simple enough action for English keyboards - but apply that logic to a Slovene audience who have neither a key spelt "Ctrl" or a "Q" character on their keyboard and you end up with useless interface - especially if that is the only interaction allowed. Finally, if people using your apps are happy then they will use them even more - even if they use them in ways you didn't design - then you have a use-more interface and isn't that a good thing ? Thanks james On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:26:45 pm Rick Lecoat wrote: > On 16 May 2008, at 06:50, Matthew Pennell wrote: > > In my experience, a large proportion of computer/web users struggle > > to understand online concepts that we expert users take for granted. > > Many regular surfers have no idea how to interact with a scroll bar > > - and there are lots of people who don't know how the address bar of > > their browser works! > > Matthew, my experience tallies with yours. At least half of the people > I work with (I mean clients, not co-workers) are not very IT-savvy at > all. It brings to mind the Blackadder line: "I am one of these people > who are quite happy > to wear cotton, but have no idea how it works." > > In some extreme cases this seems to extend to an almost willful > ignorance, as if they feel that learning how to operate their computer > would somehow diminish them. It is certainly true that the older the > client the more likely this seems to be -- although I would certainly > not generalise too much as I know plenty of completely computer- > literate 'silver surfers'. I find it frustrating when they stubbornly > refuse to learn what the most basic controls are on their browser, but > unless it has a negative impact on the project I general
Re: [WSG] possible to make absolute position moves down with fontsize resize?
On May 16, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote:
While that will work quite nicely you could also avoid absolute
positioning altogether. Because those ordered lists are all nicely
lined up you could set the min-height rule on them instead
of .box_res and .box_biz eg.
add this:
.box_res ol,
.box_biz ol {
min-height: 220px; /* dont forget IE<=6 needs a fallback */
}
and remove the positioning from .price:
#content p.price {padding-left: 20px;}
Then you may need to tweak the margin/padding on p.price to get it
perfect.
Robert, thank you very much! It works really great and I didn't even
need to adjust padding/margin.
I am so glad to learn a new technique!
Dean Edwards' IE7 takes care of the min-height in IE6 too. It's a
updated version, and downsized from 120kb to 30kb, consider it fixes
so many IE problem, even if it's 200kb I can live with it :-)
Thanks Thomas for the padding suggestion too.
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] PHP Standards
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Andrew Maben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you asking about PHP Standards or (X)HTML Standards within the context > of PHP? Even the sloppiest of PHP (or any server-side scripting) can deliver > impeccable standards-compliant markup, and conversely even the most > carefully crafted PHP can deliver the most hideous tag soup. Though I think > you will find that following best practices will be mutually reinforcing. > > If you're interested in PHP Coding Standards, a Google search will open the > door to a wealth of information, and there are PHP mailing lists as well. > > For (X)HTML Standards, this list is an extraordinarily useful resource, and > if you spend a little time with the archive you can find many useful links. > > good luck, > > Andrew > > Andrew, good point. Generating web standards-compliant (X)HTML with PHP is one thing, and writing re-usable code is another. If I could make a small plug on behalf of the latter - please people, take the time to document your code properly. The life/job/sanity you save may be your own. Best regards, Andrew -- --- Andrew Boyd http://onblogging.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] PHP Standards
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Ian Chamberlain < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fingers crossed this is not too far off topic; being a newby to PHP; any > clues where I can find how-to's, snippets, libraries or even application > suites built from PHP that are built to a good minimum standard please. > There's a good ongoing thread in the Sitepoint PHP forum filled with best practices: http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=456441 -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] PHP Standards
On May 16, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Ian Chamberlain wrote: Fingers crossed this is not too far off topic; being a newby to PHP; any clues where I can find how-to's, snippets, libraries or even application suites built from PHP that are built to a good minimum standard please. I am guessing that PHP is much like JavaScript in that a lot of what is floating about is either poor or pooh the result of all the good programmes stending their time on ASP or J2EE. Thanks Ian Seems like this may be a ways OT, and you may be better off consulting one of the PHP lists, but... Are you asking about PHP Standards or (X)HTML Standards within the context of PHP? Even the sloppiest of PHP (or any server-side scripting) can deliver impeccable standards-compliant markup, and conversely even the most carefully crafted PHP can deliver the most hideous tag soup. Though I think you will find that following best practices will be mutually reinforcing. If you're interested in PHP Coding Standards, a Google search will open the door to a wealth of information, and there are PHP mailing lists as well. For (X)HTML Standards, this list is an extraordinarily useful resource, and if you spend a little time with the archive you can find many useful links. good luck, Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] PHP Standards
I think that it's basically your responsibility Ian, in that there are many sources of snippets available and if you use them you just validate the generated code and put right what is wrong in the php. Then, you check for best practice too . . . Bob Ian Chamberlain wrote: Fingers crossed this is not too far off topic; being a newby to PHP; any clues where I can find how-to's, snippets, libraries or even application suites built from PHP that are built to a good minimum standard please. I am guessing that PHP is much like JavaScript in that a lot of what is floating about is either poor or pooh the result of all the good programmes stending their time on ASP or J2EE. Thanks Ian *** 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] Accessibility for HTML Email
"I like the idea of a title tag being used i.e.- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" title="e-mail address - [EMAIL PROTECTED]">first name last name" I don't know what you would gain by this Any bots harvesting email addresses will just pick up on the address in the href. Unfortunately, I think the only accessible way to do this is to have the traditional form of email address being used and getting server side protection from spam. If you don't care about accessibility (though you wouldn't be on this list!), then use JavaScript to cut down on spam, but I am sure that bots will be able to read generated source pretty soon if they can't already. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] help with menu positioning
tee wrote: Tell me, what do you like for Christmas gift ? An internet-connection that is extremely fast and works all the time ;-) (Maybe I'll get one before Christmas, but I'm not holding my breath.) Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] PHP Standards
Fingers crossed this is not too far off topic; being a newby to PHP; any clues where I can find how-to's, snippets, libraries or even application suites built from PHP that are built to a good minimum standard please. I am guessing that PHP is much like JavaScript in that a lot of what is floating about is either poor or pooh the result of all the good programmes stending their time on ASP or J2EE. Thanks Ian *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] possible to make absolute position moves down with fontsize resize?
Lately I have coded many templates that clients wanted an element
that aligns horizontally and has it stayed at the bottom of a
content block. The only way I could think is using absolute
position, but it creates an overlapping problem with font size
resize. I am curious if there is a technique that I am totally
unaware of (already googled and visited the archive of css-d).
example ($xx/month):
http://lotusseedsdesign.com/s/raz_compare_plans.html
Thank you!
tee
Thomas Thomassen wrote:
Add some padding at the bottom of the content with the same size as
the absolutely positioned element. That should prevent the preseeding
content to not overlap. You might have to do some position and size
adjustments to make it all fit again after you add the padding.
While that will work quite nicely you could also avoid absolute
positioning altogether. Because those ordered lists are all nicely lined
up you could set the min-height rule on them instead of .box_res and
.box_biz eg.
add this:
.box_res ol,
.box_biz ol {
min-height: 220px; /* dont forget IE<=6 needs a fallback */
}
and remove the positioning from .price:
#content p.price {padding-left: 20px;}
Then you may need to tweak the margin/padding on p.price to get it perfect.
Another way to do this would be to set the min-height on .box_res and
.box_biz to a value in ems (so they stay the same height on text resize)
although that approach isn't entirely bullet-proof if the text in those
boxes is likely to change.
Pick your favourite solution :)
Regards,
Rob
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > its because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to type partial URL's into > Google rather than typing the whole URL into the address bar And which user research are you basing your PROCLAMATION on? -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
Have to disagree with you there - just because some people do it for a good reason doesn't mean that the illiterate aren't. Certain people that I know, type the full, exact URL for a site into the Google search box in the middle of the page, wait for the results to load, then click the first link - don't even use the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button - I can't begin to list the number of ways that process could be improved on, but it is generally taken as a personal insult if I tell that person they are being stupid (even when I try my hardest to sugar-coat it.) It only takes a second or two longer, so what is the point in learning something different? Regards, Mike >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart Foulstone >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:01 PM >To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >Subject: Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate? > > >But that's not because lots of people don't know how to use >the address bar, its because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to >type partial URL's into Google rather than typing the whole >URL into the address bar - plus if you make a slight error you >get prompted for the correction rather than just told it doesn't exist. > >Experienced IT literate people do this too. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [OT] users - IT literate?
But that's not because lots of people don't know how to use the address bar, its because MOST PEOPLE find it easier to type partial URL's into Google rather than typing the whole URL into the address bar - plus if you make a slight error you get prompted for the correction rather than just told it doesn't exist. Experienced IT literate people do this too. On Fri, May 16, 2008 6:50 am, Matthew Pennell wrote: > ... and there are lots of people who don't know how the > address bar of their browser works! (Look at Google's top searches, they > are all URLs - people use that rather than type in the address bar.) > > -- > > - Matthew > > > *** > 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] [OT] users - IT literate?
On 16 May 2008, at 06:50, Matthew Pennell wrote: In my experience, a large proportion of computer/web users struggle to understand online concepts that we expert users take for granted. Many regular surfers have no idea how to interact with a scroll bar - and there are lots of people who don't know how the address bar of their browser works! Matthew, my experience tallies with yours. At least half of the people I work with (I mean clients, not co-workers) are not very IT-savvy at all. It brings to mind the Blackadder line: "I am one of these people who are quite happy to wear cotton, but have no idea how it works." In some extreme cases this seems to extend to an almost willful ignorance, as if they feel that learning how to operate their computer would somehow diminish them. It is certainly true that the older the client the more likely this seems to be -- although I would certainly not generalise too much as I know plenty of completely computer- literate 'silver surfers'. I find it frustrating when they stubbornly refuse to learn what the most basic controls are on their browser, but unless it has a negative impact on the project I generally ignore it. In any case the evidence would suggest that it is a generational thing, and that should come as no surprise. As someone born at the back end of the 60s, I can understand it, because I personally find the more leading edge web technologies hard to keep up with - much more so than, say, people 15 years my junior who live and breathe that stuff. It's a matter of degree, I guess. People absorb information at a fundamental level early in their lives, and I think that beyond a certain age they stop absorbing it quite so easily and have to work at *learning* it. That includes information about current technology. If a new technology comes out when you're in your 40s it's probably going to be harder for you to pick it up than for your 16 year old nephew. The old chestnut about adults having to get their kids to programme the VCR for them are clichés, sure, but based on a lot of truth. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Accessibility for HTML Email
I'm guessing you don't actually administer a corporate size spam-filtering 'solution' do you? (The word solution should really be in quadruple quotes, 'cos it ain't one.) Mike >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:22 PM >To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility for HTML Email > >Erickson, Kevin (DOE) wrote: >> Although spam is a big red flag for many. > >Which should ideally be solved at the email server + email >client end, in my view. > >P >-- >Patrick H. Lauke *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] possible to make absolute position moves down with fontsize resize?
Add some padding at the bottom of the content with the same size as the absolutely positioned element. That should prevent the preseeding content to not overlap. You might have to do some position and size adjustments to make it all fit again after you add the padding. -- From: "tee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:00 AM To: Subject: [WSG] possible to make absolute position moves down with fontsize resize? Lately I have coded many templates that clients wanted an element that aligns horizontally and has it stayed at the bottom of a content block. The only way I could think is using absolute position, but it creates an overlapping problem with font size resize. I am curious if there is a technique that I am totally unaware of (already googled and visited the archive of css-d). example ($xx/month): http://lotusseedsdesign.com/s/raz_compare_plans.html Thank you! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] possible to make absolute position moves down with fontsize resize?
Lately I have coded many templates that clients wanted an element that aligns horizontally and has it stayed at the bottom of a content block. The only way I could think is using absolute position, but it creates an overlapping problem with font size resize. I am curious if there is a technique that I am totally unaware of (already googled and visited the archive of css-d). example ($xx/month): http://lotusseedsdesign.com/s/raz_compare_plans.html Thank you! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
