Re: [WSG] Failed A Job :(
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:43 AM, William Donovan wrote: Hang on, did I miss something or is this completely OT (off topic). Bible's, Gutenberg, print type faces... Web Standards...? Nahhh It's all about type faces that are easier to read on the web and understanding why some are better then others :) -- Jason Pruim japr...@raoset.com 616.399.2355 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Failed A Job :(
Not to mention optimum line lengths, amount of whitespace, justification ... It is unfortunately far too common to assume that lessons learned centuries ago are no longer relevant, just because they weren't digital. Actually, that was one of the big changes then: type was inherently fixed-width, so there was no way to write a little bit tighter to fit a word in, the way that free-hand scribes could. Mike From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jason Pruim Sent: 30 January 2009 11:26 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Failed A Job :( On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:43 AM, William Donovan wrote: Hang on, did I miss something or is this completely OT (off topic). Bible's, Gutenberg, print type faces... Web Standards...? Nahhh It's all about type faces that are easier to read on the web and understanding why some are better then others :) -- Jason Pruim japr...@raoset.com 616.399.2355 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Failed A Job :(
Sorry—got carried away. (: On 30/01/2009, at 4:43 PM, William Donovan wrote: Hang on, did I miss something or is this completely OT (off topic). Bible's, Gutenberg, print type faces... Web Standards...? William Donovan mobile: 0403 263 284 --- Simon Pascal Klein Graphic Web Designer Web: http://klepas.org E-mai: kle...@klepas.org Twitter: @klepas; http://twitter.com/klepas Kaffee und Kuchen. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Clearing a row with floated list li
Thanks for your replies everyone. I'm not explaining the problem well, so I've created a demo page: http://paulcollinslondon.com/temporary/test.html If you take a look at it in IE7 and Firefox, you should be able to see the difference. The first li is taller than the second one, causing the fourth one to float up higher than the third, (in IE only). If I clear the left, it works in Firefox, but in IE the fourth one still floats up. I know I've solved this a while back and I've seen solutions on the internet, but for the life of me I cannot find them again! Any ideas would be most appreciated. Cheers Paul -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:54 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Clearing a row with floated list li Paul Collins wrote: I can add a class of clear to every third list item, which is great, but I'm still having troubles in getting them to behave in IE. Has anyone got a solution, or seen on online lately?! Didn't check for the actual case, but it's usually safer to declare 'clear: left' than 'clear: both' when trying to clear left-floats in IE. IE has quite a few 'clear' related bugs, and I think this is one of them. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 23:48 -0500, Rick Faircloth wrote: According to statistics supplied by w3schools.com, as of Jan 08 approximately 95% of users had JS enabled. Check out http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp and look towards the middle of the page for the stats. Just to keep this thread kicking (I am behind in my mail). I would suggest that w3schools attracts a more switched on user than say Live Search, YouTube or myspace/facebook/insert social network here. Stats from those types of sites are what I would be more interested in seeing. IMO stats from tech sites are not very representative of the general intarwebs user base. Cheers Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
IMO stats from tech sites are not very representative of the general intarwebs user base. Exactly, only this can mean the opposite of what you state: more tech savy users know how to turn Javascript off, unlike the general public. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Dave Hall w...@skwashd.com wrote: I would suggest that w3schools attracts a more switched on user than say Live Search, YouTube or myspace/facebook/insert social network here. Stats from those types of sites are what I would be more interested in seeing. Good luck to the Facebook user without JavaScript enabled. o_O -- Blake Haswell http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Rimantas Liubertas riman...@gmail.comwrote: Exactly, only this can mean the opposite of what you state: more tech savy users know how to turn Javascript off, unlike the general public. One other thing to bear in mind is that we are mostly thinking of users as being sat at home surfing the web - but a large proportion of web traffic will be people surfing from work, where they have no control over the configuration or restrictions placed on either their browser or at the firewall level. There are bound to be some sysadmins who lockdown script access for all employees, which will contribute to the 5-10% of non-JS enabled users. It's not always a conscious choice on the part of the user. - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Agreed - people certainly aren't getting any smarter as far as web technologies go. Particuarly as the web is now viewed as a common commodity that virtually everyone has access to. In the old days, it was more or less used exclusively by tech savvy users; it was very far from the plug and play service it is now. Unless an automated system is switching off javascript for the end user, from my experience the vast user base of the common population isn't going to actively go into settings and make a conscious effort to switch it off. The vast majority don't even know what it is. I, for one, will carry on designing sites on the basis that the chances of someone using a javascript disabled browser stumbling across me is minimal. -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dixon Sent: 26 January 2009 22:50 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript Again, can you show that the small decline in IE's market share has contributed to users blocking Javascript or using specific Firefox extensions? IE has had plugins such as the Web Accessibility Toolbar etc for some years now that allow disabling of Javascript very easily, so why would the usage of another browser and additional extensions change this? People do change their viewing habits all the time, and migrations between browsers will continue (whether to IE detriment or not), it doesn't mean people are getting smarter or that they are concerned at all about Javascript (im sure the security concerns over IE6/7 that have talked about over in the mainstream news networks over the past couple of years have had nothing to do with Javascript, and are far more related to Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX functionality). If memory serve's, the people are getting smarter observation has been stated on this mailing list since its inception, and we've yet to see any evidence of this. David David Lane wrote: Agreed - the level of savvy of most user is absurdly low, and at present few will know what Javascript is, much less how to disable it. The question is whether people today design for today's users, or tomorrow's... The trend will continue towards more sophisticated users, using better browsers (i.e. not IE) which support useful plugins like NoScript and their analogues for Opera, Webkit, etc. I suspect as more and more people get burned by identity theft and other forms of exploitation, the pain individuals experience will provide a strong motivation for learning. Also, organisations will increasingly make that decision on behalf of their users to minimise their own risk... Cheers, Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Well if a sysadmin is going to block js, then he/she will probably block facebook as well PS: I've been on this list for a while but only recenly started reading them! James -- James Milligan Lake Internet Services On 30 Jan 2009, at 12:29, kie...@humdingerdesigns.co.uk wrote: Agreed - people certainly aren't getting any smarter as far as web technologies go. Particuarly as the web is now viewed as a common commodity that virtually everyone has access to. In the old days, it was more or less used exclusively by tech savvy users; it was very far from the plug and play service it is now. Unless an automated system is switching off javascript for the end user, from my experience the vast user base of the common population isn't going to actively go into settings and make a conscious effort to switch it off. The vast majority don't even know what it is. I, for one, will carry on designing sites on the basis that the chances of someone using a javascript disabled browser stumbling across me is minimal. -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dixon Sent: 26 January 2009 22:50 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript Again, can you show that the small decline in IE's market share has contributed to users blocking Javascript or using specific Firefox extensions? IE has had plugins such as the Web Accessibility Toolbar etc for some years now that allow disabling of Javascript very easily, so why would the usage of another browser and additional extensions change this? People do change their viewing habits all the time, and migrations between browsers will continue (whether to IE detriment or not), it doesn't mean people are getting smarter or that they are concerned at all about Javascript (im sure the security concerns over IE6/7 that have talked about over in the mainstream news networks over the past couple of years have had nothing to do with Javascript, and are far more related to Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX functionality). If memory serve's, the people are getting smarter observation has been stated on this mailing list since its inception, and we've yet to see any evidence of this. David David Lane wrote: Agreed - the level of savvy of most user is absurdly low, and at present few will know what Javascript is, much less how to disable it. The question is whether people today design for today's users, or tomorrow's... The trend will continue towards more sophisticated users, using better browsers (i.e. not IE) which support useful plugins like NoScript and their analogues for Opera, Webkit, etc. I suspect as more and more people get burned by identity theft and other forms of exploitation, the pain individuals experience will provide a strong motivation for learning. Also, organisations will increasingly make that decision on behalf of their users to minimise their own risk... Cheers, Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** I actually see mobile browsing rising in popularity when browsers on gadgets are full capable—like mobile safari, or android's browser, so I don't expect to see the number of JS enabled users decreasing because of mobile devices. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Was about to say! Very true, but the iPhone is proving a popular combination, especially with unlimited data on contract, and JS is turned on by default. There is an option to turn it off, but I doubt many would do so. PS I'm using an iPhone all the time now, typing this message one one! It's great, and renders webpages brilliantly. Only thing is that it doesn't yet support flash - sorry for going OT here! James -- James Milligan Lake Internet Services www.lake54.com On 30 Jan 2009, at 13:07, James Leslie james.les...@transversal.com wrote: Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 13:07 +, James Leslie wrote: Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** not just many ... actually I would say MOST (and its not disabled its simply not there!) What kind of mobile phone does the average person use? ... probably more likely to be a consumer-price-level phone (the kinds of phones often offered with pre-paid plans) and probably a couple of years old (how often does the average person buy a new phone?) rather than the new high end devices we read so much about. As for that figure, I'm not sure that includes browsers that don't actually support javascript at all! ... and if the site collecting those stats isn't easy to use on a tiny screen they probably wouldn't be getting many mobile visitors. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest
I will be on leave until Monday 09 Feb. For any urgent enquiries please contact Lin VanOevelen (620 75466) or Matthew White (620 53549). --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
2009/1/27 Patrick H. Lauke re...@splintered.co.uk: As good as it is to hear anecdotal evidence from expert users such as list members here, I'd say it's much more important to bring some actual live user stats to the table. Last time I checked JS stats (around 12 months ago) at the site I work on (with membership of over 1 million and thousands of users per day - just saying that to illustrate that the sample is large), 10% of unique visitors did not have Javascript running. I believe that would not include many robots, as the point of detection for the stats was after a search form submit. I was shocked when I saw that, to be honest: I was expecting something closer to 2 or 3 percent. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
