Re: [WSG] A comic book version of tables to webstandards...
Rather nice - caused me to reconsider my plans to do something similar (in aims, not style). Jonathan On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 12:09 AM, russ weakley wrote: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ Thanks Russ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * -- If you ever think you'll look back one day and laugh about it, you might as well laugh about it now * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] safari and title attr
FYI the next version of Safari will in fact put title attributes as tool tips (according to Hyatt, the lead developer). However, my understanding from an accessibility point of view is that Safari and Opera are correct in their way of handling these at the moment (I think I got that from Zeldman but may have dreamt it) On 20 Nov 2003, at 03:08, James Ellis wrote: Yeah yeah I've read the W3c spec and it's open to various methods. Agree with your rant, the safari method is a bit agricultural - it's contextual and it hides the link. Lindsay Evans wrote: James Ellis wrote: Anyone know if there is a reason why the title attr doesn't effect some sort of contextual description next to the mouse (e.g a tooltip) but plonks it in the status bar instead? From the horses mouth: "Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways." http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-title Also, Opera 7 displays the title content in the status bar (if you have it visible) & in a tooltip, which (IMHO) is kinda annoying for links with title attributes as you have no way of knowing the URL for the link. I wrote a small rant a while back on how stupid displaying things like this in the status bar is, it was mainly about displaying information relevant to menu items though - http://lindsay.f2o.org/blog/read?ObjectID:44; (yes, the semicolon is important) -- Lindsay Evans. Developer, Red Square Productions. [p] 8596.4000 [f] 8596.4001 [w] www.redsquare.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] safari and title attr (plus cursors)
But the title attribute isn't intended for people with peripheral vision. Safari's behaviour is correct but I think convention now renders it "incorrect". Personally, I don't like messages popping up everywhere when I move my mouse around - if it's so important it should be obvious anyway IMHO, and 99% of the messages I get are pointless. I use the title attribute to improve accessibility. But I think the argument's lost on this one ;-) On 30 Nov 2003, at 04:50, James Ellis wrote: But the way Safari does it means it's outside my peripheral vision unless the link is right next to the status bar. If it's contextual then it should be beside the link. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] A Little CSS Help
In the UK in my experience it's considered, erm, "pretentious" (not sure that's strong enough a word!) to try to pronounce 'sans serif' the French way. We just say it like it sounds. Though I've never met anyone who thinks "without any fiddly bits at the ends" sounds better. All of which tells you a lot about us, really ;-) On 3 Dec 2003, at 22:26, James Ellis wrote: Sans is French for "without", sort of sounds like "soarn". * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Hi! www.themaninblue.com
Hi Cameron, I used your site to "sell" the idea of using stylesheets to change type sizes the other day! My own attempt (www.sarahboak.co.uk) didn't convince the powers that be for some reason :-( Good site - like it, like it. On 4 Dec 2003, at 16:53, Cameron Adams wrote: Hi, I was directed to this group by Andrew Fernandez (www.dezwozhere.com) after he visited my new XHTML/CSS site, www.themaninblue.com. So ... u ... hi. Looking forward to getting all standardsy with some locals, instead of reading all those US blogs. -- Cameron Adams __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
[WSG] OT: Macromedia extensions offer
Any Macromedia MX 2004 users seen the offer they are running at the moment? They're giving away some free (and quite useful) extensions for Flash, Dreamweaver and Fireworks - but only to users who buy online now before the end of the year. http://www.macromedia.com/newsletters/edge/december2003/index.html? sectionIndex=1&trackingid=DMJA_AADQ Am I the only one who is a bit annoyed at this? I bought that software the day it came out and have been advocating it to new users ever since (despite its flaws). It seems a bit much to penalise early adopters by denying them extensions available to people buying now. It's only when you read the small print you see the offer is that limited. Anyway, sorry for the OT post but I just wanted to gauge opinion before possibly complaining to MM... * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] OT: Macromedia extensions offer
No, it's defined by when you buy it, sadly. If you buy in the stated
time frame and fax or mail in your registration, then you have to
re-register online (bizarrely). But if you buy outside the time, you
are ineligible. It's a badly worded offer IMHO.
Oh well...
On 6 Dec 2003, at 14:39, Ralph wrote:
Buy online?
That point is a little vague to me.. The Terms and Conditions (
http://www.macromedia.com/special/mx2004_upgrade/offer/terms/) state:
ELIGIBILITY: For customers who, between November 11, 2003 (12:01 AM
PST) and
December 31, 2003 (11:59 PM PST), purchase and register online a
Qualified
Product. Purchasers of Eligible Products who fax or mail-in
registrations
must re-register online for this Offer.
I read the above as [(Purchase) AND (Register Online)] and not as
[ {(Purchase) AND (Register)} Online ]
As for early buyers, isn't "Purchasers of Eligible Products who fax or
mail-in registrations must re-register online for this Offer" for you?
It is
late and I might be reading all this wrong, but I get the idea that
you have
to re-register despite having done so already via Fax or Mail-in??
I'll be purchasing a product in the very near future, so interesting
to hear
what others think.. Thanks for the info though..
Ralph Mazzitelli
Sydney, AUSTRALIA
-----Original Message-
From: Jonathan Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 6 December 2003 10:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] OT: Macromedia extensions offer
Any Macromedia MX 2004 users seen the offer they are running at the
moment? They're giving away some free (and quite useful) extensions for
Flash, Dreamweaver and Fireworks - but only to users who buy online now
before the end of the year.
http://www.macromedia.com/newsletters/edge/december2003/index.html?
sectionIndex=1&trackingid=DMJA_AADQ
Am I the only one who is a bit annoyed at this? I bought that software
the day it came out and have been advocating it to new users ever since
(despite its flaws). It seems a bit much to penalise early adopters by
denying them extensions available to people buying now. It's only when
you read the small print you see the offer is that limited.
Anyway, sorry for the OT post but I just wanted to gauge opinion before
possibly complaining to MM...
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
[WSG] [OT everso slightly] Gramophone web site
I just visited the web site of Gramophone magazine, looking for a CD review. I'm using Safari - the buttons on the site don't work, they're all just # links. I've looked in the source code and am wondering why they don't work before I email them and let them know. Any guesses it might be a case of "this site does not support Macs?" Whatever the problem my bleary eyes just aren't seeing it. I'm interested to know the reason it's "broken" (if it is) so I can use it as an example of what to avoid with students at some point. http://www.gramophone.co.uk Jonathan * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Re: px em pt ???
I've used something similar on two sites under development (http://www.sarahboak.co.uk and http://homepage.mac.com/artistry/adc) but have gone for the text-based link approach. I'd like to use graphics but find that nothing really sums up the concept better than saying "make text bigger". On 11 Dec 2003, at 10:45, Bradley Wright wrote: While we're on the topic of text sizes, what does everyone here think of DOM driven style-switchers? (ala http://www.mezzoblue.com/and http://www.zeldman.com/)? I'm thinking that it's possible people will miss these resizing buttons. What's the general opinion on these? Good idea? Maybe trying too hard to have their "cake" (in this case, the lack of guilt from using pixels for font sizing) and eat it too? They're undeniably cool.. but how USEFUL are they? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Fixed Width Design
I agree. I've long advocated easy to remember URLs because, although most of "us" do as Gary says and get URLs directly from email, I've observed that a *lot* of users don't know that they can copy URLs from the browser so type them out when passing them on, or do it verbally, so it is important to have easy to remember URLs and to ensure that content is easily accessible from the top of the site. An easy to type URL is more likely to be passed on by people e.g. saying something like: " I saw a great article at zeldman dot com, just go to the 'articles' section and look for 'standards'" is, in my experience, how most people pass on URLs... On a related note, when will people stop saying "dot" and "slash"? Can't we move forward and instead of announcers after TV programmes saying wwwDOTbbcDOTcoDOTukDORWARDSLASHeastenders just www (very short pause) bbc (very short pause)co(very short pause)uk slash eastenders, using the punctuation like puncttuation. Wouldn't that work if it were adopted as a convention? It's make URLs easy to remember.(in fact we could drop the "www" like we dropped the "httpcolonslashslash" See Malcom Gladwell's "Tipping Point" for an excellent discussion of "The Stickiness Factor" - there are lessons throughout the whole book for designers and web site creators. On 11 Dec 2003, at 23:37, Taco Fleur wrote: http://www.notestips.com/articles/2003/1/ or http://www.notestips.com/articles/limitPageWidth Would have been better. Is this something for "Standards" or out of scope? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Fixed Width Design
That's fine for power users, but 99% of users can't navigate up and down directories, I would guess. As an experiment, imagine a site with no navigation, but all pages were accessible by typing in the url of, at least, the enclosing directory. How many people would be able to do it - even having been given the directory names? It's more to do with usability than accessibility, as it affects all users IMHO. But as a start, a logical directory structure is important, so long as it's logical to the user not the owner. On 12 Dec 2003, at 00:19, James Gollan wrote: I think that even if the page name is cryptic that the directory structure should be built on logic - often you can guess one or two levels of the directory structure and really focus in on your area of interest. Surely this improves ease of navigation and therefore accessibility? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Fixed Width Design
You and me both. My .mac homepage address has no www - but people automatically ask if I've missed it off when I tell them it. I suppose if the web were more forgiving then it wouldn't matter if you typed www or not. Like getting the post code wrong or missing it off - takes a little longer to get there but it does. But it's an irrelevance - time we moved away from it I think as a hangup from the old days when people who used the web used all sorts of protocols in their work (ftp being the only one I can think of that I still use, but rarely in my browser). It does seem (anecdotally) that people who have trouble with URLs stumble at www. Pipe dreams... don't you love them? On 12 Dec 2003, at 00:56, Miles Tillinger wrote: If I had a dollar for everytime that I had given some a www-less URL verbally and they've just entered www. blah out of habit, I'd be a millionaire! * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Fixed Width Design
Of course, if you're on a Mac and use iSync, then your URLs move from computer to computer when you log in and, if you have to use a PC, they're stored on a web page for you, updated each time you synchronise. A simple thing, but truly marvellous, and built in to the OS. Most URLs are autofilled now when you type, but that's often annoying. On 12 Dec 2003, at 00:54, Mark Stanton wrote: Just some examples: 2 I actually type in from memory pretty often: http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/ http://www.macromedia.com/coldfusion/ (which actually redirects to /software/coldfusion/ - very nice) and an interesting concept - each item/object has a unique keyword - tack .html on the end and its a url on this guys site. No structure as such but still... http://www.ftrain.com/PaulFord.html http://www.ftrain.com/Role.html http://www.ftrain.com/Place.html Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] directory structures
This is quite an interesting off-topic thread! On 12 Dec 2003, at 07:17, Gary Menzel wrote: Agree that you need to own the directory structure. The directory structure for a site should make sense to the owner of the information. It may make no sense at all to a user of the information. Mmm... You see, I agree that in terms of "ownership" the site owner rules the coop. But I think, if we were to get into a situation where, as others were saying, users try to navigate a site by guessing the directory structure, but were thwarted by our esoteric organisation, then fundamental questions need to be asked. I can't see many cases where the two issues of ownership are in conflict, and if organising a site in a way that makes sense to users doesn't cause too many problems, then why not do it? But a well structured site, with good navigation, shouldn't matter. Remember when we all used frames (admit it - we did) so a user would only ever see the base URL in the browser bar? I think the point I was trying to answer was that a lot of users (and I would say they are a minority in fact) use URLs to navigate a site and, as such, a logical directory structure is essential. But also, if you have a lot of contributors (even if they only contribute by saying "ok") it helps to be logical. I recently sat through a painful hour of getting a site map approved in which a key player had a fundamental problem understanding that a page on the second level of the site was actually "visible" at all times from the front page. I'm also currently tearing my hair out with a site manager who just doesn't "get" the blindingly obvious site structure I set up - he would if he'd come up with it himself and I wish I'd let him, or at least (ahem) "guided" him. I don't think we do ourselves any favours by making things "needlessly" obscure. Jonathan (just got back from Christmas lunch so apologies if this post makes no sense whatsover!) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] [OT everso slightly] Gramophone web site
Thanks for all those thoughts - I'd guessed it pretty much but it's nice to have confirmation. I'll let you know what the site owners say! (www.newstatesman.co.uk had a similar problem and were oblivious to the fact the site didn't work on anything other than their setup. I ended up emailing them the simple solution, though I'm not sure they've implemented it yet) JB On 11 Dec 2003, at 22:56, James Ellis wrote: Looks like they are using Javascript to launch links. Doesn't work in Firebird. Venkman gives it a big thumbs down. "Error: document.newsnav has no properties Source File: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/inc/navnn.js.asp Line: 68" The JS file has an ASP extension. Gotta love those spacer gifs. Cheers James Jonathan Baldwin wrote: I just visited the web site of Gramophone magazine, looking for a CD review. I'm using Safari - the buttons on the site don't work, they're all just # links. I've looked in the source code and am wondering why they don't work before I email them and let them know. Any guesses it might be a case of "this site does not support Macs?" Whatever the problem my bleary eyes just aren't seeing it. I'm interested to know the reason it's "broken" (if it is) so I can use it as an example of what to avoid with students at some point. http://www.gramophone.co.uk Jonathan * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
[WSG] Print media style sheet problems
Hi all I'm having problems with a "print" style sheet and wondered if anyone had any suggestions. Also, I would appreciate it if people on Windows machines would check out if the printing style sheet works okay. Apologies in advance - I'm not sure if my explanation of the problems makes much sense. I am redesigning a web site which you can see at http://www.brighton.ac.uk/adc-ltsn/new/html/home/home.html (launching early next month so excuse glitches and content) At home I am experimenting with a print style sheet so that, when a visitor prints, various bits and pieces don't appear on the printed version and a new title bar shows up. Here's the "test" page: http://homepage.mac.com/artistry/adc/html/home/home.html which has the "print" media style sheet attached. I am using Safari on Mac OS X 10.3.2. When I go to print, the stylesheet works perfectly, but... in the actual web page the Flash menu bar disappears! I am suspecting that this is because in the Print style sheet the div in which the Flash menu sits is "hidden", but why is the browser applying this to the screen style sheet? In the brighton.ac.uk site this problem does not occur so it *must* be something to do with the print style sheet. Now onto the next problem. In Internet Explorer 5.2 and Netscape 7.1 on the Mac, the menu doesn't disappear in the browser and, correctly, doesn't print - but sections of the page which are marked as "hidden" are printed - check out the menus on the last page. They shouldn't be there! The print style sheet *is* being applied because the page header appears. In addition, in these two browsers, the text is printing as Times, which it shouldn't be. Why are some items visible when they shouldn't be? And why is font styling not working? Incidentally, if you want to see what the site looked like before I started redesigning, go to http://www.brighton.ac.uk/adc-ltsn Ignore the messy style sheets - there is a lot of rationalisation to be done! (I'm assuming having lots of redundant styles that need to be stripped out isn't causing the problems?) I've been doing this pretty much part time and teaching myself CSS along the way. Hope someone can decipher my problem and offer suggestions! Jonathan * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Style Switcher and IE
Jaime I use the same method at www.brighton.ac.uk/adc-ltsn/new - enter the site and use the style sheet switcher there. Does it work for you? Are you using an external javascript file? Check the javascript is in the right place and that you have uploaded the javascript to the server (sounds obvious but I forgot once!). I also had problems and traced them to my use of templates - if you are using templates then view the source of one of your pages and make sure the html is finding the javascript okay (I had too many ../../ I think). Check your cookies in the prefs and make sure you are receiving them okay. With cookies, is IE only accepting cookies of pages you navigate to? Enter the URL of your page directly into the browser rather than following a link if that's what you are doing (unlikely I know). On 8 Mar 2004, at 15:07, Jaime Wong wrote: I am using the style switcher at http://www.alistapart com/articles/alternate/ on my site and all of a sudden IE seems to have a problem with it (used to work and no changes has been done with it). It will not remember the selected style and upon every reload, it will switch back to the default style. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Style Switcher and IE
Works in Safari 1.2 on a Mac FWIW (though the difference in styles is quite subtle? - I usually make text bright pink while I'm testing just so I know it's working ;-) Ignore my earlier message re javascript file as it's obviously in the right place. On 8 Mar 2004, at 18:08, Jaime Wong wrote: Hi Patrick I have emptied my cache and make sure that IE security lvl is at medium. Can someone with IE kindly go to www.sodesires.com to have a look at the site and try to change the style and see if it remembers the style when you refresh the page or visit other links from the menu? So sorry for the trouble. If it works for you then something is wrong with my IE. But what I can't understand is why cookies for IE works when I preview in Dreamweaver and not when it is live? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Style Switcher and IE
The same method wouldn't work when I was testing my site locally, but would work when I uploaded to a server (reverse of you) - so it might be something to do with security in either your IE or your PC. Try setting them to lowest level for a few minutes and see what happens. On 8 Mar 2004, at 18:02, Jaime Wong wrote: The problem is that IE used to work and it stopped working suddenly and I do not know why. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Style Switcher and IE
Layout breaks in IE 5.2 for Mac OS x and doesn't view at all in Netscape 7 on the same platform. HTH JB On 8 Mar 2004, at 18:08, Jaime Wong wrote: Can someone with IE kindly go to www.sodesires.com to have a look at the site and try to change the style and see if it remembers the style when you refresh the page or visit other links from the menu? So sorry for the trouble. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Style Switcher and IE
Bear in mind it's not the Mac that's the problem, but the browsers. Safari is excellent in supporting CSS IMHO. I find if I design for Safari, most if not all other browsers work pretty much first time. If you try to design a site so it works in a browser that has shaky support for CSS then you are asking for headaches. It strikes me as odd that people are using web standards and still producing sites that work in one browser but not others (that's a general comment, not a dig at you, BTW!) It's a nice looking site, though and FWIW most Mac users I know have abandoned IE and Netscape for Safari so feel free to add a Safari logo to yours and consider it more Mac friendly than IE friendly without even trying ;-) On 8 Mar 2004, at 19:36, Jaime Wong wrote: Yup my site is anti MAc at the moment. Would get to that nightmare part after everything is finally working right with no sudden bug like this style switcher. I really dread fixing it for MAC... last alternative is to use absolute positioning I suppose as someone mentioned in this list before that Mac IE does not work well with floats. Was provided few Mac Css solution sites by some nice people here to look at but still confuse. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] Accessibility checkers for Mac (OS X)
If you're using Dreamweaver, then Lift is an option: http://www.usablenet.com/products_services/lift_dw/lift_dw.html On 9 Mar 2004, at 02:10, Ian Lloyd wrote: downloadable tool for Mac OS X to check accessibility in any way? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
