Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
2009/1/27 Patrick H. Lauke : > 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 ***
Re: [WSG] returning to scroll position in a table inside a fixed hight div
2009/6/15 raven : >> Keep in mind as always that a JavaScript solution will not work in >> user agents not running JavaScript, >>which can include search engines, >> mobile devices, assistive technology, browsers in certain corporate >> contexts in which JavaScript is globally turned off or stripped out >> of incoming pages by firewalls, old browsers, and modern browsers >> used by folks who turn it off for whatever reason. > > Hmmm... what exactly problem can cause using of JavaScript *in this case* > from SEO point of view? > Or what browser, *witch you really support*, don't support JS? > And what part of your target auditory even know how to disable JavaScript > execution in their browsers? > Don't use common words! Give us facts, numbers, tests. Here's a number for you: when I added JS usage stats gathering about a year ago to a large site I was working on, I was quite surprised to find that 10% (rounded to the nearest percent) of unique users were not running Javascript. This was one of the major net dating sites in Europe, with > 1 million membership, so it was a fairly mainstream (as opposed to tech/webdev) user population. Many mobile browsers don't support JS. Many corporate networks enforce JS being turned off. Search bots typically don't support JS. Short answer: you cannot rely on JS being there. The smart approach is always "progressive enhancement": build the basic, semantic (x)html version first, exposing all the key functionality via basic semi-RESTful html, such that it works effectively without images, CSS, JS/Ajax or other technologies such as Flash. Then add goodies for those that have them... you know the drill. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] website fonts
2009/6/22 Mark Harris > The biggest cost I have seen in web design since 1996, when I started, is the > perceived need to make the web like the printed page. That, and the desire to > make it pixel-identical in multiple browsers. > > Let the control go to the user, focus on getting information out there. You > can't control everything, just make it make sense. Absolutely. This is probably old hat (where did *that* phrase come from?) to most on this list, but if you haven't come across it before, "A Dao of Web Design", a short article by John Allsopp (of Westciv and Web Directions fame) is a must-read: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [Spam] :RE: [WSG] Accessible websites (was: accessible free web hosting account)
2009/7/2 Dennis Lapcewich : > > If you are unsure that web accessibility should play a role, take this test. > In a group of people have everyone stand up. Those who are unable to stand > may remain seated. Now pose these three requests, in order: > > 1) If you are wear glasses, contacts and/or have had corrective eye > surgery, please sit down. > 2) Of those who remain standing, if you know for a fact you are > color-blind, please sit down. > 3) Of those who now remain standing, everyone aged 35-40 or more, please > sit down. > > Those who are left standing have little to no "immediate" need for web > accessibility, but they will in time. Of those who sat down, while many > (most?) may not meet a legal definition as being "disabled," for all > intents and purposes they are web disabled and are in immediate need of web > accessibility. While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are "for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility" questionable, to say the least. I'd be careful of overstating the case like this, as it can undermine the whole argument. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Installing More than one version of IE6
2009/7/3 Matijs : > For what it's worth. > Microsoft have—for several years now—offered free Windows > XP images with IE6/7/8RC and now IE8 as well in Microsoft Virtual PC format. > Microsoft Virtual PC (the application) is also available for free, making > this the most acurate and low-cost option available. The only drawback is > that these images are time-bombed and only work for about 3-4 months. > However, new ones are usually available as soon as the old ones expire. > You can find the current images here: > http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=21eabb90-958f-4b64-b5f1-73d0a413c8ef&displaylang=en Note that the link to Virtual PC on that page goes to the Windows 7 version; the XP/Vista version (Virtual PC 2007) is here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=04D26402-3199-48A3-AFA2-2DC0B40A73B6&displaylang=en It will not run on any of the "Home" editions of Windows; you must have "Professional", "Enterprise" or "Ultimate". (not an endorsement, by the way... more of a warning.) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessible websites
2009/7/8 Dennis Lapcewich : > >>> Dennis Lapcewich wrote: >>> >>> While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to say I find >>> >>> the assertion that all people aged 35-40 or more are "for all >>> >>> intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate >>> >>> need of web accessibility" questionable, to say the least. >>> >>> > > I did not write the above. Please do not attribute to me another's comments > in this accessibility thread. Please make sure you attribute correctly so > as to avoid a misquote, at best, or disingenuous intent, at worst. My > original comment concerned itself with a medical condition that in time, > literally affects 100 percent of the human population. While onset of > presbyopia is often described in the literature in the 40s and later, it is > not unheard of to have symptoms beginning at age 35-40. Dennis is quite right - I wrote the quoted "While I agree with your general sentiment..." sentence. Have to be careful with those indents and attributions. I stand by my comment, by the way: while I strongly agree that accessibility is a core aspect of web design, extrapolating "it's not unheard of to have symptoms beginning at age 35-40" to "[all people aged 35-40 or more are] for all intents and purposes [...] web disabled and [...] in immediate need of web accessibility" is clearly overstating the case. It's unnecessary, as the case for good accessibility is very strong anyway, and only gets weakened by making exaggerated claims. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] The 'Some Links for Light Reading' posts
Absoutely, I'll echo that. There are some real gems in there. Thanks, Russ. 2009/9/23 Susie Gardner-Brown : > Hi there > > I’d just like to send a big thank you to Russ Weakley for taking the time to > collate and send this to WSG Announce each week! I always find really > interesting stuff there, and usually bookmark a couple of links from it. > > So, thanks Russ – it’s really appreciated! > > Cheers > susie > *** > 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] Moz vs. FF
... and, if you're using the Web Developer extension, Firefox has a huge advantage over Mozilla: the "Edit CSS" feature - a must for any CSS developer! load a page, choose "Edit CSS", and a sidebar opens with the CSS files. edit them and see the results *instantly* in the browser. save the CSS files out to disk. bliss :) On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:50:22 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > Mozilla has a more mature UI, besides bundling not only mailnews but > also IRC chat, address book, and web page composer. Firefox is less > mature, but offers more customizability of the UI itself, separate from > any extensions you may choose to add. FF, being smaller, runs slightly > faster. So, which to pick depends on personal preferences as to look and > feel and minor functionality, in addition to whether you need or want > the bundled apps. Either way you choose, you'll want the web developer > extension: http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/webdeveloper ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] onClick question
hehe. no, change onClick to onclick, and onKeyPress to onkeypress. all attributes in XHTML must be lower case. they'll still work fine in browsers. On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:22:05 +1000, Barry Beattie wrote: > > you mean like this? > > > onClick="window.print();return false" > onKeyPress="window.print();return false" > > > Click here... > > > (just curious, wanting to get it right) > barry.b > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Focas, Grant > Sent: Wednesday, 22 September 2004 9:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [WSG] onClick question > > Try putting an onKeyPress as well, so that it's device independent > > Grant Focas > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Ted Drake > Sent: Wednesday, 22 September 2004 9:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [WSG] onClick question > > I'm getting an error message when I try to validate this page: > http://v4.csatravelprotection.com/csa/packinglist.do > > From the W3C validation service: > > Line 514, column 40: there is no attribute "onClick" > Click here... > > Here is the offending code: > Click here to print this page > > Why wouldn't this validate? I looked into the O'Reilly html&xhtml guide > and it doesn't say anything about it being deprecated. Does anyone have > a suggestion? > > I've got the page set to xhtml 1.0 transitional > > Thanks > Ted ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Mac Tools Kit for Web Standards Developer
i use jEdit, which is a Java-based (thus nicely cross-platform), free, open source, well featured programmers' text editor. it has lots of tasty features including syntax highlighting for pretty much anything you can think of, folding, etc etc a very active developer community, and lots of plugins, including some very handy XML-related ones that i use all the time for XHTML. http://jedit.org/ On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:03:23 +1000, Kevin Futter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Windows I use Crimson Editor (sorry, can't provide a link right now, but > I'm sure Google can), which shares many of the same features as SubEthaEdit, > such as syntax colouring for multiple languages. In fact, in Crimson this is > extensible through syntax modules, so in theory it could support ANY syntax. > It's free, too. > > Cheers, > Kevin Futter > > > > On 12/10/04 1:05 AM, "Genau Junior" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anybody knows some software like that for Windows? > > > > > > Genau Lopes Júnior > > WebDesigner > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Clayton Lengel-Zigich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 1:12 AM > > Subject: Re: [WSG] Mac Tools Kit for Web Standards Developer > > > > > >> I really like SubEthaEdit! > >> > >> http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/ > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:20:42 +1000, Amit Karmakar > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Just ro reiterate. Style Master rocks! Nothing come close to it. I > >>> switched a few months back and only ever use my windows box sparingly. > >>> There is no coming back from a PowerBook! While I use BBEdit a lot I > >>> do like Xpad a whole lot too for quick edits etc > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:52:28 +1000, John Allsopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > >> From: Andy Budd > >> > >> Not forgetting Style Master http://www.westciv.com/style_master/ > >> > >> Andy Budd > >> > > > > Yeah, I was waiting for that one to come up. > > > Thanks Andy and Geoff > > Review comparing Mac CSS Editors at the bible MacWorld here > > http://www.macworld.com/2004/07/reviews/cascadingstylesheeteditors/? > lsrc=mwweek-0719 > > John > > John Allsopp > > :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ > software, courses, resources for a standards based web > :: style master blog :: > > http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ > :: WebEssentials Sept 2004 Sydney Australia :: > > http://www.we04.com > > > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Regards, > >>> Amit Karmakar > >>> http://karmakars.com > >>> > >>> > >>> ** > >>> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > >>> > >>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > >>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > >>> ** > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Clayton Lengel-Zigich > >> http://www.lengelzigich.com > >> ** > >> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > >> > >> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > >> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > >> ** > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ** > > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > > ** > > > > > > > > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Re: Text Escaping from Floats
hi Natalie, just delete the height rule from the .floatleft div. that way the divs will expand to contain the text. in fact, Mozilla and Firefox are behaving exactly as the standards say they should - it's IE that is getting it wrong by expanding the div beyond your stated height. On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:36:13 +1000, Natalie Buxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I forget to mention: example is at > http://www.pixelkitty.net/devel/wsg/broken_float.php > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:35:14 +1000, Natalie Buxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi All > > > > I'm wrestling with a float that just wont behave. > > > > I'm trying to stop the content from escaping from the float itself. > > > > The floats are a fluid % width and a fluid height. The content of the > > float will change all the time. > > > > I'd like to do two things: > > > > 1. make sure content doesn't escape > > 2. Force the floats to all be the same height, regardles of content > > without scrolling. So if Float A has 20 lines of text, I want float B > > to be the same height (for borders and aesthetics). > > > > I think point 2 is acheivable with javascript, but point one is elluding me! > > > > Thanks > > > > Natalie > > -- > > Freelance Website Designer/Developer > > www.pixelkitty.net > > > > > -- > > > -- > Freelance Website Designer/Developer > www.pixelkitty.net > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] multiple versions of Internet Exploder
hi Grant, Manfred Staudinger has come up with a nice hack to get around this: http://staudinger.heim.at/Test/cond_0.html cheers matt andrews canberra, australia. On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:39:09 +1000, Focas, Grant wrote: > Be careful when running multiple versions of IE in side-by-side mode. > I've experienced problems where the IE5 or 5.5 has inherited some of the > properties of IE6, which do not show up when testing on a machine with a > 'proper' version of IE5 or IE5.5. Mostly it's OK but i'm not using it > anymore because i can't trust when it will truly act like IE5.x and when > it won't. > > I'm sorry that i can't be more specific at this point but i've forgotten > which things have been the problem other than conditional comments (ok, > i know i shouldn't be using them anyway...) > > has anyone else had problems? > > Grant Focas > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Nick Lo > Sent: Tuesday, 28 September 2004 12:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [WSG] Mac site check please... > > Hi Francesco, > > It has some issues in earlier versions of IE PC You might want to check > out (Just got my multiple versions of IE installed ( > http://www.skyzyx.com/archives/94.php ) so it's nice to be able to > say that! ). > > I had a quick look in IE Mac and it does have a few things needing > sorting. I started giving it a crack but then thought: You seem to have > a lot of s and a fairly complicated HTML structure for a > relatively simple page. Perhaps the best place to start would be to > simplify as much as possible. e.g. just from a glance: > > > > title="Blackcoil Productions" /> > title="Home" > /> > > > title="Home"> src="media/navHome.gif" /> href="About.aspx" alt="About" title="About"> src="media/navAbout.gif" /> href="Code.aspx" alt="Code" title="Code"> /> title="Photo"> id="navBlog"> src="media/navBlog.gif" /> > > > > ...looks like it could easily become... > > > > title="Blackcoil Productions" /> > title="Home" /> > > title="Home"> id="navAbout"> src="media/navAbout.gif" /> href="Code.aspx" alt="Code" title="Code"> /> title="Photo"> id="navBlog"> src="media/navBlog.gif" /> > > > ...and looks like it could potentially still be reduced. The simplified > HTML would allow simpler CSS and therefore make debugging a lot easier > as well. > > S'what I think anyway, > > Nick > > > From: "Francesco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:47:38 AM Australia/Sydney > > To: "wsg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [WSG] Mac site check please... > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > It looks perfect to me on: Win IE 6, Win FF 0.9, and Win Opera 7. > > > > Francesco > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ > Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge > To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] default place-holders for forms
and regardless of the benefits or otherwise of placeholder text in text inputs, having dummy values in password fields is presumably useless. in fact, i would say it's worse than useless, as the last thing you want is someone leaving the password field unchanged and then having no idea what the password is. i conclude that this is a bug in Bobby and/or a flaw in the guidelines that it is based on. On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:19:45 +1000, Web Usability <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry I am late on this topic. > > But I agree with Steven. In practice, the screen reader users I have worked > with find form place holders an irritant. > > Roger > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 4 October 2004 4:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [WSG] default place-holders for forms > > Hi Andreas, > not sure about the article, but we do recommend to our clients that they > not use default place holding cahracters. > from what i have read on the various accessibility lists, it appears that > it is pretty safe to say that the checkpoint is no longer relevant. > but i may be wrong.. > > some relevant list discussions > > Paul Bohman from webaim was saying its no longer needed back in 02' > http://www.webaim.org/discussion/mail_message.php?id=2113 > > Updating specs and tools Re: place-holding characters in edit/text boxes: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2003JulSep/0399.html > > with regards > > Steven Faulkner > Web Accessibility Consultant > National Information & Library Service (NILS) > 454 Glenferrie Road > Kooyong Victoria 3144 > Phone: (613) 9864 9281 > Fax: (613) 9864 9210 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > National Information Library Service > A subsidiary of RBS.RVIB.VAF Ltd. > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > > > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] should you refuse to support IE?
well, IE is the bane of my life, and i wish everybody would just see the light and switch to Firefox :) but, when it comes down to it, the Web is about communication. commercial or personal, if your site falls apart for of your audience, you're not communicating very well. and the ability to craft a site so that it can work effectively in a wide range of browsers is a mark of excellence in a web developer. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:10:04 +0100, Mark Harwood wrote: > Not commercialy, but personaly on your own blog sites are other little community > sites? > > I've just redesigned my blog (www.phunky.co.uk) and in doing so i decided i was > not going > to touch some of the minor issuse that IE has with my site, although it would > only take > me a little bit of time to get it 100% in IE aswell why should i? > > Ive placed a small disclaimer on my site stateing why im "NON-IE" but my only > worry is that > new clients or outsourcing companies may see this and think "The guy hates IE, he > could be a > git to work with" (which i am :D) > > I just wanna know your view on ditching IE on purpose? > > Cheers > Mark Harwood > > Phunky.co.uk / Xhtmlandcss.co.uk / Zinkmedia.co.uk > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Foreign Translations
depends on what server technology the site is using, of course. from experience, i would recommend JSP - Java's internal handling of Unicode and built-in language/locale stuff (resource bundles) is very effective. all the text is stored in .properties files, one per language and/or country, and JSP/HTML templates dynamically show the text from the appropriate language. On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:09:44 +1000, Jason Foss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings! > > I have a client who wants part of their website translated into a few other > languages, some of them Asian (Chinese & Korean are a couple). I have > obtained a couple of quotes from translation agencies to actually do the > translations, but does anyone have experience with actually implementing > this sort of thing in a website? > > The easy way is to make an image out of the translation and pop that there - > but I don't want to do that for obvious reasons!!! I'm reading a bit about > character sets and encoding, but it's all a bit abstract at this point. Any > experiences or how-to references would be much appreciated! > > Ta > Jason > > ** > Jason Foss > Almost Anything Desktop Publishing > www.almost-anything.com.au > Telephone: (07) 4927 8033 > Facsimile: (07) 4927 5312 > Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 9 Unmack Street, North Rockhampton, Queensland 4701 > We can do almost anything! > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] site layout problems, specifically in Mac IE
just to clarify:
"clear:none" means "don't clear anything - position this element next
to floated blocks according to normal flow".
"clear:left" means "if this element would normally be positioned next
to a float:left block, put it below the float:left block instead".
"clear:right" means "if this element would normally be positioned next
to a float:right block, put it below the float:right block instead".
"clear:both" means "if this element would normally be positioned next
to any floated block/s, put it below the floated block/s instead".
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:02:50 +1000, Craig Millman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, sorry it has taken a while to get back, I have been away.
>
> I am not sure I understand how to solve the problem. I think I am more
> confused after reading the bugs for IE5 Mac.
>
> Should I put in my XHTML
>
>
> then in the CSS
> #clearer{clear:none;}
>
> again the page is http://www.pacifichomeloans.com.au
> CSS http://www.pacifichomeloans.com.au/styleshome.css
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Hugh Todd
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [WSG] site layout problems, specifically in Mac IE
>
> Craig,
>
> The main issue would appear to be as follows:
>
> Mac IE 5 wrongly clears floats inside clearing block elements, and you
> can't fix it with "clear:none;".
>
> The easy way to solve it is to add a standalone clearer to your HTML
> (say after a navigation bar that you need to clear). It may need to be
> a full div. Not ideal, but it does the trick.
>
> For more info, see
> http://www.macedition.com/cb/ie5macbugs/#floatclearbug , as well as the
> entry it links to from Philippe Wittenbergh.
>
> Hope this helps. (If this message looks familiar, it's another cut and
> paste from a posting some time ago.)
>
> -Hugh Todd
>
> > I have downloaded Firefox and have started from scratch.
> >
> > The page is at www.pacifichomeloans.com.au and css at
> > www.pacifichomeloans.com.au/styleshome.css
> >
> > The page is looking fine in Firefox (apart from my #maintitle not
> > starting
> > at the top of the page) and IE on Windows. However I did the
> > browsercam and
> > it isn't coming out right in IE on Mac. Most other browsers it seems
> > fine.
> >
> > The XHTML and CSS validates fine.
> >
> > I would appreciate any help.
>
> **
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
> **
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Some links for light reading (2/11/04)
Russ, as always, a fascinating set of links. thanks! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
here's some reading you might find useful: The Dao of Web Design http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Careers in web standards
On 25 Nov 2004 11:25:56 +1100, Andrew Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as companies adopting a forward-thinking view, I hate to sound > cynical, but that's still a while in coming. I find the knowledge of web > standards among management remains close to zero. I always pitch an ROI for > CSS on a bandwidth/user experience basis and, while all prospects perk up at > the mention of ROI, they glaze over when they hear what it is. It seems too > remote for most and, for those that do understand, they have the view that > the cost of bandwidth is falling and it's not from their budget anyhow. Good > old short-term thinking is alive and well - especially in my neck of the > woods. Not that this stops me from pushing. It's only if we all do it that we > will win them over. And I'm very glad to be a pioneer for this. the bandwidth aspect is, IMHO, only a big issue for very high traffic sites. bandwidth costs are falling, and human time is an ever-growing part of the mix of costs. of far more significance financially (except for very high traffic sites), is the increased efficiency of centralised CSS and minimal markup in handling future site layout revisions. also, accessibility is a rapidly growing factor, especially if there are legal implications... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:25:04 +1000, Jackie Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why cant you just say "read content" and leave the skip bit out altogether > > jackie as pointed out earlier, the confusion/difficulty seems to be largely with the way that Jaws reads "content" (accent on last syllable, implying "at peace"), whereas it reads the phrase "main content" with the accent on the first syllable. though of course in some cases users might not be familiar with the concept anyway... and the word "content" is kind of jargon too. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Siter Review Please
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:47:21 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just want to get some feedback about aesthetics and design on my site if > possible please and also the funcionality. Yes it is designed in tables but > still I would like some criticism please. > > J.LinasDesign > Graphic Designer > http://www.jlinasdesign.com/ i don't mean to be rude, but this list is not about aesthetics and design as such. why are you submitting an invalid, non-semantic site to the Web Standards Group? ... now, if you were to show this as the "before" stage of a "before and after" demonstration of reworking a site with web standards, that would be interesting ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] background-image:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:08:53 +0100, JohnyB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> > a span { display: block; text-indent: -999em; }
>
> is this safe? (won't it bring some scrollbars somehow etc.?)
>
> I recently tried something like
>
> .hide {
>display: block;
>width: 0;
>height: 0;
>overflow: hidden;
>margin: 0;
>padding: 0;
>font-size: 0px;
>position: absolute;
> }
>
> and not also 100% sure about it...
>
> --
> Jan Brasna :: alphanumeric.cz | webcore.cz | designlab.cz | janbrasna.com
perfectly safe, no scrollbars, and indeed you don't even need the
element. just set the text-indent on the a, and the text will
be offscreen, with the background image still in place.
the earlier example (with no text being linked) is very poor for
accessibility - a meaningless link, with not even an alt for the
(background) image.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] background-image:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:25:55 +1000, Andrew Krespanis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never gotten that technique to work properly in Opera. It always either
> a) makes scrollbars
> b) displays some of the text despite insane negative text-indent values...
curious. in Opera 7.54, Firefox 1.0 and IE 5.5 and 6.0 (on Win), this
works for me - the image is shown and linked, with no text visible:
html:
link text
css:
.indenttest {
display: block;
height: 40px; /* image dimensions */
width: 200px;
text-indent: -px;
background: transparent url("imageurlgoeshere.png");
}
it appears that Opera starts spewing text all over the place if you
specify the text-indent in em.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Help - newbie
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:41:40 +1000, Lea de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rather than changing editors, or at least, rather than going to DW! :), > I'd suggest you just start validating your pages. > Figuring out those fixes will teach you a lot, and from there you can > move on to Accessibility with time. > > You know the URLs to validate, right? > http://validator.w3.org/ > is one, and there are a couple of others. excellent point, Lea. re editors, personally i use JEdit most of the time: http://jedit.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] starting ordered lists from a number other than 1
On 23/11/05, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with Bert - use the start attribute and a transitional dtd. It's > cleaner, more concise, and captures exactly the semantics of what you are > doing. You don't need the div around the text info though. > > Of course you could always write out the first 39 empty list-items and hide > them :) Agree with Bert and Geoff here. The dropping of 'start' attribute from strict DTD was, and is, a controversial W3C decision - one with which I disagree, personally. There are plenty of plausible and sensible scenarios for having an ordered list start with something other than 1... this NLA case being an excellent example. This is one case where I would regard (this particular aspect of) validation as being a hindrance rather than a help. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] firefox 1.5 is official
On 30/11/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, the question remains, does a release version profile with web dev > installed work without doing anything special when upgrading the release > version from 1.0.x to 1.5? And the answer is: yes. (for me, on WinXPSP2, from 1.0.7, with planets in their current alignments...) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 09/12/05, Lea de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote: > > Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an > > organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there > > are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire > > programmers who understand standards. > > See, thats where I differ - I think that to say 'we do this other > stuff thats Good, so we don't have to worry about something as > trivial as Web Standards'[1] undermines all our work, which we like > to think makes the world a Better Place. > By declining to support Standards they implicitly state that it isn't > important, and as I think it Is important, I feel they are not doing > good, they are doing... that other thing ;) > > By being a big company (and by golly by market valuation they are > absolutely Huge these days!) they implicitly make a massive statement > about the value of something simply by ignoring it :( > > Lea > [1] And, I must point out, in fact, they don't say any such thing - > as usual they don't say anything at all about the matter. No one > knows why they've never spent the 2.5 hours required to bring at > least the home page up to standards... > Lea de Groot Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: > > > Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind > > > spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web > > > standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of > > > the Google Search page: > > > > > > blog entry: > > > http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 > > > > > > example page: > > > http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html > > > > Hey, cool stuff! :) > > I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. > > Interestingly, comparing the two pages in > > http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ > > shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat > > that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) > > Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much > > weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. > > I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( > > > > Lea > > Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and > imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do > people reuse Google throughout the day? If all those users cached the > files, we're talking about drastic reductions in Google's bandwidth. > > It wouldn't be hard at all to lighten the page... but we knew it was a > good idea even before the example. Quite right - I had started with a heavier version of the page than the default, with Google Desktop, signed in to account, etc., which added a bit of text and Javascript. Now I've done a new version, based on the simpler page that the W3C validator gets back from www.google.com. Invalid (original) page (with just 21 chars added to get a full url for the logo image): http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/invalidGoogle.html (2,654 bytes) Updated valid page, based on the above: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html (1,953 bytes) I retained the one-line Javascript in the head, but all styles are in an external CSS file: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.css (636 bytes) So even for a one-off request, with no cached CSS, the valid version is 2589 bytes - *still* lighter weight than the current invalid version. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] italic and validator
On 12/12/05, Bert Doorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm, so (to go along with the Google debate), we can save more > bandwidth by omitting html, head and body? Interesting. Indeed, and Rimantas did just that in his version: http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google.html I'm slightly wary of doing this, wondering how assorted older user agents might deal with it... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pipe separated lists
On 12/12/05, Gunlaug Sørtun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...I'm just not sure it makes really good sense to add any kind of > separators between links since they don't add any value from a usability > point of view. They are just visuals that may come out as noise. I agree with you, Georg. My preference in this situation is to return to the basics - separate content from presentation. In the markup, just have a simple list; and use CSS to add border-left (or -right) to simulate pipe separators (as in that Google variant). ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media
On 31/01/06, Kat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kat wrote: > > Their answer was that they used the table-based layout because they did > not like the way style sheets render in IE, and that encoding is not > utilised for search engine reasons. Wow. Those guys *really* have some catching up to do. Wonder what it's like emerging from a 1998 time capsule... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media
On 01/02/06, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a "far-from-guru-status" Web Standards supporter/coder (I try) I have > > witnessed, on this list and on another css-specific list, quite a bit of > > condescending and 'forced-opinion' type of replies. It doesn't make for a > > nice atmosphere when looking to these lists for help. > > Completely agree. The most common off-list comments I receive are along the > lines of "a great list, very helpful, but sometimes a bit of attitude". That's interesting feedback. I too dislike, and never engage in, the disparaging of those who perhaps know less than others and are trying to learn. In my own defence, I think a bit of light-hearted teasing is justified in this case: clearly Clear Blue Sky had not bothered to keep in touch with web development trends *at all* for the last several years. They are obviously not even trying to learn (so far) - and you have to admit, their "reasons" were pretty comical. If they'd invested 5 minutes in googling these "reasons", they would have realised that things have moved on (and that, on one of these "reasons", they were probably never right in the first place). Having said that, I'll just leap on to my web standards shetland pony and ride off into the sunset. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 10/02/06, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Angus at InfoForce Services wrote: > > Most people have JAVAScript turned off, > > According to what statistics? I think you'll find most people actually > have it turned on. Indeed. I can report from some recent testing on the sites I work on (which have hundreds of thousands of members, and thousands of simultaneous users), that less than 0.1% of users had Javascript turned off. They're dating sites, so they're probably skewed more towards the home/casual user than the office user, but still... I was surprised it was so stark. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 10/02/06, Angus at InfoForce Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lachlan and Matt > Thank you for the information. I should recheck. Do you have information > about International web users? For the sites I referred to as having less than 0.1% of members with Javascript turned off, the users are largely in Europe - especially Netherlands, Spain and UK. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Usability issue with form help
On 13/03/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm hoping to get some feedback from people regarding a solution to a > usability issue. I work for a large organisation and we have very > large/detailed processing required. Because the applications we develop are > very detailed and change dynamically depending upon the current input, > context sensitive help becomes very important. > > I have quickly thrown together an example of what Im talk about... > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/leenath/form/forms-example.htm > > The issue we face is that users are frustrated with having to tab through > the help icons all the time. Users get into the habbit of tabbing twice (to > go past the help and get to the next input field), but sometimes a help item > wont exist, meaning the user accidentally tabs past the next input feild. > Users say they want the help, because it comes in handy frequently, > especially as the organisation is so huge and complex that they could never > remember exactly what every input feild is about. > > So, here is what feeback Im looking for - How can we keep context sensitive > help available for each input feild that requires it but potentially ignore > it in a tabbing sequence? However, help must also be accessible (think about > screen readers) and available via keyboard if they need to select it. It > seems like a catch 22 to me, but I figure someone out there may see a > solution that I cannot. Seems to me that you're saying the primary problem is tabbing *consistency*. If so, then I'd suggest ensuring there is a help item for *every* field. Surely there's potentially some kind of useful advice or clarification for every field? Occam's razor. The simplest solution is often the best. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] GMail... Terrible!
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:54:59 +1000, Gary Menzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are plenty of accesible free webmail clients available. > > Explan to me why GMail has to make it's product accessible to everyone? It's not that Google *has to* make GMail accessible, semantic, minimal, and all the other qualities we admire in good website building. Of course they don't. But should people stop criticising them and "shut up" (to quote an infamous US cable shockjock )? Not at all. To me, it's a real shame that Google, which is creating some of the most amazing web experiences around (Google Maps, Google Suggest, GMail...), appears to be pretty much ignoring accessibility (in the case of GMail, anyway). Google has taken some huge steps forward in the world of browser-based applications. It has devised some amazing services, with great usability - for those that can get access to the sites. But it's made some poor choices along the way. I reckon it's possible to build those great web apps in a way that is degrades gracefully, is accessible, has clean and lean markup, complies with standards, and separates content from presentation. ... but I fear we are veering somewhat into a philosophical discussion here ... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Page check please - lionsq3
On 22/07/05, Rob Unsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > I need some help in checking the following page is rendering Ok in IE 5.x > and IE 6. > I am unable to test in these browsers due to a hd crash and the subsequent > decision it was time to refurbish my system. Until finished I have no > access to any version of Windows. All I can test on is the various > brousers on Linux. > > I was asked to have this page functioning by our meeting on Sunday. The > only feedback I have is from the person who requested that the page be > ready by sunday. > > The feedback: > "Is there any reason the top of the page is blank?" > > Asking what version of Windows he is using created only silence. > > I took a guess and made an adjustemt of 2% in the width of the dl. > > http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/phorms/cabinet/ > > The css for the list is at, > http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/css/formlist.css > > The main css is at, > http://www.lionsq3.asn.au/css/lionsq3.css hi Rob, That page looks broadly the same in Firefox1.0.5/WinXP as it does in IE6/WinXp, IE5.5/WinXP, and IE5.0/WinXP, except that in IE there is of course no background globe image. I suspect this is what he's referring to. I guess you could always hack in a rule for IE to specify the background image as not 'fixed'. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Understanding inheritance (well, trying to)
hi John
I'm afraid this is incorrect.
The quoted CSS selectors were for classes and IDs, without being
element-specific. Thus it makes no difference whether you apply the
class to a span or a div. There's no need for any extra markup. And
it seems to me that the question is one of explaining CSS specificity,
not asking for a change in markup.
Suggest you read Russ' earlier reply closely.
cheers,
matt andrews.
On 25/07/05, John Yip wrote:
> When the ID and the CLASS have the different value on the same
> attribute, the ID always wins. However, you can use to
> achieve what you want.
>
>
> Paragraph one
> Paragraph two
> Paragraph three
>
>
> Hope that helps
>
> John
> -Original Message-
> From: listdad
> On Behalf Of Hope Stewart
> Sent: Saturday, 23 July 2005 5:41 PM
> To: Web Standards Group
> Subject: [WSG] Understanding inheritance (well, trying to)
>
> There's something about inheritance that I don't understand. Say in my
> style
> sheet I have:
>
> body { color: black }
> #content {}
> #hilite p { color: red }
>
> If I have three paragraphs in the div #hilite and I want the text of one
> of
> them to be black instead of red, I define this class for that paragraph:
>
> normal { color: black }
>
> But I find this doesn't work. For it to work, I have to define the class
> with the div ID, like this:
>
> #hilite .normal { color: black }
>
> What is it about the laws of inheritance that means the class alone
> won't
> work??
>
> Hope Stewart
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Problem in Firefox on initial page load only
On 27/07/05, Hope Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27/7/05 8:00 PM, "Jorge Laranjo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> At the bottom of the page, you have a > >> make that &nbps; > > > > > > > > Note, and not &nbPS; > > When I've needed to clear a floated, I've used: > > > > which seems to work, though I haven't tested it in *every* browser. > > Are there any advantages of using over > ? I've never put a " " inside the > . Should I? A nicer approach, IMHO, is not to use markup for clearing at all: http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] A Fixed Understanding
On 28/07/05, Chris Kennon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks, where I got confused is with the "static" attribute which > does not take "top, right, bottom and left values(http:// > www.w3schools.com/css/pr_class_position.asp). So if an item is not > positioned when using "fixed", it is "fixed" relative to its > containing element? here's an excellent introduction to CSS positioning - it will answer your question and many more: http://www.brainjar.com/css/positioning/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
On 04/08/05, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IE6, Win XP, SP2
>
> >Strange - it doesn't redirect for me. Are you using PC or MAC? I have tried
> >IE 6 and IE >5.5 on the PC and in both cases I go to http://www.abc.net.au,
> >not >http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm
As mentioned earlier in this thread, it's nothing to do with which
browser you use - it's the width of your browser window. Try resizing
your IE window to more than 990px width and reload.
>From http://www.abc.net.au/homepage/2005/scripts/home.js :
function resizeWindow(width) {
// window.status = width;
if (document.location.href.indexOf('default_800.htm') > -1) {
if (width >= 990) document.location.href = 'default.htm';
} else {
if (width < 990) document.location.href = 'default_800.htm';
}
}
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Verb this link (WAS Click here--reference)
On 21/09/05, Blank Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/21/05, Lea de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not on this "don't use verbs" boat at all because I haven't yet > > found (or just missed :( ) a justification for it. While I don't by > > default, or even often, use a verb in a link, sometimes I do. > > For instance, one of the pages on a current project allows you to view > > a video. > > The link is Download Video Now, on the > > download page, but the links throughout the site that point to that > > page say similar to: > > "You can view a video clip" > > The difference is that one points to a page and one allows you to do > > something (in this case view a movie) > > Verbs can be very useful. I don't understand the blanket ban. > > > > At the same time, I wouldn't be terribly upset to see: > > "You can view a video clip" > > > > Why is this bad? > > > > warmly, > > > > Although to view a video, one technically needs to download it first (or at > least a portion of it -- ie streaming), I think the real problem with using > verbs in link text, is that you are assuming the user will do something, or > that something is going to happen. > > In the video example, one may have an embedded movie player in their > browser, hence I would think of this as "playing" a video, as opposed to > "downloading" it. > > Evening "viewing" could be thought of as inappropriate, what if the user is > blind? > > Although it's quite bland, something along the lines of: > A video clip is available. > > makes more sense to me. > > Cheers, > > Daniel Nitsche > I'm with Lea here. What about 'Search'? 'Browse'? Trying to do grammatical acrobatics to turn these into non-verbs is, to me, ridiculous and counter-productive. There are many many cases where a user is, in down-to-basics terms, taking an action when they follow a link. No matter whether the technical reality is that they are being presented with a static document... in straightforward user terms, it's taking an action. This is one guideline I disagree with and will not be following. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Expected behaviour of links to external websites
On 20 December 2011 13:09, Alex Mironov wrote: [snip] > I was wondering if anyone had any views/resources as to whether users should > remain in the same window or should be taken to a new window/tab when they > click on an external link? Short answer: don't open new windows/tabs (unless you have a really good reason). Reason 1: it's da law! (if you're subject to WCAG 2.0 accessibility requirements, e.g. Australian Govt) ... e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G200 (well, ok, not strictly da law, but clearly bad practice for many accessibility use cases and likely to fail accessibility audits.) Reason 2: opening new windows/tabs by default basically says "welcome to 1999!" If you're fine with that, go right ahead ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
