Re: [WSG] Google chrome... Coming very soon...
Google Chrome wasn't working for me in the office either, but I think its all due to the firewall and proxy that we have setup here. It couldn't seem to negotiate between the proxy and the installer. I just hooked it up to an outside ADSL connection (my work PC that is), and typing this Email through Chrome right now :) Its a brilliant browser, a true innovation to the way we use the web. Too bad Java and Shockwave don't work on it yet. On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed. We have some very clunky sites and they loaded almost instantly. I couldn't believe the rendering speed. However Gmail won't load on any computers with Chrome on at work (in fact, I can't sign in to any google services). Is this problem affecting everyone or is it just our network? If it's affecting everyone that's pretty massive fail for Google. (e-mail sent from Gmail in Firefox!!) On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Jeffery Lowder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know, I tired it on a couple of the more intensive ajax dependent pages I've been working on and it puts FF to shame. If people realize how much faster they can surf the web - this thing is going to take off big time. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Google chrome... Coming very soon... [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
people are just freaking over nothing. On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Question: does Chrome actually record your browsing and send that information back to Google or are people just freaking over nothing? On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tee, my take on the legal stuff as it may apply to bloggers and other web content providers: http://onblogging.com.au/2008/09/03/does-google-own-my-blog-if-i-post-through-chrome Cheers, Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What is the best solution for IE6 png issue?
It has absolute truth. I work in the biggest state government department in Australia and we have that exact minus one policy, which means never being at the bleeding edge. There are tons and tons of in house applications that have (sadly) been built around the IE6 platform, which would be an absolute disaster for the department if IE7 was suddenly rolled out. Its not as simple as upgrading your home PC or your local internet cafe. This is a very similar story to many other companies and deparments Australia and World Wide. The recent embarkement by 37 signals to phase out IE6 is not going to spark anything. They're a small development company and don't have a large customer base around IE6 and don't have a large influence on the general population - rather only on the developmental community. On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Lewis, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as to say look at the theory of developing specifics for IE6. There is a gaining movement around to start phasing out IE6 support - look at 37signals, I think they begin IE6 phase out this week or next. They've done their maths and taken a gamble. Hopefully it'll spark something. [snip...] In the end, do you want to spend hours developing hacks for IE6 or just nicely push people into an upgrade path? OT and not much to do with IE6 .png solutions but instead, the ongoing support of IE6 aspect of this thread. I was advised by a lesser Microsoft management bot that many corporate organisations have a 'latest minus one' policy, which means only running up to the previous version of any current browser. This will hopefully mean that when IE8 is fully released many corporate techs will then upgrade to IE7, ideally resulting in a bulk upgrade of the costly IE6. I hope this has some truth. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What is the best solution for IE6 png issue?
Yes, true. But there are always special case scenarios. It mainly adopted IE6 as the platform of choice due to the Operating System that they rolled out across the department (Windows XP). There never is a trully anything if you look at it from one direction :) On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Jason Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Anton Babushkin wrote: It has absolute truth. I work in the biggest state government department in Australia and we have that exact minus one policy, which means never being at the bleeding edge. There are tons and tons of in house applications that have (sadly) been built around the IE6 platform, which would be an absolute disaster for the department if IE7 was suddenly rolled out If there was truly a 'minus one' policy they would only started developing for IE6, when IE7 was released Regards Jason Turnbull *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Structuring CSS
Interesting to hear. I will do a formal test on our network sometime when I get the chance and report on my findings as well. Out of curiosity, it wasn't an actual physical stop watch was it? Its far less error prone to use something like the Net tab of Firebug or an external plugin like Charles which can show you how fast segments are downloading etc. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Peter Ottery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anton wrote... - In regards to I'm guessing this sort of structuring comes at a cost because a number of requests need to be made to the server. this is generally untrue. In principle this is exactly how download accelerators work. They split a large file into smaller segments and sent multiple requests. Since the browser environment is completely multi-threaded it should actually boost performance. (Note: I am not 100% certain if this is the fact, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise either). - If its a small site, with not much traffic I think you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference. For large news sites that get smashed with traffic, I've sat there with a stopwatch and timed the difference (over different speed connections from dialup to broadband) between separate css files, and all in 1. And just having 1 file is definitely faster. in some cases it would bring the initial [1] load time [2] from something like 6 seconds down to 3 or 4. and then bringing all the css into the head of the page rather than a linked file chopped another second off. as i said - only applicable if extreme performance/optimisation is an issue - but it *does* make a difference. [1] - with an empty cache [2] - the time taken for the page text to appear, the page might continue loading for 10 or so seconds after this so loading in pics etc. mileage varies pete *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
For Mobile Browsing you generally take different approaches altogether, especially for WebKit powered phones (the iPhone and the to come GPhone). This is generally because you will be providing completely different navigational structures and really narrowing down on the most important features. Google has Mobile alternatives and that is really where developers should be heading when making web pages for Mobile Browsing. Im also wondering how is designing to 800x600 going to make information inaccessible and un-usable? GMail is designed for 800x600 + and is superbly usable. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what about mobile browsing? the iphone is having quite the impact on mobile computing and designing to 800x600 is going to mean you're likely making information inaccessible and un-usable designing to a screen size is like designing to one browser my advice - 1. profile your users and know who they are, what they want, what they need, what their online behaviour 2. turn profile information into functional and non-functional (design) requirements 3. design to meet those needs 4. validate design solutions with those users 5. re-assess needs on a regular basis m -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Babushkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 June 2008 3:39 PM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens? I would say Absolutely, absoutely and absolutely! My reasoning for this is simple: what about the rest of those users who *don't browse the internet with the browser in full screen*? As a matter of fact I'm doing it right now, so thank god GMail scales gracefully, or I probably wouldn't use it! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management Technology does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception or interference. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
Felix, I think the term design for is perhaps a little bit inconsistent in terms of interpretation. Perhaps in this context it was also very badly misinterpreted. When I was referring to design for I was more referring to Accommodate for which in essence is what fluid layouts are all about. To me Accommodate for simply means: - the breaking point at which the page loses its utter most usability, so for example in GMail the usability drastically reduces under a resolution below 800x600 So re-iterate, the page should be as usable as possible; meaning all elements (apart from the content area) should be too large and not too small under resolutions up to 800x600. But in all its essence of what you say - absolutely correct. Web pages should be able to scale gracefully under very small (800x600) to very large (1920x1080) resolutions. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed: Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? Never should have been designing for either one. To design for any particular resolution means you're designing against all the others. An 800x600 page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp, about 12% in size measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size measured in inches or mm. Some of the resolutions you should NOT design for (not an exhaustive list): 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080. Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have nothing more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is what print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages designed for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them. Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the environment figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to design for the medium and the people who use it. http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels http://cssliquid.com/ -- Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Structuring CSS
The way I structure my CSS is very much like you said - taking the Software Development principles of Object-Oriented programming, and is pretty much inline with what everyone else has said. I generally break my CSS up to the following categories: - reset.css : Reset all browser defaults. Gecko, WebKit and Explorer based browsers all have different presets (lists are just one example) so this is very cruicial in making the look and feel consistent. - skeleton.css : Defines my main architectual skeleton, i.e. will it be a three-column layout? a fluid layout? a fixed width layout? This essentially allows me to reuse the CSS very efficiently. I can also switch between layouts very quickly. After that I generally make a judge call on how complex the organisation is and how the CSS might or will be overriden. In a large and complex organisation, that generally consists of smaller individual business I generally split the CSS up even further into the following categories: - content.css - typogaphy.css - forms.css - tables.css I might even go further by splitting the positioning away from the colour. It really depends on how confident the people within each different business are with CSS. This generally allows many people; with varying degree of confidence and skill level to make small changes which might be necessary for their particular business/branch. In regards to I'm guessing this sort of structuring comes at a cost because a number of requests need to be made to the server. this is generally untrue. In principle this is exactly how download accelerators work. They split a large file into smaller segments and sent multiple requests. Since the browser environment is completely multi-threaded it should actually boost performance. (Note: I am not 100% certain if this is the fact, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise either). In the end you should also generally use a bridge file to connect all the CSS together. Hope that answers your question. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:00 AM, James Jeffery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets have it. How are you guys structuring your CSS files? I have been having a think about this over the last few days. My research attempts have failed because most the articles i came across were outdated - so i tend not to trust them. One method i thought about (not sure if it's been coined) is one based on Software Engineering principles, obeying rules such as decoupling et cetera. Maybe by using these principles modules can be included by importing the needed CSS file (and path) in the root CSS file. As i am writing this i am certain CMS systems use this method of structuring CSS. I am sick to death of having to over comment my CSS files to find what it is i'm looking for. I would much rather break up my layout into semantic chunks and create a seperate CSS file for each chunk (i.e navigation, content, footer). I'm guessing this sort of structuring comes at a cost because a number of requests need to be made to the server. Regards James Jeffery *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
I would say Absolutely, absoutely and absolutely! My reasoning for this is simple: what about the rest of those users who *don't browse the internet with the browser in full screen*? As a matter of fact I'm doing it right now, so thank god GMail scales gracefully, or I probably wouldn't use it! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Hi lib, The organization that I am part of uses breadcrumbs, however they're used to display where the user has been and one link to indicate the top level. I think in terms of usability they can help a user associate themselves with your structure if they're really searching for something. They're also typically used as a last bail option when all else fails (including the Back button). To be honest, in your case they don't benefit the user in any sort of way except perhaps help them understand how your corporate structure works (but who actually cares?). On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM, libwebdev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because we can. We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): Parent Org Clinical Services Library Current page The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this benefit the user at all? I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. thanks, lib. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] tools for IE
Nice tools. IE8 comes with a web developer addon, and although I don't quiet think its as good as Web Developer or Firebug, it does a pretty good job. On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dev Toolbar type for IE: http://www.debugbar.com/ And a very interesting concept: http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo
I concur. Having it as a p is a much better way of dealing with it rather than having it as an image or h1. To me its less about SEO and much more about usability. People don't really care about your company, they're simply after the major headlines. Having a company logo take up the majority of the real-estate is less user-friendly and much more spammy. Maybe I am just a minimalist. On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Jens-Uwe Korff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The H1 should be used for the most important heading, usually the name of the page I second that. We used to have lots of logos in h1s too, and after a thorough SEO discussion we changed that to a p. The h1 now holds the page title. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
