from:"Christian Snodgrass"

Can you use an image map?

Yes.

Do people still use image maps?

Yes.

Should you find a better way to implement it?

Absolutely.

Basically image maps can be used, but they aren't usually a good idea. A
better method would be to split it up into separate images and smash them
together to look like one map. This lets you add alt tags and what-not to
make it more accessible.

There are other techniques you could employ as well, depending on your exact
needs.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk
wrote:

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of Christian Montoya
Sent: 14 October 2010 18:56
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Image Maps

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Dorward da...@dorward.me.uk
wrote:

On 14 Oct 2010, at 17:27, Tom Livingston wrote:

Are image maps still ok?

Still?

Server side image maps are as inaccessible as ever.

Client side image maps had issues last time I looked at them, but
things might have improved since then.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/mapalt.htmlhttp://www.cs.tut.fi/%7Ejkorpela/html/mapalt.htmlis
an (oldish)
resource which describes some of the issues and ways to work around
them.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk

When I say ok I mean as OK as they can be. And the question may
have been better as Does anyone still use image maps?

Anyway, thanks for the link.

Bandcamp is an indie-artist music store service that allows you to
design your own storefront, but if you want to link to other sites from
your header, you have to use an image map. So yes, there are people out
there still using image maps. I'm one of them. But not by choice.

--
--
Christian Montoya
mappdev.com :: christianmontoya.net

We have a client who creates e-learning courses for the public sector,
and they make extensive use of image maps. In most cases, clicking the
link causes new content to be displayed on the current page rather than
loading a new page. We keep telling them to implement the feature
differently but they persist despite all the accessibility problems it
causes.

Steve Green
Test Partners Ltd

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Image Maps

You can use transparent images and negative margins.

The simplest way to set this up would be to use a program like Fireworks
(which lets you move stuff around freely and gives you an x and y).

Cut up all of your states into separate images with transparent backgrounds.

Then you can bring them all into a Fireworks file, position them properly,
then use the x and y it gives you to figure out the negative margins for
them.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:21 PM, cat soul cats...@thinkplan.org wrote:


 On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Christian Snodgrass wrote:

 Basically image maps can be used, but they aren't usually a good idea. A
 better method would be to split it up into separate images and smash them
 together to look like one map. This lets you add alt tags and what-not to
 make it more accessible.



 In the case of a map of, say, the USA, how would you achieve this smashing
 together, while still having the smashed-together images look like the
 contiguous US of A?

 cs

 ***
 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] Image Maps

In the US map problem, an image map may make sense.

However, there are many more in which an image map doesn't make sense. For
example, having a graphical menu with an image map, having a header image
map for links, etc. These would be better done using separate images.

Also, sometimes a scripted method might work best. For example, you could
have each state a different image and different color. Instead of having to
try to do a crazy 800 point polygon, you could do a script where it compares
the color under the cursor when you click and determines which state you
clicked on with high precision.

I'm not saying image maps should never be used... I'm saying that you should
keep in mind alternatives because image maps are frequently abused.

- Christian

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Hassan Schroeder has...@webtuitive.comwrote:

 On 10/14/10 1:23 PM, Christian Snodgrass wrote:

  If you needed to get more exact, you could use any number of Javascript
 script to get more exact
 results.


 And all this thrashing about is going to provide a more accessible
 solution than an image map?


  The exact solution depends on the exact problem.


 How about the exact problem being the one that image maps were
 *designed* to solve? Allowing arbitrary shapes within an image to
 be linked to different content? As in the US state example?

 --
 Hassan Schroeder - has...@webtuitive.com
 webtuitive design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com
 twitter: @hassan
  dream.  code.



 ***
 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] Image Maps

That map also illustrates the problem with image maps.

Disable images and refresh the page. It becomes completely unusable (granted
there are ways to make the image map work better with no images, but this is
the more common situation).

If they were all separate images with their own alt tags, they could form a
nice little list of states when there are no images.

- Christian

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Henrik Madsen hen...@igenerator.com.auwrote:


 US map example: http://davidlynch.org/js/maphilight/docs/demo_usa.html

 [image: GENERATOR] http://www.igenerator.com.au/


 *Henrik Madsen*
 +61 08 9387 1250
 hen...@igenerator.com.au
 www.igenerator.com.au

 On 15/10/2010, at 7:19 AM, Christian Snodgrass wrote:

 In the US map problem, an image map may make sense.

 However, there are many more in which an image map doesn't make sense. For
 example, having a graphical menu with an image map, having a header image
 map for links, etc. These would be better done using separate images.

 Also, sometimes a scripted method might work best. For example, you could
 have each state a different image and different color. Instead of having to
 try to do a crazy 800 point polygon, you could do a script where it compares
 the color under the cursor when you click and determines which state you
 clicked on with high precision.

 I'm not saying image maps should never be used... I'm saying that you
 should keep in mind alternatives because image maps are frequently abused.

 - Christian

 On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Hassan Schroeder 
 has...@webtuitive.comwrote:

 On 10/14/10 1:23 PM, Christian Snodgrass wrote:

  If you needed to get more exact, you could use any number of Javascript
 script to get more exact
 results.


 And all this thrashing about is going to provide a more accessible
 solution than an image map?


  The exact solution depends on the exact problem.


 How about the exact problem being the one that image maps were
 *designed* to solve? Allowing arbitrary shapes within an image to
 be linked to different content? As in the US state example?

 --
 Hassan Schroeder - has...@webtuitive.com
 webtuitive design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com
 twitter: @hassan
  dream.  code.



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Image Maps

As far as I know, image maps are not deprecated... just often abused so you
should really consider your options. I agree with your little analogy as
well. I'd evaluate exactly what the problem is and then pick a solution.

For example, if all the shapes in the potential map are square, it'd be easy
to separate into individual images. If they would need 800 points in a
polygon, maybe a color-picker based JS script could be employed (you could
probably write one of these in 100 pixels). If you don't need to be that
specific, just place anchor tags over a plain image (or use them as
background images in the anchor), etc.

And there are definitely ways to make image maps more accessible.

I'd say if you came across something that you thought about using an image
map, just ask yourself what other solutions you can use and evaluate if any
of those may be a better fit.

- Christian

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Mathew Robertson 
mathew.blair.robert...@gmail.com wrote:


  US map example: http://davidlynch.org/js/maphilight/docs/demo_usa.html


 That isn't really a good example of accessibility + images-maps, as it
 doesn't have any... maybe it could be updated to use the tabindex attribute.

 cheers,
 Mathew Robertson

 ***
 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] Image Maps

Agreed.

However, with the separate images you can put them in an unordered list
yourself to control the display a bit more closely.

I'm not saying any of these are 100% good all the time. I like to soak up as
many different techniques as possible and choose the one that is the most
appropriate for the task.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Mathew Robertson 
mathew.blair.robert...@gmail.com wrote:

 That is unnecessary - area's support alt.  With both CSS and images
 disabled, a useragent should be able to draw the USA-map graphically using a
 fallback css; if using a text-browser, it could render it as a list -
 whether they actually do, is an entirely different problem, ie: if an image
 has 'usemap' (and a map exists with alt attributes) then the text-browser
 could assume that a flat list could be rendered.

 Aside: the spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.6) says
 ... with a mouse...

 regards,
 Mathew Robertson


 On 15 October 2010 10:43, Christian Snodgrass csnodgrass3...@gmail.comwrote:

 That map also illustrates the problem with image maps.

 Disable images and refresh the page. It becomes completely unusable
 (granted there are ways to make the image map work better with no images,
 but this is the more common situation).

 If they were all separate images with their own alt tags, they could form
 a nice little list of states when there are no images.


 ***
 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] semantic structure for icon and text

2010-05-11 Thread Christian Snodgrass


I would recommend option 2, for two main reasons:
1) An icon is more of a decoration. It does serve a function purpose, 
but without that icon that original context is still intact.

2) It's cleaner code. =p

Just my two cents. However, I can see the argument for putting it 
directly in an image, though I wouldn't go with the spacer method. 
That's a bit antiquated.


- Christian

On 5/11/2010 5:48 AM, Naveen Bhaskar - live wrote:

Hi,
what is the correct semantic structure for putting an icon in the 
website. when I checked  youtube , I see the icons loaded with css to 
a spacer which is 1x1 size. Is that a good approach?
 I want to show an email id with an email icon with that. can anyone 
suggest me the right semantic structure .

span class=email
img src=spacer.gif alt='
a href=mailto:a...@gmail.comsome_email_id/a
/span
or
just a href=mailto:a...@gmail.comsome_email_id/a and attach the 
icon with css background property for the anchor tag?

thanks a lot in advance.
.naveen_bhaskar
{
email : naveenbhaskar...@gmail.com 
mailto:naveenbhaskar...@gmail.com;

yahoo : naveenbhas...@ymail.com mailto:naveenbhas...@ymail.com;
 }

***
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] the mysteries of overflow: hidden

2010-02-10 Thread Christian Snodgrass

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Could you put together a 
quick example to illustrate.


Basically what overflow: hidden does is anything that doesn't fit into 
it's given container is hidden, basically meaning that it doesn't affect 
the height of it's container. This only works if the parent has a height 
set. If it doesn't, overflow: hidden has absolutely no effect.


Here is an example: http://www.arwebdesign.net/test2.html

In the first one, the container has a static height (500px) and no 
overflow. The text just streams right out of the container.
In the second one, the container still has a static height, but has 
overflow: hidden. This time, the text just disappears.
In the third one, the container has no height set, but has overflow: 
hidden. This time, the container's height stretches to accommodate it's 
contents.
In the fourth one, the container has no height set and has no overflow. 
This functions exactly the same as the third. Overflow hidden had no 
effect on the third one without a height being set.


Hope that clarifies overflow: hidden a bit.

- Christian

On 2/10/2010 1:50 PM, Jody Tate wrote:

(I'm a list lurker. Also, apologies if this has been covered before.)

In CSS, setting a div to overflow: hidden solves a problem it shouldn't--at 
least from the name of the property and value, it seems like it shouldn't.

Often I'll have text, e.g. an h1, overflowing its containing/parent div, but setting the 
containing/parent div to overflow: hidden causes the parent div to set its 
height in a way that the formerly overflowing text no longer overflows.

I've seen this happen for years. Another developer showed me this fix years ago. But over 
the years, I've never read an explanation why overflow: hidden fixes a 
problem its name implies it wouldn't.

Have others seen this? Any explanations?

-jody




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


   



--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

2010-01-29 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Not a bad read.

I'm about halfway in between your view and accessibility all the time. 
I do agree that there is a lot of accessibility for the sake of 
accessibility, however, there are also lots of things that are so easy 
to do that they should always be done, even if your target market 
doesn't explicitly need that.


Thanks for the interesting read.
- Christian

On 1/29/2010 9:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote:

Hello friends,

I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter'
to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar
subject instead.

I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type
discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is
loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake
of accessibility'.

My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant
accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se.

Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself.

http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Jason

   



--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] table inside a dd?

2009-08-16 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Certainly, as long as it's an appropriate usage of a table (which it 
sounds like it is).


- Christian

Tim MacKay wrote:


Hi all,

Is it semantic markup to include a table of items ( in this case a 
nutritional information table ) as the contents of a dd within a 
definition list?


I am marking up product nutritional information and am thinking of 
doing it like so:


dl

dt The Product /dt

dd Paragraph blurb about the product /dd

dd

table

…etcTabular data of the nutritional information/…etc

/table

/dd

/dl

Is nesting the table within the def list valid markup?

Thanks J

Tim


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*** 



--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7

2009-04-23 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Just a little comment: usually I will put the font-size: 62.5% on the 
body element instead of the HTML element. Doing it this way I've never 
had an issue, even in IE (back to at least 5.5). Placing it on the HTML 
element seems a bit goofy to me since the HTML element can never have 
font anyways.


Brett Patterson wrote:
I have always been told to use something along the lines of either 
body { font-size: 100%; /* a fix for internet explorer */ } because of 
the way IE reads/sizes font. Starting out with html at only 62.5% 
font-sizing would completely mess up IE and the font in the browser 
would it not?


--
Brett P.


On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM, CK jobs@bushidodeep.com 
mailto:jobs@bushidodeep.com wrote:


Hi,

Would you elaborate on why the CSS rule invalidates the article?
As it appears the authors explanation is sound.


html {
 font-size: 62.5%;
   }



CK



On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Christopher Kennon wrote:

S,

See this article from Links for light Reading scrolling
down a bit you'll
find a JS solution that may prove useful:

Why Programmers Suck at CSS Design
http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/169/
http://www.betaversion.org/%7Estefano/linotype/news/169/


 That article ceased to be credible as soon as I saw:

My suggestion for you is to do the following: start your CSS
 stylesheet with

   html {
 font-size: 62.5%;
   }



On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Stevio wrote:

Is the box model in IE7 still messed up? I thought
they sorted it?


 It is fixed in standards mode, but I think it uses the broken
model
 in quirks mode.

I am floating a div to the right with a width of 50%.
The div to the left
has a right margin of 50%. I've put a 1px solid border
on both of them. In
IE7 there is a gap between them but in Firefox they
are right against each
other.

Go figure?


-- 
 Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster
http://woodbine-gerrard.com

 ===
 Author:
 Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005,
Apress)


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
mailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
mailto:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*** 



--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Marking up news

2009-02-19 Thread Christian Snodgrass

I'd suggest this as well, normally. However, it seems like how this is 
going to be used is to provide a list of news articles, and since it's a 
list it makes sense to use a list element for it's markup. At least 
that's what I inferred from the initial examples.


Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:

Hi Essential,


I'm making a news plugin but I'm un-sure what
the best/most accesible way is to mark it up?


I'd suggest neither. I'd recommend something more conventional such as:

h1Our News/h1
 pThe following are our latest news articles:/p

h2News Heading/h2
 p class=smaller-textNews Date/p
 pNews content/p

Not as fancy, but I believe this is a simple, semantic, and accessible 
method.


Respectfully,
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***





--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] What's the best way to place a link in a document? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


Andrew Maben wrote:

On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:


Use Example A; you can make as visible as you like with CSS.




+1

Andrew

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*** 

Same, example A is the way to go.

--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


Notice:

The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be 
confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional 
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying 
of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please 
notify the DEEWR Service Desk by calling 1300 305 520 and delete all copies of 
this transmission together with any attachments.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] What's the best way to place a link in a document? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


Andrew Maben wrote:

On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:


Use Example A; you can make as visible as you like with CSS.




+1

Andrew

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*** 

Same, example A is the way to go.

--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


Notice:

The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be 
confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional 
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying 
of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please 
notify the DEEWR Service Desk by calling 1300 305 520 and delete all copies of 
this transmission together with any attachments.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] What's the best way to place a link in a document? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


Andrew Maben wrote:

On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:


Use Example A; you can make as visible as you like with CSS.




+1

Andrew

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*** 

Same, example A is the way to go.

--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


Notice:

The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be 
confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional 
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying 
of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please 
notify the DEEWR Service Desk by calling 1300 305 520 and delete all copies of 
this transmission together with any attachments.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] What's the best way to place a link in a document? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


Andrew Maben wrote:

On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:


Use Example A; you can make as visible as you like with CSS.




+1

Andrew

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*** 

Same, example A is the way to go.

--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


Notice:

The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be 
confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional 
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying 
of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please 
notify the DEEWR Service Desk by calling 1300 305 520 and delete all copies of 
this transmission together with any attachments.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Title attribute

2009-01-11 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Just another note: EVERY element has a title attribute, not just the 
anchor attribute. Title is one of those basic properties like id and 
name. It doesn't have any unique use for any specific element, it just 
allows you to provide a bit more information for the element (which is 
usually displayed when the user mouses over the element).


--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] Which is read first? Scripts or Styles?

2008-11-24 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Brett Patterson wrote:
I have no idea why, but for some reason I cannot remember which is 
read first! Are scripts or styles read first? And which is the 
recommended order to list them? Styles or Scripts first?


--
Brett P.

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 
They are read in the order you list them in your HTML. However, if you 
change elements with Javascript, the CSS is still applied to the new 
stuff as well. Basically, regardless when loaded the CSS always acts on 
everything. Javascript needs to be run after any elements it might need 
to edit though.


--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: HTML reached end of life?? (Was: Re: [WSG] Sorry Link)

2008-11-24 Thread Christian Snodgrass

That is most definitely incorrect. HTML5 is in development as we speak. 
HTML is far from the end of it's life.


rch lib wrote:

Hi,

I took a look at that Drew Mclellan article. He says:

Step 3: Future-proof your site with XHTML
HTML has reached the end of its life and is no longer being developed as a
mark-up language. Its replacement is Extensible HTML (XHTML)—an
implementation of XML that works in all browsers, old and new. Even though
XHTML is strict XML, its tags and attributes are so similar to HTML that
old browsers do not spot the difference. Using XML is advantageous because
it's a modern, future-proof standard.

Is that correct?? Disappointingly (and astonishingly) there is no date on
the article, so perhaps it's just outdated, but isn't the existance of
HTML5 evidence that HTML has in fact not reached end of life? 


Just a bit concerned that a newcomer might see that and be mislead.

Or do I have it wrong?

lib.






At 10:14 PM 24/11/2008 +1100, you wrote:
  

Hi

You might want to look at this tutorial by Drew Mclellan at:

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/dreamweaver/extreme/five_steps.html

You don't need DreamWeaver to do it.

--
Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.petermount.com

On 24/11/2008, at 10:00 PM, kate wrote:



http://www.jungaling.com/katalinadesigns/index.html

Thanks, sorry I forgot the link in my earlier mail.
Kate


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

  


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--
Christian Snodgrass
CEO - Azure Ronin
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.

2008-11-20 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Micky Hulse wrote:

Christian Montoya wrote:
You'll have telepathic computer displays before _real_ XHTML replaces 
HTML.

link rel=stylesheet type=text/css media=mind href=...


Ha! Nice one.

A while back, I stopped using XHTML strict and switched to HTML 4.01 
strict DTD's.


Personally, I think HTML 4.01 strict is a good pick.

I think some would say It does not matter if the DTD is XHTML/HTML... 
As long as it is strict.


This FAQ is a good resource:

Frequently Asked Questions About XHTML vs HTML
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393445


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I 
do (and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it 
makes more sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't 
really use real XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are 
using a Strict DTD incorrectly.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-24 Thread Christian Snodgrass


David Dorward wrote:

Brett Patterson wrote:
  

Why would you avoid w3schools? They do have some good information. So why?



They have a lot of bad information - and spotting the difference is hard
if you are trying to learn from them.


  
I second that. They actually have a LOT more bad information than they 
do good information, and what little good information they have is often 
quite out of date (so, it was good information, but not anymore).



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict

2008-10-07 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Those all have errors (and are HTML, not XHTML). The errors are minor, 
but there are a number of them.


Robin Gorry wrote:

http://www.mucu4u.org.nz/Home_61.aspx
http://www.oneeast.co.nz/
http://www.colorfastsigns.co.nz/Home_34.aspx



Robin Gorry
Senior Web Developer
Xplore Net Solutions



Xplore.net Website of the Week:  Weleda (Australia) - www.weleda.com.au 



Weleda has a range of anthroposophic medicine - the simple yet powerful
way to utilise nature's medicines to stimulate the body to 'heal
itself'.  Until recently their website did not accurately reflect their
brand and they had no easy way to profile their product range to their
Australian consumers.
  


The new Weleda website is powered by the Xsite content manager, Xforms,
Xshop, Xmembers and Xtend. Combined, this powerful toolset enables
Weleda staff to add/edit/delete pages, text and imagery throughout their
site, create online forms and surveys, provide an online product
catalogue and issue logins to restricted access areas on their website.



f:  00 64 (0)6 834 24 86
e : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: www.xplore.net


Take control of your website - ask me today about Xsite-tomorrows
Content Management System

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
may also be privileged.
If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any
purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Anthony Milner
Sent: 08 October 2008 15:23
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict

Hi,

I was having a *chat* with some .NET developer colleagues and they
challenged me to find a .NET site that achieves XHTML 1.0 strict
compliance. Hoping to prove to them that it can be done.

Does anybody know of some .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict (or even
transitional)?

Thanks,
Anthony

 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.numberoverflow.com
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Coding for CSS3?

2008-10-02 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Ben Lau wrote:

Hi all,

I'm having trouble deciding whether to begin coding using CSS3, such 
as using (but not limited to) opacity. Although the CSS validator 
returns an error, but it claims it'll be supported in CSS3. As far as 
i know, FF2, FF3, Opera and Safari already renders the opacity 
property, leaving Internet Explorer, which we could use alpha 
properties in separate stylesheets and conditional comments. Anyone 
know if IE8 supports it?


I haven't had a good look at all CSS3 properties yet, but I'm 
wondering if this is a good time to code for the future? Or better to 
wait for official release of CSS3?

If CSS3 is released tomorrow, what about older browsers like IE6?

Cheers,
Ben

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 
If you want to use them, you can, but use them cautiously and make sure 
that nothing will fall apart if those CSS3 properties aren't available.


--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.numberoverflow.com
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Incorporating Terms and Cons in signup page

2008-09-30 Thread Christian Snodgrass

What I see a lot of times that seems to be a decent idea is in the form 
have a check box with the label I have read and agree to the Terms  
Conditions. Then, have Terms  Conditions actually be a link to a 
separate document (preferably a web page) which actually has the terms 
and conditions. It seems to work well and those that don't read them 
anyways don't have to deal with it, but it's readily available for those 
that do, and it gets them to check the box regardless.


John Unsworth wrote:

Hi WSG,
I'm wondering about the best method to incorporate in a signup form a
Terms and Conditions agreement, which being so long will be bought to
the page externally. Or if it's thought best, maybe not!
On a previous occasion I went forward using the object tag. The
advantage to my mind is that, my document (that may change in future)
is separate to the form and for those who don't have a browser capable
of using the object tag, can see alternative text to link to the
separately hosted TC page.
But it's been put to me at work, there might be a way to house the
document in a div, give the div a fixed size and make it scrollable.
Alternatively I could use a textarea element, although I'm given to
understand it would need to be outside the form so as not include it
in the 'Signup' event when the submit button is clicked. However to
satisfy the designer, who follows that the convention is that the form
is visually seen before the last submit button, I'd use CSS to
position it - but that doesn't sound very semantic to me?
Putting it on another page, that you would link to, read, then return
to the form to agree to has been rejected for the sanctity of the
concept of a single page signup document.
I hope I've been clear, and I guess I'm interested in anything similar
to this in best practice, accessibility and standards.
Cheers for just being there folks,
John Unsworth


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.numberoverflow.com
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Facebook downgrading support for IE6

2008-09-02 Thread Christian Snodgrass

I agree that it's not a good idea to flat out block someone from 
browsing your website with a certain browser. That reminds me of way 
back when during the IE/Netscape wars where half the pages you would go 
to had a block for one or the other.


I think a better idea if you want to drop IE6 support is to simply make 
your website how your would for the other browsers. Than, you could 
check it in IE6 and fix any major glitches, but don't worry about the 
minor details (or not, if you really wanted to flat out drop it). Then, 
use scripting to determine the browser, and if it is IE6 or lower, put a 
small banner at the top of your page saying You should upgrade your 
browser, or try out one of the Internet Explorer alternatives. This site 
may not function entirely correct with older versions of IE. and 
provide alternative links.


This is the method I will shortly be adopting and I think it's good for 
pushing IE6 out the door, without slamming that door on potential visitors.


Michael Horowitz wrote:
IMHO it seems to me to be a violation of web standards to tell the 
user what browser to use.



Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



Gregorio Espadas wrote:
I like the IE6Blocker from Chris Coyier, check it out at 
http://css-tricks.com/ie-6-blocker-script/


I made a spanish translation of IE6Blocker, download it from 
http://espadas.com.mx/2008/09/01/bloqueando-internet-explorer-6/


Gregorio Espadas
http://espadas.com.mx



On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Susie Gardner-Brown 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I came upon this -

http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2008/08/27/facebook-doesnt-really-support-ie6 



If Facebook (or the 'new' Facebook look) is doing this, maybe it
will really start to move IE6 out the door ...

One can only hope anyway!!

+++
Susie Gardner-Brown
blog:  http://susiegb/blogspot.com
web: http://www.greendoorwebsites.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.numberoverflow.com
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Facebook downgrading support for IE6

2008-09-02 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Yet another thing that is Facebook specific that I just thought about. I 
may be overstating this, since I have no actual statistics to back it 
up, but I'd wager that a very large part of Facebook's population is 
from the more tech-savvy  generations, so their usage statistics of IE6 
may be far lower than your average website. Additionally, since a large 
portion of there population is (was?) college students who generally 
reside on-campus, they are likely to have more up-to-date systems 
because nearly all colleges require that you stay current with Windows 
updates to access their network (meaning use the internet, not 
necessarily access an intranet), so a lot of the users already have IE6 
or greater.


Not saying I completely agree with this approach, but at the same time 
it is highly unreasonable for a web system like Facebook to be able to 
individually provide fall backs and fail-safes for IE6.


In addition, I think it is actually about time that we as web developers 
began pushing for users to upgrade. Simple non-invasive messages on the 
top of our website for those that are using outdated browsers are simple 
to implement, easily ignored by those that want to, and are helpful for 
those that aren't as tech-savvy. Many people that are using IE6 don't 
realize they are using an outdated version. I'd wager to bet that 99% of 
those still using IE6 couldn't tell you the browser version they are 
using because they aren't acclimated enough to know that there are 
different versions of Internet Explorer. Most of these users are those 
stereotypical users that think Internet Explorer = The Internet. (The 
other 1% are just crazy)


Christian Montoya wrote:

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Jens Brueckmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

2008/9/2 Gregorio Espadas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


I like the IE6Blocker from Chris Coyier, check it out at
http://css-tricks.com/ie-6-blocker-script/
  

ONLY if a web application absolutely relies on certain javascript
methods not available in old browsers may a user be warned about
difficulties in using this application. In these cases, detection
should be done by testing said methods, not by user agent sniffing.




Leave it to WSG to assume that Facebook.com is just another website.

Log into Facebook and profile your session with Firebug or a similar
Javascript tool. What you will soon find is that Facebook is one of
the most complex web applications out there today. It has a huge
number of AJAX  animation events throughout the many sections, as
well as a live chat feature similar to the one in Gmail. Just to give
you an example, Facebook has a continuously running presence monitor
that sends information via AJAX to the backend even as the logged-in
user is idle, to track and identify how users interact with the site.
One of the uses for this is to tell other users, with certainty, if
you are currently online.

Facebook has had a warning message on their homepage for a long time;
I remember seeing it at the beginning of this year. It's a way of
letting users know that some features of the site are bound to be
hindered because IE 6 is so outdated. I think this message went up
around the time that Facebook chat was released (April 2008), this is
why:

http://www.theangryhedgehog.com/2008/04/facebook-chat-and-ie-6.html

Currently, Facebook has a redesign of their site which is opt-in until
the testing period is over, which does not work with IE 6. It is well
understood that the new version features a lot more Javascript  AJAX
than the current design, and therefore, will take a while to make
compatible with IE 6, if at all. Facebook has not finished the opt-in,
testing period for their new design, so it is not correct to say that
they are downgrading support for IE 6. We can only say that if those
users are still blocked when the new design is actually released to
all users (which is scheduled to happen soon).

We might not agree with the way Facebook sniffs the user's browser,
but the point I am trying to make is that Facebook is far more a web
app than many people on this list may have ever known, and it
certainly does have different requirements than our blogs and
public-facing brochure sites. Also, since Facebook hasn't actually
finished their latest redesign, there is still a chance that they will
support IE 6 in the end; but I doubt it.

Last link:
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/google.com+myspace.com+facebook.com/?metric=uv

  



--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net
http://www.numberoverflow.com
http://www.htmlblox.com
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] resetting input boxes

2008-08-06 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Paul Bennett wrote:

Hi Kevin,

It's not clear what you're trying to achieve. Can you give us some more 
information?

Paul


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  
I think he's essentially talking about a CSS reset file, specific to 
input, to neutralize all of the browser differences.


I'm not sure of the specific elements, but just about any CSS reset 
should handle it. This is the one I prefer: 
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2007/05/01/reset-reloaded/


Yahoo also has it's own, but it's a lot bigger and I think somewhat of 
an overkill.


--
Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

2008-05-30 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Thierry Koblentz wrote:

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Martin
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:19 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Marking up company logo

img is only an inline element by default. Some simple css fixes that. An
inline element does not have to be contained in a block level element at
all!

You might need a containing element for the IMG element, this depends on
document type.

Additionally, using CSS to make an img -display- like a block only makes 
it act like a block level element. It doesn't mean it is a block-level 
element semantically.

--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] accessible client side form validation

2008-04-23 Thread Christian Snodgrass

You may want to try out one I created: 
http://www.arwebdesign.net/systems/ValidInputImages


It's primary function is to place a image after the object that 
indicates whether it is valid or invalid. It also has an alt tag that 
says so as well. The only requirement is that each element is wrapped in 
something that can handle an img, because it appends a new image. So, 
you could mark it up like this:

labelinput/label

or (as I've done in my examples because it's easier to apply CSS like this)

lilabel for=inputinput/label/li

It checks each element after each element has been changed.

Mine isn't quite as easy as Matt's, because it requires that you call a 
function for each input, and there aren't lots of regexes predefined. It 
is light-weight and has been tested on all current major browsers, 
including IE6.


The thing I'm not sure about, and that maybe others will be able to 
assist me with is what happens when the image gets appended or the 
source gets changed. It seems I remember hearing that anytime the source 
is changed, the screen reader jumps to the top again. If so, that's 
something that I need to figure out a good work around for.


Let me know what you think.

tee wrote:
Yes, I second it, I implement it on a client's site and was very happy 
with until I found that it has problem in Safari 3.1 (552513) for the 
First Name, Last Name and Phone required fields - I had the fields 
entered correctly, but Safari kept telling me to 'correct the 
highlighted errors'.


It's probably a bug by Safari 3.1 (552513) because I had people tested 
for me in their Safari with different version, and they all worked.


I was forced to remove Matt's script as a result, and have the 
server-side validation.


tee


On Apr 22, 2008, at 8:58 PM, Matt Fellows wrote:
I humbly suggest my own: 
http://www.onegeek.com.au/articles/programming/javascript-form-validation.php :) 

Completely unobtrusive and requires only valid XHTML. If you have a 
little bit of JS knowledge you can easily extend the functionality.


Cheers,

Matt





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] PNG file sizes

2008-04-16 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Fireworks also has some really nice optimization tools for all formats.

Rachel May wrote:

Thanks for your replies everyone - I'll check out those tools.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nikita The Spider The Spider
Sent: Thursday, 17 April 2008 1:55 a.m.
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] PNG file sizes

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Ca Phun Ung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Mike Brown wrote:



Rachel May wrote:

  

I created the PNGs in Photoshop (CS3) and just wondering if there are


any better tools or ways of saving the PNGs for smaller file size, while
still retaining their high quality??


http://www.ignite-it.co.uk/

Best. Graphics. Optimiser. PlugIn.


  

 I use PNGGauntlet as an after process to optimize those PNGs.

 http://brh.numbera.com/software/pnggauntlet/

 Unfortunately it only supports Windows.



The Gimp (graphics editor) has PngCrush built into its save routine.
You could also run PngCrush separately, I guess, but I never have
because I always use The Gimp.

Also, PngQuant runs on *nix boxes (and Windows?) and allows you to
reduce the palette size of PNGs. Save a PNG as indexed and then tell
PngQuant to rerender the PNG with a fixed palette size (up to 256
entries, I think) and it will dither any colors that don't fit in the
palette. You can try with different palette sizes to see what tradeoff
of size/quality works for you.

Enjoy



  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Catch 22 list problem

2008-04-03 Thread Christian Snodgrass

I know this is a fairly old topic, but it's come up several times and I 
don't know if this solution has ever been stated before:


You can actually set the value attribute for the li elements with 
the number you want it to have. After that, all succeeding lis will be 
numbered based on that one.


Check the bottom of this link for details:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.2

(For those that don't remember, this discussion was about starting an 
ordered list at a number other than one.)


Jason Friesen wrote:
That's pretty much what we did; usually hx and p, with ul where 
appropriate.  But I still look longingly at the counters in CSS, and 
grimace everytime someone says, But we have to add in another point 
between 2 and 3...



On 2007-Oct-14, at 14:10 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Certainly for this example, the use of an ordered list is incorrect - 
there is a strong hint there in the description; this should be 
marked up with p tags, with the identifier as the first bit of 
text, ie the number is content in this example.
If you think about it, the 'label' of each item MUST remain the same, 
regardless of how much or little of the document is quoted, and more 
to the point adding or removing content MUST NOT alter the numbering. 
This is the exact opposite of what an OL is intended to do.


Mike





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Why is u deprecated?

2008-03-27 Thread Christian Snodgrass

I think that b and i are equivalent to u and that they probably 
should be deprecated. They probably will be in HTML5 (though I haven't 
looked). In my opinion, those are purely style, not semantic, and should 
be done with CSS.


Joseph Ortenzi wrote:

Very good points

b and i are stylistic and em and strong are semantic.
u is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text 
can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention.


I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click 
underlined text so keep it out please...


I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a 
link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but 
good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention.


Joe


On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote:


Hi,

Usability.
Users expect link-text to be underlined.  Many user studies found that
when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite
annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the underlined
text several times before they gave up).

Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have avoided
this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to start
styling their link colours as they thought fit.  Even though this 
styling
often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined 
text to
mean links.  This led to the confusion, so something had to give - it 
was

u.

b and i are not deprecated because there may be times when you 
want to
style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that 
em and

strong confer.


On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote:

Hi,

I am just curious if anyone can explain why the u tag has been
deprecated
while b and i are still allowed.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Kepler Gelotte
Neighbor Webmaster, Inc.
156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854
www.neighborwebmaster.com
phone/fax: (732) 302-0904



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] IE8 news

2008-03-05 Thread Christian Snodgrass

That's very true. Those that our party of the community are those that 
are aware and follow standards. And, I do disagree with compatibility 
indefinitely, such as having IE5's, or even IE6's rendering engine 
within IE8, because that does cause bloat. But, I can understand having 
IE7s, because not every developer is going to even feasibly be able to 
update all of their updates in between the beta of IE8 and the actual 
release, and even then it might completely update their site for when 
IE8 comes out. Likewise, when IE9 comes out, if it's rendering 
capabilities change for HTML compared to IE8, I would expect IE9 to 
contain IE8's rendering engine, but likely drop IE7 (depending how 
quickly they pushed it out). You have to have some 
backwards-compatibility, but you have to eventually drop some of it if 
you ever want to progress.


Patrick Lauke wrote:

Tate Johnson



  
I agree with your latter point. However, I fear that it 
protects lazy  
developers who refuse to adopt standards based practices. That said,  
the more and more you look at the community on the whole; it seems  
less ignorant today than at the start of the decade.



The problem is that those lazy or ignorant developers are *not* actually
part of the community...they may not even realise that there *is* a community.

P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise  Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford, Greater Manchester
M5 4WT
UK

T +44 (0) 161 295 4779
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.salford.ac.uk

A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY  



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] strong element being more semantical and accessible for required field

2008-02-26 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Something quick I just thought of was that you could use some small icon 
to indicate required fields, and specify the alt for that to say 
required. That way, sighted users don't have to look at the word 
required repeated 50 times, while unsighted users will be able to hear 
that the field is required. Just a thought.


Steven Faulkner wrote:
don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but as far as screen 
readers like JAWS and Window Eyes are concerned the strong element 
does not convey any meaning. It is not recognised by them.
 
They do not change the way text within strong elements are announced, 
but neither do they do it for em or b or i etc.
 
JAWS does have a speech and sound scheme that includes modified 
announements of italicised or bolded  text (amogst other things), this 
is not a default scheme, though and is provided for tasks such as 
proofreading. but this facility is based on how the text is rendered 
on screen, not on how it is marked up. 
 
bottom line is that for users these screen readers using strong as an 
indication of a required field won't be of any help.
 
On 25/02/2008, *tee* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I have this question about strong element being more semantical and
accessible for required field in the web form and like to hear your
opinion.

I came to the conclusion after conducting my little user testing - it
first started with an intention of spam and error monitoring over the
form script I use, I then learned that despite the indication that
asterisk is marked as  required field, many people who took time to
submit the forms on clients' sites  still missed the *.  Because I
use no JS validation for the form, I decided to bold the required
field using strong element for two new sites. It seems working as the
bold texts caught people attention and I received no errors email
notification on missing to enter requried fields. The result also gave
me a though on how screen readers treat the strong element and that
it's indeed more accessible and semantically correct.

Working on a site, and thanks to Matt Fellows and his futher
assistance, I implemented his JS form validation script to the web
form. Using asterik  to indicate the required field no longer is an
issue with JS validation, however I decided to stick with the strong
element. Much work had put into it to modify the code and css, but
client came back to me to want the '*' over the strong because it's
a conventional practice.

Really want to stick with the strong element for the reason above,
however I am also doubting  my conclusion that it's more accessible
for screen readers as I never tested on one. Before I try to convince
client the strong element is better approach, I would love to hear
your opinion.

Thank you!

tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




--
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com http://www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org 
http://www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar - 
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] repeating background png support ie6

2008-02-19 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Instead of that, you could just use a CSS hack. Something like:
#background_div {
   background-image: url(background.png);
}

* html #background_div {
   background-image: url(background.gif);
}

The * html will make it so only only versions of IE will look at it 
(IE6), while modern browsers remain unaffected. Also, I'm fairly 
certain this will prevent the background.gif image from being loaded in 
modern browsers, since it isn't needed.


kevin mcmonagle wrote:

Hi,
Whats the standards way to handle or degrade ie6 png support for a 
repeating background img?
Im having problems solving this-ies4mac doesn't seem to do well with 
conditional comments and png hacks-so i cant tell whats working.


Im thinking about putting the wrapper div with the repeating 
background image in two different stylesheets. One with a png for 
normal browsers and one with a gif for ie then i would just hide the 
png from ie6 and give it the gif one  with conditional comments.


Also if anyone can email me a screen shot from ie6 off list that would 
be great.


beta page:

http://www.arasgcc.com/indextest.html

-thanks
kevin







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Styling forms

2008-02-09 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Thierry Koblentz wrote:

On Behalf Of Mike at Green-Beast.com




As a side note, I style these BRs with display:none.
  

I'm curious, what effect does that have on the styled page?Do you do
something like...

label {
  display : block;
}

br {
  display : none;
}



Hi Mike,

I don't use display:block, most of the time I float everything and use the 
label to clear.
Depending on the width of the labels I may use text-align:right; to move the 
text in the label toward the text box.
I also set the widths in EMs, to avoid the text to wrap if it grows. With the fieldset width set in pixels, when these elements grow, they simply pile up without breaking anything. 
If I kill the BRs it is just to make sure they don't create any vertical space.



  
That sounds like quite an elegant solution. I may have to try that out. 
Thanks.


--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Styling forms

2008-02-07 Thread Christian Snodgrass

]
  ***

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Styling forms

2008-02-06 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Yes, the only difference between between the input in the label and 
having it outside of the label with the for attribute set is primarily 
just some formatting via CSS differences. Beyond that, there is little 
difference. All modern browsers (and even most older ones) allow you to 
click on the label to put your focus in the input that that the label is 
referenced to, regardless of which way it is implemented.


Thomas Thomassen wrote:
When the LABEL element wraps around INPUT you do not need the FOR 
attribute.The hierarchy provides the connection between them. However, 
when the LABEL does not wrap around the INPUT, the FOR attribute is 
required for useragent to know the elements are related.



- Original Message - From: John Faulds 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Styling forms


Hi Germ17,I have seen your example presented in GERMWORKS.NETFYI, 
your approach is perfect to my knowledge, but the INPUT element 
should not wrapped by any LABEL element. It's not 
compliant/accessible...I request you to modify this example 
according to standards, if you believe

the same.


You're wrong there. It's perfectly valid HTML and I don't believe it 
is any less accessible as long as the 'for' attribute is specified.



--
Tyssen Design
http://www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] repeat x and repeat y

2008-02-06 Thread Christian Snodgrass

I second the recommendation on The Art  Science of CSS, it is 
excellent. The CSS Anthology is also an excellent CSS book (also from 
Sitepoint).


Darren Lovelock wrote:

Two books I would recommend -

Designing with Web Standards - Jeffrey Zeldman
The Art  Science of CSS - Sitepoint 


Hope this helps :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Laakso
Sent: 06 February 2008 16:37
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] repeat x and repeat y

Michael Horowitz wrote:
  
I again thank everyone for all the help.  Any good resources for 
repeat x and repeat y


Also would love suggestions for new books to buy.





See:

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#background-properties
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=GoodBooks

~dL


--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] PHP includes

2008-02-05 Thread Christian Snodgrass

You can basically think of a PHP include as basically just copying 
everything from the included file into the file it is being included in.


Ken Robinson wrote:

Quoting Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


If I am including a menu using the PHP include command but the actuual
menu is an html list does the included file need to have its code
including the css style sheet or will it use the style sheet of the
page it is included to.



Any text that's in the PHP include file that is not PHP code is passed 
directly to the browser as part of the HTML code. Therefore it does 
not need it's own CSS style sheet.


Ken



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] display differences firefox ie 7.0

2008-02-05 Thread Christian Snodgrass


In wrapper, change the margin to be:
margin: 0 auto;

To center block-level elements, you set margin-left: auto and 
margin-right: auto (margin: 0 auto is a shortcut for that). In IE, at 
least IE6, it wrongfully would let you use text-align: center to 
position block level elements. Not sure about IE7. FF only lets you use 
the margin method.


Michael Horowitz wrote:
I've noticed that my site is centered it ie 7.0 but left justified in 
firefox http://terrorfreeamerica.us/.  What are the issues and 
workarounds to keep them in sync. In this case I would like it 
centered both ways but I would love to know how to do it either way.


Thanks




--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Styling forms

2008-02-05 Thread Christian Snodgrass

It kind of depends on the form itself. Definition lists and unordered 
lists also are used a lot.


Usually, I would say unordered or definition lists are the most 
appropriate. If the questions were numbered, I could see using ordered 
lists. Paragraphs are kind of the lazy way. You can also use field sets, 
which are really appropriate for groups of related items.

Michael Horowitz wrote:
I've been looking at styling forms and I'm seeing some people mark 
them up as ordered lists and other using paragraphs.  What are the 
arguments for the different markup types. 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] long description and its implementation

2008-02-03 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Mostly empirical evidence, though I've read it in many reliable sources.

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

Christian Snodgrass wrote:
(Most screen readers don't have Javascript enabled, so this is a 
valid method).


Just wondering if this is based on stats or empirical evidence?

P



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] long description and its implementation

2008-02-03 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Maybe I'm confused. Do they usually have Flash installed? I thought that 
screen readers would default to whatever is suppose to be replaced with 
the Flash when using SWFObject. Maybe it defaults because the Flash 
isn't enabled... Though, I guess that could be wrong as well.


Steve Green wrote:

Such as?

JAWS (which has something like 50% market share) has a high level of
JavaScript support and I believe that the other professional screen readers
(WindowEyes and HAL/SuperNova) also do. Free and cheap screen readers
generally don't have JavaScript support.

In our experience screen reader users do not turn off JavaScript. In fact
they tend to use pretty much all software as it comes out of the box without
any customisation. The one exception is Windows itself, where it is
beneficial to enable Classic mode and make a few other adjustments,
especially in Vista.

Steve


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: 04 February 2008 03:06
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] long description and its implementation

Mostly empirical evidence, though I've read it in many reliable sources.

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
  

Christian Snodgrass wrote:

(Most screen readers don't have Javascript enabled, so this is a 
valid method).
  

Just wondering if this is based on stats or empirical evidence?

P




  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] long description and its implementation

2008-02-03 Thread Christian Snodgrass


It looks like longdesc is only a valid attribute for images.

You could use Javascript (with something like SWFObject) to place the 
Flash movie. How most work (including SWFObject) is that they actually 
replace another element (usually div) to place the Flash. That means, if 
Javascript isn't enabled, the original contents of the div are left in 
tack. You could put what you would put in a longdesc in this initial 
div, and then replace it with Flash for those that have Javascript 
enabled. (Most screen readers don't have Javascript enabled, so this is 
a valid method).


This is pretty much the standard method for having (almost) accessible 
Flash.


Susie Gardner-Brown wrote:

A further query on the longdesc attribute.

Is there any reason why I couldn’t use it on a Flash animation? It’d 
be a great solution for a current problem where I’m trying to update 
an oldish website to be more accessible. I’ve got a Flash animation 
that’s a list of (6) headings, each with 3 options (advantage, 
disadvantage, strategy) that are accessed by clicking on an icon (18 
in total). I was going to convert it to a table but maybe I could 
leave it as the Flash animation and have a longdesc link?


Any thoughts?

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] long description and its implementation

2008-02-02 Thread Christian Snodgrass

If that is the case, you could just use simple links and have a mention 
about clicking on the artwork to read an in-depth description.


dwain wrote:
i do go into some detail about color meanings and the symbolism behind 
the work, so i think that it could be of benefit to both sighted and 
visually challenged individuals.

dwain

On 2/2/08, *Thierry Koblentz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 On Behalf Of dwain

 excellent suggestion!!  i have other plans for the page with the
larger image as far as a description goes, but the link text
suggestion is
 superb.  i wanted a way to let screen readers know that there
was a description of the image for non-sighted, blind, whatever is
politically
 correct these days, available for accessibility.

If these links are for screen-reader users, then why not hiding
them in visual browsers?
imho, many sighted users will be confused by your long description
pages, I believe most users won't understand their purpose.
Unless of course they do more than describing the image. For
example, in the case these images are not only described, but
*interpreted* (for example by the artist explaining his work,
symbolic, etc).
If it is the latter, then the description is for all users.

--
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




--
dwain alford
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Re: Why code and no web pag

2008-02-02 Thread Christian Snodgrass

This isn't really the place to discuss this as it has nothing to do with 
web standards, but it is because you can't have an include using an 
absolute path, they must all be relative. 
http://www.example.com/page.php is absolute. /page.php is relative.


Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote:

Solved the problem. However, why does;

include ../crf_header.php;

Will work and;

include http://www.choroideremia.org/crf_header.php;

Will not?

Angus MacKinnon
Infoforce Services
http:ééwww.infoforce-services.com

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
George Washington



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] long description and its implementation

2008-02-01 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Longdesc is actually an attribute. It's most commonly used with the img 
element, though it works for several other multimedia-related options.


Basically, you just add the attribute to your img tag, and then the 
value of the longdesc attribute is the path to the longdesc file.


Here is something I found about longdesc: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam3-0.htm


And here it is in the objects, images, and applets section of the W3C 
specification:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-longdesc-IMG

Hope that helps.

dwain wrote:
i have looked at the html 4.01 specs and i did not see any examples of 
how to implement the longdesc element.  i am working on long 
descriptions on separate pages for each work of art on my web site.  i 
am planning on placing a D link next to the text title of the work 
on the main category page.  could someone point me in the direction 
to any other references as to the proper implementation of the 
longdesc element?  maybe someone would provide a standards compliant 
example?


tia,
dwain

--
dwain alford
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.  Kandinsky
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass

When IE8 comes out, no, we won't be able to ignore IE7, and most likely 
not even IE6 yet. However, eventually, IE6 and IE7 will fade away, just 
like IE5 did.


James Leslie wrote:
 
  

It is the best solution they can come up with that won't destroy
  

everything that has been created in the past. Adding one line of code to
each of your pages is a lot more cost effective and time saving then all
of the hacks we currently have to do to get it to display properly in
IE6 and IE7.

---

But by this argument, you seem to think that we would no longer have to
support IE6 or 7 and not have to spend the time putting hacks in. These
browsers will still be around for a long time... Perhaps not so much IE7
but certainly IE6 due to older OS not being able to update.

My development plan will stay the same aside from having another browser
to check:

Code site in Firefox
Check in Opera, Safari, PLUS IE8 (standards mode)
Hack IE7 fixes
Hack IE6 fixes

Or alternatively I let IE8 act like IE7 and don't bother using an
updated engine as an updated engine. The only difference between now and
then in the above plan is that I would check IE8 standards mode and hope
that it renders the same as firefox, safari and other standards based
browsers. I may be missing something, but I really don't see where the
less work comes in for anyone who is coding to standards. For those who
have been churning out badly coded sites that don't work properly in
firefox/opera/etc and have always been coding for IE it is a blessing.
It is not so much about 'not breaking the web', as not breaking the
sites already breaking the web.

James



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Check out this: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html

Tim MacKay wrote:


Hi List,

If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I 
know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list 
if you feel it’s more appropriate.


I’ve recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track 
as soon as possible, it was a Mac iBook from2005, and as I’ve gone a 
bit deeper into web development since I purchased it I was under the 
impression that when I upgrade I should change over to Windows. My 
current situation has forced me to consider upgrading sooner than 
expected, so I have a few questions about the Windows environment on 
the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual 
Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the 
Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it 
just a matter of switching OS’s like I would switch applications?


Thanks in advance for any advice offered, I am going to dig up the 
previous threads on this topic from the last few weeks.


Cheers,

Tim


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass

On an Intel-based processor, you should be able to actually install 
Windows onto a Mac machine. I've never personally tested this, but it 
makes sense to me. If that is the case, then it will function just like 
Windows on any other PC build, so you can run anything that you would 
normally run.


Another option is virtual machines, where you can run Windows from 
within a Mac OS. In this case, it would be just like another program you 
are running, although from within that virtual Windows you can do 
anything that you could with a normal installation of Windows.


Sorry to here about your laptop.

Tim MacKay wrote:


Hi List,

If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I 
know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list 
if you feel it’s more appropriate.


I’ve recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track 
as soon as possible, it was a Mac iBook from2005, and as I’ve gone a 
bit deeper into web development since I purchased it I was under the 
impression that when I upgrade I should change over to Windows. My 
current situation has forced me to consider upgrading sooner than 
expected, so I have a few questions about the Windows environment on 
the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual 
Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the 
Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it 
just a matter of switching OS’s like I would switch applications?


Thanks in advance for any advice offered, I am going to dig up the 
previous threads on this topic from the last few weeks.


Cheers,

Tim


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Yes, I agree.

Part of our job is putting up with the stupidity that MS gives us and 
making it work. We don't just get to say No, we won't support IE 
anymore, at least, not if you plan on keeping clients.


Is this solution perfect? No. Is this solution acceptable? Yes. Could it 
be worse? Hell yes!


Be thankful we are finally getting some standards compliance. Don't 
waste your time complaining about what they aren't doing.


It's one line... one. Not two, not ten. Just one. It is even a fairly 
standards-compliant way. It is not perfect, but it is a decent solution 
at least. When HTML5 is released, in another decade or so, we won't need 
the meta-tag anymore because Microsoft won't have to be making up for 
all of the old sites that were hacked to work with their browser. They 
have a chance to conform to standards from the start, and, after recent 
events, probably will. However, they can't do anything else for 
HTML4/XHTML1. They've dug their own grave with this one. It's our job 
now to not let our clients and their customers suffer for Microsoft's 
short-comings.


Thomas Thomassen wrote:
By the sound of it, IE9 will default to IE7 for documents with proper 
strict doctype and IE6 for documents with invalid or missing doctype. 
Just like IE8.


Regarding what you said about X-IE9-Compatible, X-IE10-Compatible:
No, it would be
meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=9 /
if the site was made for IE9, and
meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=10 /
the http-equip header name itself would not need to be replaced.

And your proposed solution is a punishment to the users and the owners 
of the sites. And the owners will loose money if their sites suddently 
break due to missing visitors and having to pay someone to sort it out.
It doesn't sound fair to do this to the owners and users because 
they're the ones that'll suffer the most. And we are after all 
offering a service.



- Original Message - From: James Bennett 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy



On Jan 30, 2008 1:31 AM, Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They don't want to default to IE8 rendering because of what happend 
with

IE7. It broke website. Not only that but IE is used so much outside the
browser as well. It's a platform. Intranet apps. HTA apps. Even help 
files

uses the IE engine. If IE8 defaulted to IE8 rendering, then you risk
breaking ALL of that. And who's going to get the heat for that? The
developers! Us!


And then when IE9 comes out, what does it default to? The same people
who built stuff that relied on IE6 bugs and broke in IE7 will build
stuff that relies on IE8 bugs and breaks in IE9 (especially since IE8
will be the first version with any support for the HTML 5 drafts; like
any first implementation of anything, there will be bugs). And so on
into the future; do we get an X-IE9-Compatible and an
X-IE10-Compatible, and an X-IE11-Compatible down the line to deal with
that?

When I first heard of this new tag I didn't know what to think of 
it. But

I'm starting to like it more and more. What I've yet to hear from from
people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. 
Letting the

sites break is not an alternative.


Well, there are three groups here:

1. Standards-based developers who don't rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
2. Standards-based developers who do rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
3. Developers who don't use standards-based techniques at all.

Group 1 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they don't have the
problem it allegedly solves.

Group 3 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they have quirks mode.

Group 2 are the only ones who need it, but by accepting it they're
giving up on the ability to use any new features down the road (since,
to kick future IE versions into a more featureful standards mode,
they'd have to stop relying on old bugs).

So the solution is to make Group 2 stop existing, and all that's
really needed is for browser vendors to do nothing special to cater to
them; the simple market force of clients who want functioning web
sites will sort things out all on its own by either giving Group 2 an
incentive to change its ways, or putting them out of business.


--
Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of 
correct.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-30 Thread Christian Snodgrass

On an Intel-based processor, you should be able to actually install 
Windows onto a Mac machine. I've never personally tested this, but it 
makes sense to me. If that is the case, then it will function just like 
Windows on any other PC build, so you can run anything that you would 
normally run.


Another option is virtual machines, where you can run Windows from 
within a Mac OS. In this case, it would be just like another program you 
are running, although from within that virtual Windows you can do 
anything that you could with a normal installation of Windows.


Sorry to here about your laptop.

Tim MacKay wrote:


Hi List,

If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I 
know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list 
if you feel it’s more appropriate.


I’ve recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track 
as soon as possible, it was a Mac iBook from2005, and as I’ve gone a 
bit deeper into web development since I purchased it I was under the 
impression that when I upgrade I should change over to Windows. My 
current situation has forced me to consider upgrading sooner than 
expected, so I have a few questions about the Windows environment on 
the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual 
Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the 
Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it 
just a matter of switching OS’s like I would switch applications?


Thanks in advance for any advice offered, I am going to dig up the 
previous threads on this topic from the last few weeks.


Cheers,

Tim


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac

2008-01-30 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Check out this: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html

Tim MacKay wrote:


Hi List,

If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I 
know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list 
if you feel it’s more appropriate.


I’ve recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track 
as soon as possible, it was a Mac iBook from2005, and as I’ve gone a 
bit deeper into web development since I purchased it I was under the 
impression that when I upgrade I should change over to Windows. My 
current situation has forced me to consider upgrading sooner than 
expected, so I have a few questions about the Windows environment on 
the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual 
Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the 
Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it 
just a matter of switching OS’s like I would switch applications?


Thanks in advance for any advice offered, I am going to dig up the 
previous threads on this topic from the last few weeks.


Cheers,

Tim


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy


Chris Knowles wrote:

Chris Broadfoot wrote:

Chris Knowles wrote:
  I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does
  anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by
  allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent 
browser
  while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the 
mess

  they created.
 

I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is 
adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors 
the viewing experience they should have?




Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively 
covering it up by enlisting yours and my support.


My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, 
not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your 
users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out 
by adding a meta tag really too much work?


The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the 
opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that 
made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes 
even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it 
ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even 
older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those 
hacks.


It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain.
--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy


Well said.

Another thing is, as much as everyone gripes and moans, you can't just 
start ignoring IE. Well, I guess you could, but then you'd miss about 
50% of your possible audience. That would probably tick some clients off.


It is the best solution they can come up with that won't destroy 
everything that has been created in the past. Adding one line of code to 
each of your pages is a lot more cost effective and time saving then all 
of the hacks we currently have to do to get it to display properly in 
IE6 and IE7.


While it'd be nice for MS to completely fix their problem, they'd have 
to go back in time. There are just too many existing pages that would 
utterly fail if IE8 didn't render how it will by default, many of those 
being expensive corporate web-based software.


Jermayn Parker wrote:

Just keep the website to look and behave right in IE7 then!
and create every new website or important/ re-designed websites with the new 
target IE8 tags!

sounds quite simple to me.
Maybe not the most perfect but you cannot expect everything to jump over night!


  

Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30/01/2008 9:15:48 am 


Chris Knowles wrote:
  

Chris Broadfoot wrote:


Chris Knowles wrote:
  I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does
  anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by
  allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent 
browser
  while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the 
mess

  they created.
 

I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is 
adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors 
the viewing experience they should have?


  
Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively 
covering it up by enlisting yours and my support.


My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, 
not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your 
users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out 
by adding a meta tag really too much work?



The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the 
opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that 
made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes 
even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it 
ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even 
older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those 
hacks.


It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain.
  



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy


Chris Knowles wrote:

Christian Snodgrass wrote:

The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the 
opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that 
made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes 
even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make 
it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages 
even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied 
on those hacks.


It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain.



If you have a web-based application that will break in IE8, then whats 
so wrong with adding an HTTP header or a meta tag to say 'use IE7' ?




What's so wrong with adding a tag that says use IE8?

Plus, not everyone will know this. I doubt that when you open up IE8 
there will be this popup that says Hello, if you are a web developer, 
please add a meta tag to any existing documents that you have created 
that rely on the rendering prior to IE8, because they will now fail. 
Existing software is more difficult to update then to slightly modify 
the way you create new software.


--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy


There is another possible outcome which is positive.

It's more likely (assuming they get the info about the meta-tag out 
there) that new sites will be developed using this meta-tag and 
standards-compliance. Eventually, the old sites will be replaced with 
new ones built in this fashion. Then, when they finally just drop the 
non-standards-compliance all together, fewer sites will break. They may 
be hoping for that outcome.


Katrina wrote:

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

Karl Lurman wrote:


I think the thing to remember here is that, over time, the older
browsers will be phased out.



Jokes aside. As the older browsers FINALLY become less important,
YEARS from now, they can eliminate the meta-tag altogether.


But the crappy intranet sites etc that are coded specifically to IE6 
or IE7's quirks *won't* go away (as that's the whole reason why MS 
are doing this), so no, the meta tag (and the associated rendering 
engine) will stay. If they're freezing rendering unless you opt-in 
because corporates won't update the sites now, what makes you think 
that they will ever update the sites? Come IE9, the argument will be 
the same: since IE8 rendered as IE7 by default, we can't now default 
to standards in IE9 because it would break the sites that didn't have 
to be updated last time around because of the switch...so, the switch 
stays.


P


I agree. But eventually MS are going to get sick of maintaining a 
rendering engine, I guess IE7 first, and then stop supporting it.


Then they will 'break' the web. All they will have done is delayed 
'breaking' the web.


And because of the delay and the meta-tag, more developers will have 
grown complacent and lazy (coding for just that rendering engine*), 
and so the number of sites that will 'break' will have increased.


Kat
* who can blame them? It's the easy way out.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy


Chris Broadfoot wrote:

Christian Snodgrass wrote:

The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the 
opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that 
made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes 
even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make 
it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages 
even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied 
on those hacks.


It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain.


Didn't people use conditional comments?

Chris


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


There are various CSS hacks which are only noticed by either =IE6 or 
=IE7, etc. which could cause some problems if these, essentially, bugs 
aren't corrected.

--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability for downloading documents

2008-01-28 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Wording that would be really tricky, because if they're default action 
is to download it, when they hit Read they'd expect it to just open, 
not offer them a download prompt. There are a lot of people that would 
be agitated that both buttons do the same thing.


Rochester oliveira wrote:
I think that you should make 2 buttons. The user will choice for 
download or just read the documment

[]'s

-
Rochester Oliveira
http://webbemfeita.com/
Viva a Web-Bem-Feita
Web Designer
Curitiba - PR - Brasil
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type

2008-01-28 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Usually, it is something simple like trying to use a DOCTYPE of XHTML, 
with the extension html or whatever, and your server is, in reality, 
serving it up as text/html. Basically, you need to make sure that your 
server either: a) assumes no MIME type, or b) use an extension like 
.xhtml and tell it to serve it as text/xhtml+xml. However, be warned 
that IE7 (and all before, and likely IE8) do not actually support 
text/xhtml+xml, so it will completely fail when presented to the end-user.


If it is some other DOCTYPE you are using that is getting the error 
(other then XHTML) let us know.


Andrew Freedman wrote:

G'day,

I see this warning often when using the W3C validator and figured I 
must be doing something wrong, but as it is a warning I never bothered 
looking into it.


Now I've seen it on the results from this site so it has roused my 
curiosity.


Can some explain to me why this is occurring and how it is overcome.

Thanks.
Andrew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] A Question of Semantics

2008-01-26 Thread Christian Snodgrass


Yes I do, it's not finished yet.

Joe Ortenzi wrote:

Christian.

Did you know most of your portfolio goes to a 404?


On Jan 24 2008, at 16:06, Christian Snodgrass wrote:


Hello,

I have a small semantic problem that I can't make up my mind about. 
Basically, I have a list like this: Something: blah blah; blah; 
blah. The Something: is a different font size, and kind of a 
header for the list. I can't decide if I should just do a paragraph 
with Something strong or in a span, or if I should do a header and 
then the text in a paragraph, with some CSS to make it look properly, 
or if I should make it some kind of definition or other list.


What do you think?

Thanks.
--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

***



Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.joiz.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

I actually found a nice image-enabled testing script which works well: 
http://webgeekblog.com/2007/04/15/unobtrusive-javascript-for-detecting-whether-images-are-enabled-or-not/


I tried using the onload even, but that will still go off even if images 
are disabled.


Thomas Thomassen wrote:
You could make the javascript trigger on the image onload events. 
Though, I think some older version of Opera, v8 or 7.54, doesn't 
support the onLoad event for images.



- Original Message - From: Christian Snodgrass 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image



That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base:
1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable
2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up 
as the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't 
aware, Safari is the major browser for Mac computers.


So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images 
aren't available. I'm working on this. Then, you  find an 
alternative, working method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this 
as well.


The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, 
just that the look isn't consistent when it should be.


Likely, James A. wrote:

Agreed thanks,
 I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to 
make sure that you get all users?


 

*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with 
images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and 
JavaScript on so that the presentation and any enhanced 
functionality is still available.


I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do 
exist.




On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.

How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested
something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no 
images, it

fails completely.

Likely, James A. wrote:
 Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will
from now

 on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and 
found

 this example.

 http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/

 What are your thoughts on this approach?

 To me it looks pretty user friendly.

 Please let me know as this is new to me.

 Thanks

 James



 


 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

 *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

 The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes
instead of
 trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then 
there's
 really no better accessible method than using the correct 
element as

 it was meant.

 If you go down this route then you're likely to create all 
kinds of

 problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
 available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
 using screenreaders.

 If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
 enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that
don't
 support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the 
fall back

 of regular forms.

 Hope that helps.

 - - - - -
 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


 On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.*  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Hello,

 I am working on a new site for a client and need some
thoughts on
 a problem that I have.

 I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) 
that

 have

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image


That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base:
1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable
2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up as 
the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't aware, 
Safari is the major browser for Mac computers.


So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images aren't 
available. I'm working on this. Then, you  find an alternative, working 
method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this as well.


The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, just 
that the look isn't consistent when it should be.


Likely, James A. wrote:

Agreed thanks,
 
I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make 
sure that you get all users?



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images 
disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so 
that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available.


I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist.



On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.

How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested
something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it
fails completely.

Likely, James A. wrote:
 Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will
from now

 on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found
 this example.

 http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/

 What are your thoughts on this approach?

 To me it looks pretty user friendly.

 Please let me know as this is new to me.

 Thanks

 James



 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

 The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes
instead of
 trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's
 really no better accessible method than using the correct element as
 it was meant.

 If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
 problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
 available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
 using screenreaders.

 If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
 enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that
don't
 support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back
 of regular forms.

 Hope that helps.

 - - - - -
 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


 On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.*  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Hello,

 I am working on a new site for a client and need some
thoughts on
 a problem that I have.

 I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
 have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question
is, what
 would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
 code.

 The reason I ask is

 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what
function
 the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
 with disabilities.

 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about
the alt
 text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
 read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
 images?

 You can see an example of both ways

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

In this particular case, the script will fail and fall back to the 
default look of the radio and check boxes if either Javascript or CSS is 
missing, which is good. The only problem in this case is if Javascript 
and CSS -are- available, but images are not. In that case, it becomes 
100% unusable.


Thomas Thomassen wrote:
Most mobile phones won't use Javascript or CSS either. And the usage 
of handheld devices is rapidly increasing. So is other gadgets. 
Nintendo DS for instance. We can't assume that only browser 
applications is used to access our webpages.


- Original Message - From: Christian Snodgrass 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image


I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, 
most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form.


However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser 
with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read 
a document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no 
idea. I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for 
disabled users, but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a 
scientific or statistically evaluation.


You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently 
working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help 
eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as 
you probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). 
I'll let you know how it turns out.


Likely, James A. wrote:

What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.
How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested 
something

similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, 
it fails completely.


Likely, James A. wrote:


Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now




on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found 
this example.

 http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
 What are your thoughts on this approach?
 To me it looks pretty user friendly.
 Please let me know as this is new to me.
 Thanks
 James



 



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead 
of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then 
there's really no better accessible method than using the correct 
element as it was meant.


If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of 
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css 
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are 
using screenreaders.


If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to 
enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that 
don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the 
fall back of regular forms.


Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.*  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
a problem that I have.

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
code.

The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
images?

You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?

Thanks for the help.

James

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, 
most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form.


However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser 
with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read a 
document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no idea. 
I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for disabled users, 
but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a scientific or 
statistically evaluation.


You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently 
working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help 
eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as you 
probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). I'll 
let you know how it turns out.


Likely, James A. wrote:

What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users. 


How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it 
fails completely.


Likely, James A. wrote:
  

Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now



  
on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found 
this example.
 
http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
 
What are your thoughts on this approach?
 
To me it looks pretty user friendly.
 
Please let me know as this is new to me.
 
Thanks
 
James






  
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of 
trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's 
really no better accessible method than using the correct element as 
it was meant.


If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of 
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css 
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are 
using screenreaders.


If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to 
enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't 
support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back 
of regular forms.


Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.*  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
a problem that I have.

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
code.

The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
images?

You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?

Thanks for the help.

James





***
  

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** 
  


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image