Re: [WSG] ASP.NET XHTML compliant blogging

[Francesco Sanfilippo]

I wish I had my blogging/community system finished for you, Mark.  It
will be ASP.NET 2.0 and CSS/XHTML compliant.  It won't be ready until
early next year.

--
Francesco Sanfilippo
Web Architect and Software Developer
http://www.blackcoil.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
402-932-5695 home office
402-676-3011 mobile

Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience.
Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography.
Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Feedback www.mcguireomaha.com

[Francesco Sanfilippo]

First thing I would say is that it's too difficult to find how to FIND
a home.  First you have to see the small link on the right, then the
page refreshes and looks virtually the same.  One would expect to see
a search form immediately, but instead I had to scroll down and hunt
for a text link to a search page.  Too much work.

Francesco

On 10/14/05, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/14/05 1:13 PM "Collin Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent
> this out:
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 1:46 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org
> > Subject: [WSG] Feedback
> >
> > I have been a fly on the wall for some time in this group and I was really
> > hoping to get a bit of feedback on a site I am almost finished with.  Copy
> > will change and possibly some site design before I deliver the final
> > version.
> >
> > What I am hoping for is a bit of a report card- what was done well and where
> > did I fail miserably.  (BTW one of the pages does not validate right now,
> > the client just had us insert some new links that need to be reformatted)
> >
> > www.mcguireomaha.com
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
>


--
Francesco Sanfilippo
Web Architect and Software Developer
http://www.blackcoil.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
402-932-5695 home office
402-676-3011 mobile

Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience.
Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography.
Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks

[Francesco Sanfilippo]

That's not really true, Alan.  A site without CSS hacks does not
necessarily have to be ugly.  I develop table-less ASP.NET sites using
CSS and I have never used a single CSS hack or conditional comment,
yet my sites are still clean, good-looking and functional in the
leading browsers (IE, FF, Safari, and Opera).

--
Francesco Sanfilippo
Web Architect and Software Developer
http://www.blackcoil.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
402-932-5695 home office
402-676-3011 mobile

Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience.
Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography.
Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month.





On 10/13/05, Alan Trick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you don't use CSS hacks you have 2 options.
>
> 1. Avoid CSS that is buggy in a browser.
>
> 2. Use other hacks like conditional comments. (Conditional comments
> *are* hacks, there just intentional ones)
>
> Number 1 is simply not an option unless your willing to look like
> useit.com or something. Number 2 is hardly any better because when
> future browsers come out either they will have fixed their CSS
> implementations (and then life is happiness and glee) or they won't.
> With CSS it's likely that you will have to do touchups but with
> conditional comments you have to write another css file all together.
>
> Also I don't want an M$ bitching session either. IE7 may not be perfect,
> but it's a step towards interopability and standards (which is a really
> big thing for Microsoft). I think we should encourage it all we can.
>
> Peter Firminger wrote:
> > If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew
> > exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems.
> >
> > I don't want to see an M$ bitch session develop here while Microsoft are
> > seemingly trying very hard do the right thing (at last). Obviously we have
> > to wait and see what the final release does.
> >
> > At that point, I really hope you're (general) not going to charge your
> > customers if you have to fix up bugs (hacks) that you knowingly induced into
> > their websites if you didn't make it clear to them at the time that hacking
> > may require rectification in the future.
> >
> > Sorry for the smug "told you so", but many people including myself have made
> > this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > 
>
> I second :)
>
> > It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried
> > to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act,
> > just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky
> > implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for.
> > 
> >
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Does anyone still design for 640x480?

[Francesco Sanfilippo]

I would guess that unless one is aware that mobile phones are a
significant population (over a few percent), one could simply detect
mobiles and serve them an unstyled page, rendering plain text?  This
would fit into any browser width if done correctly.

Francesco



On 8/3/05, Chris Velevitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about mobile phones? Isn't anyone taking them into consideration?
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Does anyone still design for 640x480?

[Francesco Sanfilippo]

I'd have to agree with that.  Our studies also show maximized browsing
for over 90% when users are working at 1280x1024 or below.

-- 
Francesco Sanfilippo
Web Architect and Software Developer
http://www.blackcoil.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience.
Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography.
Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] footer technique

[Francesco Sanfilippo]

Easy.  I don't rely on Javascript for anything critical.  I would
rather use a layout hack without Javascript.

Francesco


On 7/16/05, Maarten Stolte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Why not just use the technique from Bobby van der Sluis, it works all the
> time on dom enabled browsers;
>  http://www.alistapart.com/articles/footers/
>  
>  Maarten Stolte
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] the use of reset buttons on forms

[Francesco Sanfilippo]

I have a different opinion.  Neither "Reset" nor "Cancel" are
necessary.  Studies show most users click the back button to abort
transactions (even I do, and I'm a web developer) or leave sites (if
there are no appealing links to go anywhere else).

I can see where Cancel could be a little more intuitive, say within a
multi-page form, but I don't see users that work that way in general. 
What usually happens is a user will click "Back" and get the annoying
"the page was created by a POST" dialog.  User becomes annoyed and
doesn't really understand what the message means, so they close the
browser window entirely, cursing the site as they leave.

I rarely see average users click "Home" on a browser, even though that
is my favorite button for clearing what I've done and starting fresh,
as opposed to closing a window or tab.

Francesco




On 6/14/05, heretic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seriously: how many people enter data into a form and go so completely
> > wrong that they want to erase everything they have just done and start
> > over new?
> 
> Some users may want to do that; alternatively some users will change
> their minds about submitting at all and do not trust simply closing
> the page - they want to see the form blanked out.
> 
> Or if they've accidentally entered their postal address into street
> address fields and vice versa...
> 
> > On the other hand, how many people *accidentally* press the reset
> > button when they actually wanted to hit the submit button?
> 
> On some forms I've used CSS to make the Submit button much larger and
> a different colour/border than the Reset button to lower the chances
> of confusing the two... you can also add a JavaScript behaviour to get
> a confirmation prompt (enhancing the interface and all that).
> 
> regarding just hitting refresh
> 
> Many users won't think like that. Plus, if you're stepping through a
> series of forms you might lose your session/variables and have to
> start over. Or you might have a form inside a frameset, so hitting the
> refresh button will reset the frameset and take you to the default
> content, which might be some considerable number of clicks away from
> where you were.
> 
> In the end I guess it's a question which draws heavily on context -
> what kind of data is being entered? How are the users arriving at the
> form? Is it a confidential survey which they might decide not to
> submit after all?
> 
> Just my 2c :)
> 
> h
> 
> --
> --- 
> --- The future has arrived; it's just not
> --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
>
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**