Re: [WSG]WCAG 2.0 enlarging text to 200% ?
The way I read it, the 200% relates to 'twice the size the font appears at a client browser's default setting'. What if the websites default size is set in percentage to 75% and then another website has default setting of 110%? This 200% business is nothing to do with CSS font-size values. (Which depend on the absolute baseline size of the font on your site, set by either you of the browser's default) It's not measurable or testable. It's just there to highlight the fact that users need to (and want to) resize the font and that sites should allow them to do that. On 12/12/2008 11:19, Heather heat...@serensites.com wrote: Thanks for reply Patrick, very interesting - looking at that I do agree that it would be 6 steps according to the latest Firefox browser. I'm not really understanding this point very well and I'm not sure how this is measurable and testable across a wide range of platforms? What if the websites default size is set in percentage to 75% and then another website has default setting of 110%? --- Large scale (text) Note 4: When using text without specifying the font size, the smallest font size used on major browsers for unspecified text would be a reasonable size to assume for the font. If a level 1 heading is rendered in 14pt bold or higher on major browsers, then it would be reasonable to assume it is large text. Relative scaling can be calculated from the default sizes in a similar fashion. Heather -Message d'origine- De : li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] De la part de Patrick Lauke Envoyé : vendredi 12 décembre 2008 11:39 À : wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Objet : RE: [WSG]WCAG 2.0 enlarging text to 200% ? Heather With WCAG 2.0 finally coming out yesterday - I was wondering how many ctrl + clicks in (firefox for example) 200% is? I would say it was 3 but some colleagues argue 2 or 4 ? Any suggestions? I'd say conceptually that's quite a nitpicky argument...say a page broke spectacularly after 4 resize steps...would they then argue but it passes WCAG 2.0's SC, because it's 3 steps that go to 200%? Also, by default, Firefox 3 has whole page zoom (text, images and all) enabled, and has to explicitly be set to only resize text. With that said, go to about:config and look for toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues, and this will show the various zoom factors at each step. In my case (which should be the default) these are: .3, .5, .67, .8, .9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.33, 1.5, 1.7, 2, 2.4, 3 So, nominally 200% (which, according to the Understanding... bit for that SC, means 200%, that is, up to twice the width and height - so really a 400% increase in total area) is actually 6 steps, if you want to go purely by numbers. 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 webmas...@salford.ac.uk www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** 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 *** The information in this email and any of its attachments is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, destroy any copies and delete it from your computer system. The contents may contain information which is confidential and may also be privileged. Any part of this email may not be used, disseminated, forwarded, printed or copied without authorisation. Liability cannot be accepted for any statements, views or opinions made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of any of the companies below. Global Radio UK Ltd (6251684), Global Radio Holdings Ltd. (4077052) Registered Office, 30 Leicester Square, London, WC2H 7LA This is Global Ltd (6288359) / Global Talent Group Ltd (3601691) / Global Talent Publishing Ltd (3509421) / Global Talent Management Ltd (4631297) / Global Talent Records Ltd (3598411) / Global Talent Music Ltd (5522116) / Global Talent TV Ltd (4506139) Registered Office, 73 Wimpole St, London. W1G 8AZ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
Re: [WSG] CSS editors
I use TextMate. Extensible for all kinds of use. It has a good CSS bundle. It¹s rubbish for printing though - I use textwrangler for printing out code. On 20/10/2008 11:09, Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last time I used a Mac I edited with Text Wrangler http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/download.html It did the job From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gicela Morales Sent: 20 October 2008 10:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] CSS editors Hi Everyone, I've just migrated form PC to a new macbook :-) but was wondering about the best xhtml/css editors for macs around that people can recommend? I can see that BBEdit is still around ( I used to use this back in the 90's) and CSSedit seem to have some good reviews. Any preferences? Kind regards, Gicela *** 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] *** All correspondence, attachments and agreements remain strictly subject to fully executed contract. (c) GCap Media plc 2008. All rights remain reserved. This e-mail (and any attachments) contains information which may be confidential, subject to intellectual property protection and may be legally privileged and protected from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and others specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail or any parts of it please telephone 020 7054 8000 immediately upon receipt. No other person is authorised to copy, adapt, forward, disclose, distribute or retain this e-mail in any form without prior specific permission in writing from an authorised representative of GCap Media plc. We will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of the internet to transmit information by or to GCap Media plc. GCap Media plc. Registered address: 30 Leicester Square, London WC2H 7LA. Registered in England Wales with No. 923454 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?
Don¹t hold your breath for ogg support in all browsers. I imagine microsoft will be more interested in pushing silverlight than flash or ogg. Audio and video is a key front in the next generation of browser wars, so it won¹t be that simple. As you note, Flash offers some useful stuff that¹s not yet core browser functionality. I imagine it will continue to innovate and push browser vendors. On 17/10/2008 06:38, Johan Douma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see flash becoming a dominant technology in the future. It's definitly not going to replace javascript. It wouldn't actually surprise me if it is going to die off really slowly... Only to be used in really specific cases. Flash gets used a lot today because the flash video codec is good and because it's the easiest way to integrate some video into the browser without needed any plugins that might not be on everybody's computer. Flash is on 99.9% of the computers. Now that might change as well in the next 3 or 4 years as the video and audio tag are going to be more and more available to easily integrate video and audio files into a page. We would still need plugins anyway, but browser could at least integrate open sources plugins, like ogg... etc... I only use flash for multiple file uploads, and some small animations in the page itself. Ow and damn flash 10 has broken my file uploader, I'll have to work on that. Cheers, Johan Douma 2008/10/16 Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the story on that page carefully. What has happened is that flash 10 has increased restrictions over what features within the flash plugin can be invoked via javascript. This only applies to one specific feature (file uploads), and effects virtually no other flash features. It does not effect javascript's abilities in general, only the abilities of javascript to use flash in certain ways. This point will largely become moot once video/audio/3d/canvas becomes widespread and built into browsers, and flash as a result becomes less relevant- Particularly on low powered platforms like the iPhone, and Android which do not have flash- or the wii which only has an older and underpowered version of flash. So in my opinion, to the contrary- This news story is reporting on decreased ability of the flash plugin to play well with javascript- It will not make flash replace javascript- Except as a workaround in the specific case of file uploads. On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Charles Ling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Guys/Gals, I would like to get some opinion from you all, that would Flash 10 or ++ will replace JavaScript in the future? According to this blog : http://ajaxian.com/archives/flash-10-and-the-bad-news-for-javascript-interac tion. I found that alot of media website started to replace Javascript to play their audio/video and of course Flash required to be install as third party plugin and had to be updated (which is annoying). Did you guys/gals use alot of flash in your past projects that you were working with? Cheers, Charles. *** 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] *** All correspondence, attachments and agreements remain strictly subject to fully executed contract. (c) GCap Media plc 2008. All rights remain reserved. This e-mail (and any attachments) contains information which may be confidential, subject to intellectual property protection and may be legally privileged and protected from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and others specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail or any parts of it please telephone 020 7054 8000 immediately upon receipt. No other person is authorised to copy, adapt, forward, disclose, distribute or retain this e-mail in any form without prior specific permission in writing from an authorised representative of GCap Media plc. We will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of the internet to transmit information by or to GCap Media plc. GCap
Re: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict
Tesco.com doesn't validate. The Becta one does, but it's PHP. The challenge continues! On 08/10/2008 09:33, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both my previous and current employer are XHTML strict: http://www.tesco.com/ http://becta.org.uk/ Tesco is a .net site. Mike Foskett -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Milner Sent: 08 October 2008 03:23 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] *** ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** All correspondence, attachments and agreements remain strictly subject to fully executed contract. (c) GCap Media plc 2008. All rights remain reserved. This e-mail (and any attachments) contains information which may be confidential, subject to intellectual property protection and may be legally privileged and protected from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed and others specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail or any parts of it please telephone 020 7054 8000 immediately upon receipt. No other person is authorised to copy, adapt, forward, disclose, distribute or retain this e-mail in any form without prior specific permission in writing from an authorised representative of GCap Media plc. We will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of the internet to transmit information by or to GCap Media plc. GCap Media plc. Registered address: 30 Leicester Square, London WC2H 7LA. Registered in England Wales with No. 923454 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
