RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received 11 e-mails spam from different people who were contacted by the same Group. Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have another word for them. Spammers. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with their lives except raise hell. I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian nor is that related to my question. Houstin _ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chabot, Elliot Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:30 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar. Incidentally, checkpoint 3.2 is a requirement for Double-A conformance in WCAG 1.0. Elliot Chabot Web Solutions Branch House Information Resources U.S. House of Representatives http://www.house.gov -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:46 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation On 13 Jan 2010, at 04:02, c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote: Now, this Accessibility Appendix lists CSS validation (point 3) as a required attribute for compliance. No, it doesn't. The document says, under conformance: . Conformance Level Triple-A: all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are satisfied; Appendix A doesn't list any checkpoints. I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance? Maybe and no. There are IE-related CSS hacks that are valid, and others that are not. The valid ones don't cause it to fail any checkpoint, as far as I know. Guideline 3 says Use markup and style sheets and do so properly and you could make a case that invalid CSS is not using style sheets properly. Checkpoint 3.2 says Create documents that validate to published formal grammars., but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document. Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers to 'markup' rather than 'documents'). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** 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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received 11 e-mails spam from different people who were contacted by the same Group. Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have another word for them. Spammers. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with their lives except raise hell. I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian nor is that related to my question. Houstin -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:03 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation In the example you provided, I'd do this: 1) move zoom: 1 to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary) 2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet 3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet Would that work? If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so. Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of. I'd be interested to hear others. Pros A) enables CSS validation B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules) I'd say it is the opposite. Having to deal with rules in different files does not facilitate site maintenance. Con A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server That's a pretty *big* CON compared to A and B -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Nick Stone
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:26 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Christian,
You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate
sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so.
In the example you provided, I'd do this:
1) move zoom: 1 to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)
2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet
3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet
Would that work? If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.
Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of. I'd be interested to hear others.
Pros
A) enables CSS validation
B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test
C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)
Con
A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server
Aloha,
Nick Stone
--
Nick Stone, MBA
SEO Web Accessibility || coding, writing consulting
boa...@nick-stone.com
http://nick-stone.com/
434-284-2840
c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:
From: c...@fagandesign.com.au
I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to
fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?
Hi Christian,
If you mean things like zoom or even proprietary -Moz or -KHTML
properties... no, that doesn't affect accessibility. Guidelines are
subjective in that it's up to the site's owner to say whether or not
his site is accessible after testing it against the various guidelines.
The W3 validator is the issue. It should have been programmed years ago
to ignore most, if not all, proprietary properties.
--
Al Sparber - PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets
http://www.projectseven.com/go/hgm
The Ultimate Web 2.0 Carousel
Specifically, I mean something like this
.element {float:left;display:inline;zoom:1;margin-right:30px;}
* html .element {float:none;} /* IE6 */
*+ html .element {float:right;} /* IE7 */
I've been told to put these IE specific attributes in a seperate IE
stylesheet in order to avoid validation errors that supposedly affect
the AAA Acessibility check.
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
_
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received 11 e-mails spam from different people who were contacted by the same Group. Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have another word for them. Spammers. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with their lives except raise hell. I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian nor is that related to my question. Houstin -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of c...@fagandesign.com.au Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:53 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation Quoting Nick Stone boa...@nick-stone.com: Christian, You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so. Would that work? If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so. C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules) Thanks for the feedback Nick. I guess it's a personal preference to have the IE specific declarations right next to the original/good browser onesI find it's far easier to debug rather than having a seperate IE stylesheet. This is the way I've done it for ages now and until now, haven't run into any problems. *** 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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received 11 e-mails spam from different people who were contacted by the same Group. Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have another word for them. Spammers. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with their lives except raise hell. I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian nor is that related to my question. Houstin _ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chabot, Elliot Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:30 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar. Incidentally, checkpoint 3.2 is a requirement for Double-A conformance in WCAG 1.0. Elliot Chabot Web Solutions Branch House Information Resources U.S. House of Representatives http://www.house.gov -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:46 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation On 13 Jan 2010, at 04:02, c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote: Now, this Accessibility Appendix lists CSS validation (point 3) as a required attribute for compliance. No, it doesn't. The document says, under conformance: . Conformance Level Triple-A: all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are satisfied; Appendix A doesn't list any checkpoints. I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance? Maybe and no. There are IE-related CSS hacks that are valid, and others that are not. The valid ones don't cause it to fail any checkpoint, as far as I know. Guideline 3 says Use markup and style sheets and do so properly and you could make a case that invalid CSS is not using style sheets properly. Checkpoint 3.2 says Create documents that validate to published formal grammars., but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document. Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers to 'markup' rather than 'documents'). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** 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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received 11 e-mails spam from different people who were contacted by the same Group. Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have another word for them. Spammers. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with their lives except raise hell. I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian nor is that related to my question. Houstin -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7 and there's not a strong reason to avoid it. Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5 though). -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Ted Drake
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:54 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Nick
Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate style
sheet.
It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user style
sheet can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout
without causing other issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they
introduced IE7 and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Nick Stone
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:26 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Christian,
You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate
sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so.
In the example you provided, I'd do this:
1) move zoom: 1 to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)
2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet
3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet
Would that work? If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.
Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of. I'd be interested to hear others.
Pros
A) enables CSS validation
B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test
C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)
Con
A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server
Aloha,
Nick Stone
--
Nick Stone, MBA
SEO Web Accessibility || coding, writing consulting
boa...@nick-stone.com
http://nick-stone.com/
434-284-2840
c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:
From: c...@fagandesign.com.au
I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to
fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?
Hi Christian,
If you mean things like zoom or even proprietary -Moz or -KHTML
properties... no, that doesn't affect accessibility. Guidelines are
subjective in that it's up to the site's owner to say whether or not
his site is accessible after testing it against the various guidelines.
The W3 validator is the issue. It should have been programmed years ago
to ignore most, if not all, proprietary properties.
--
Al Sparber - PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets
http://www.projectseven.com/go/hgm
The Ultimate Web 2.0 Carousel
Specifically, I mean something like this
.element {float:left;display:inline;zoom:1;margin-right:30px;}
* html .element {float:none;} /* IE6 */
*+ html .element {float:right;} /* IE7 */
I've been told to put these IE specific attributes in a seperate IE
stylesheet in order to avoid validation errors that supposedly affect
the AAA Acessibility check.
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received 11 e-mails spam from different people who were contacted by the same Group. Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have another word for them. Spammers. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with their lives except raise hell. I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian nor is that related to my question. Houstin _ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation On 13 Jan 2010, at 21:30, Chabot, Elliot wrote: The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar. Err, yes. As I said (and you quoted!): Checkpoint 3.2 says Create documents that validate to published formal grammars., but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document. Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers to 'markup' rather than 'documents'). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** 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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
_
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same Group.
Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.
I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.
Houstin
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation
On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).
At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied display: block; -
.add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add layout to IE 6+7 */
.add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset layout */
Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.
I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?
Cordially,
David
--
***
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
***
