Re: [WSG] Windows 7 phone browser quick check needed

2011-01-18 Thread MichaelMD
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 07:09 -0800, tee wrote:
 I can't get the Windows 7 phone browser simulator works in my Windows 7 via 
 Parallel Desktop. Wonder if I have such luck to find a Window 7 Phone user - 
 the Windows 7 is using IE7. Yuk yuk yuk!
 
 Need to make sure the detection works.
 

tried the emulator here (on a windows laptop) a few weeks ago and
javascript doesn't seem to work in it.

Does javascript work at all on a real windows 7 mobile browser?






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



Re: [WSG] jQuery Mobile for Mobile site

2010-12-31 Thread MichaelMD
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 23:48 -0800, tee wrote:
 Reporting my latest finding and thought about jQuery Mobile just in case 
 anyone interested in using  jQM Frameworks and following this thread.
 
 On Dec 23, 2010, at 2:07 AM, MichaelMD wrote:
  Remember that a lot of the low-end/older phone browsers out there in
  real world use don't handle javascript. 
 
 It's built with progressive enhancement in mind, if a browsing device doesn't 
 support javascript, it will do without just fine. All contents are 
 accessible, viewable by the user, just no fancy magic touch that you expect 
 from touchscreen. It's very promising for mobile web development, but I am 
 still waiting for the first stable release.

yes you can use javascript to provide an enhanced experience for the
browsers capable of handling it, as long as there are actual links to
real pages for non-javascript browsers to follow. 
(you can of course add javascript event handlers to those)





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



Re: [WSG] jQuery Mobile for Mobile site

2010-12-23 Thread MichaelMD
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 22:55 -0800, tee wrote:

 I did some more digging and setup a simple site using the framework, and I 
 can confirm it's not for Mobile Website. Basically beyond the homepage (index 
 page), nothing is searchable by search engines as any other page is attached 
 to the homepage url due to its Ajax and hashes – this maybe fixable by using 
 multi-page template (terminology from the framework), but right now I don't 
 see it possible.
 

I think it is one of several frameworks about designed to give a site or
app an iphone-app-like feel.

It is not a replacement for a basic mobile site that can be used on any
mobile device.

Remember that a lot of the low-end/older phone browsers out there in
real world use don't handle javascript. 
(and those browsers do not show up at all in a lot of those stats I see
passed around or in Google Analytics because those sites use javascript
to collect their stats!)





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



Re: [WSG] Re: Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back?

2009-03-19 Thread MichaelMD
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 21:10 +1300, Sigurd Magnusson wrote:
 Most websites we build at SilverStripe have IE 6.0 as a minimum, and  
 even then, we're unpatiently anticipating the time when we can drop IE  
 6.

I still see quite a few people using IE5 Mac (probably OS9 users stuck
with that) in the server logs here and LOTS of IE6 ... so I think it
will be a while somehow...





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



Re: [WSG] seeking JavaScript Bible comments

2009-02-08 Thread MichaelMD
 Also, the first examples of JavaScript tend to use document.write when 
 illustrating the simplest parts of the language. Usage of document.write 
 should be banned from day one. Encourage the readers to test simple 

A decade ago (Netscape 4 era) I used document.write in some javascript
widgets for people display some content from another site by using a
script tag. 

They still work in current browsers but javascript has come a long way
since then!





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



RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript

2009-01-30 Thread MichaelMD
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 13:07 +, James Leslie wrote:
 Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled
 so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity.
 
 *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled **

not just many ... actually I would say MOST
(and its not disabled its simply not there!)

What kind of mobile phone does the average person use? 
... probably more likely to be a consumer-price-level phone (the kinds
of phones often offered with pre-paid plans) and probably a couple of
years old (how often does the average person buy a new phone?) rather
than the new high end devices we read so much about.

As for that figure, I'm not sure that includes browsers that don't
actually support javascript at all!

... and if the site collecting those stats isn't easy to use on a tiny
screen they probably wouldn't be getting many mobile visitors.








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



Re: [WSG] best practices for using access keys

2008-09-07 Thread MichaelMD

 
 Before you add accesskeys, check out
 http://www.wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html#GL9 ... basically the
 errata captures best practice methodology as it evolved in the years
 after WCAG 1.0 was released. Accesskeys are problematic between

it says not to use them...

but ... what about mobile sites?
(where you might want to use keypad shortcuts for ease of use with a
very tiny mobile phone screen)







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



Re: [WSG] Google chrome...

2008-09-06 Thread MichaelMD

 
 I can't figure out why it has to load the process three times
 in order to run.


To be able to kill locked up tabs or windows without having to kill the
browser sounds like a nice feature to me ... about time!


 
 First i thought it felt unfinished, but then the
 minimal design grew on me. Very uncluttered.  And drop
 down menus consolodate a lot of screen real estate.
 Well designed gui,  all its needs now is firebug and
 id use it. And i like the incognito windows, thats a
 slick feature.

I hope they fix the bug that prevents me from saving those thumbnails it
generates.
What use is that feature if I can't save them?

..and yes I'll still want Firebug and Operator !






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



Re: [WSG] Google chrome...

2008-09-06 Thread MichaelMD

 
 They block themselves too.  Google has a history of browser sniffing
 and blocking browsers such as Opera.  On Google groups for example,
 they block Opera, Safari *and* Chrome when trying to change your
 profile photo.  I'm sure there are other examples too as the block
 Opera on many sites.  It's an example why browser sniffing is so bad.
  Not only is it often used to block browsers that would otherwise
 be capable, but you never know when a new browser will come out (even
 from your own company).  

Yes its funny watching this common scenario with large organisations..
one department is often not aware of what another department is doing
until they start getting complaints from the public about something not
working!

...most likely it has something to do with the browser-specific
javascript quirks you are likely to come across when trying to build
those fancy drag'n'drop user interfaces.

Do they have an alternate way to change that photo that doesn't use
javascript? 







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