RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Jakob Nielsen responded to my request for clarification Jacob has used this request for his latest article http://www.useit.com/alertbox/within_page_links.html Regards Jason ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
My sincerist apologies to Thierry, his interpretation of Nielsen was indeed correct. And thanks, I have certainly learnt something With reference to the articles Thierry cited earlier Jakob Nielsen responded to my request for clarification as follows: Does this imply that links to content situated on the same page confuse users? Or, put another way ,is your recommendation suggesting that all links must load a new document into an existing browser window? Yes to both. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Thierry Koblentz said: Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and nothing more (e.g. your claim that divs are hacks; you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an entirely new document). the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how wrong that logic is. What you are calling jump links are nothing more than hypertext links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define hypertext links like this: A link is a connection from one web resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an element within an HTML document.[2] It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency* Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of links to resources within a page is a convention for the web. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#h-12.1 [2]:http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#h-12.1.1 kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency* Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of links to resources within a page is a convention for the web. I hope to hell I'm not opening a can of worms here. Getting away from the FAQ thing to links within documents, I find that sort of navigation almost as annoying as popup windows. It might very well be a convention, but I do consider it a negative for usability. Very distracting - even more so when there are mixed links in the same area, some of which scroll to another point in the doc, while others load new documents. Back to the FAQs now :-) -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Al Sparber: Very distracting Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first and you must scroll to get the first screen of content? - even more so when there are mixed links some scroll to another point, others load new documents. Agreed. This is really about consistency =) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
At 12:22 PM 2/9/2006, Al Sparber wrote: Getting away from the FAQ thing to links within documents, I find that sort of navigation almost as annoying as popup windows. It might very well be a convention, but I do consider it a negative for usability. Very distracting - even more so when there are mixed links in the same area, some of which scroll to another point in the doc, while others load new documents. These days there are attempts made to distinguish different kinds of links -- those to pages within the same site vs. those to external sites, and those that bring up pages within the current window vs. those that (dog forbid!) open a new window. If a web designer further distinguished between links that jump within a page vs. those that load a new page, would that obviate your objection? In other words, is the problem the mixture of link types leading to frustrations of expectation, or is the problem with the local link itself? Paul ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al Sparber: Very distracting Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first and you must scroll to get the first screen of content? For me, it's any link that scrolls the page. I'm old enough to get disoriented, I guess. The exception, of course, is skip links designed and implemented to be accessible only to assistive devices and keyboard surfers. -- Al ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and nothing more (e.g. your claim that divs are hacks; you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an entirely new document). Wow! This time you're seriously wrong. What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret the USEIT articles. FYI, I'm not only using skip links, but also popup windows. Does that make me unaware of the issues related to both? the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how wrong that logic is. I disagree, and FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. One can click on a jump link, not on a chocolate orange cake. What you are calling jump links are nothing more than hypertext links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define hypertext links like this: A link is a connection from one web resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an element within an HTML document.[2] That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with usability/accessibility. It is about how things are supposed to work, not how they are supposed to be implemented. For example, accesskey is a proper attribute, part of the recommendations, but there are usability/accessibility issues attached to it, isn't? And there are other examples... It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency* Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of links to resources within a page is a convention for the web. So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent with the navigation links for example? Users click on the latter and are taken to another page, they click on the former and are taken in a different location on the same page. How consistent is that? Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen when he clicks on something that is going to do anything else than loading a *new* document. We see that with links that open popup windows so why should we think it should be different with other behaviors? In short, I believe that a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below is less an issue than jump links that do not warn the user of what's gonna happen next. Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and nothing more (e.g. your claim that divs are hacks; you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an entirely new document). Wow! This time you're seriously wrong. What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret the USEIT articles. FYI, I'm not only using skip links, but also popup windows. Does that make me unaware of the issues related to both? the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how wrong that logic is. I disagree, and FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. One can click on a jump link, not on a chocolate orange cake. What you are calling jump links are nothing more than hypertext links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define hypertext links like this: A link is a connection from one web resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an element within an HTML document.[2] That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with usability/accessibility. It is about how things are supposed to work, not how they are supposed to be implemented. For example, accesskey is a proper attribute, part of the recommendations, but there are usability/accessibility issues attached to it, isn't? And there are other examples... It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency* Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of links to resources within a page is a convention for the web. So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent with the navigation links for example? Users click on the latter and are taken to another page, they click on the former and are taken in a different location on the same page. How consistent is that? Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen when he clicks on something that is going to do anything else than loading a *new* document. We see that with links that open popup windows so why should we think it should be different with other behaviors? In short, I believe that a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below is less an issue than jump links that do not warn the user of what's gonna happen next. Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] If a web designer further distinguished between links that jump within a page vs. those that load a new page, would that obviate your objection? It would mitigate it. I find it easier to tolerate a FAQ or Q/A thing if it's apparent that all of the questions are links to answers far down the page. So if I see a compact list of 20 questions and a long scrollbar, I'm prepared for the page to scroll when I click a link. In other words, is the problem the mixture of link types leading to frustrations of expectation, or is the problem with the local link itself? It's more an issue of mixing the link types. -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Hey Tierry and Terrance, This is a respectful suggestion. Since Jakob Nielsen is not dead and Useit.com is not the King James Bible, Talmud, Torah, Quaran etc., why not email him and get his opinion on this. In fact, I asked his opinion on this recent adlinks phenomena just today, where sites are using scripts to place / selling ads linking to sites that don't relate specifically to the article. He responded briefly within two hours. All the best, Jay Thierry Koblentz wrote: Terrence Wood wrote: Wow! This time you're seriously wrong. What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret the USEIT articles. FYI, I'm not only using skip links, but also popup windows. Does that make me unaware of the issues related to both? the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace "opening new windows" with "using jump links" If you replaced it with "chocolate orange cake" it would make sense according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how wrong that logic is. I disagree, and FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. One can click on a "jump link", not on a "chocolate orange cake". What you are calling "jump links" are nothing more than hypertext links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define hypertext links like this: "A link is a connection from one web resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an element within an HTML document.[2]" That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with usability/accessibility. It is about how things are supposed to work, not how they are supposed to be implemented. For example, accesskey is a proper attribute, part of the recommendations, but there are usability/accessibility issues attached to it, isn't? And there are other examples... It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency* Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of links to resources within a page is a convention for the web. So how can you say that "jump links" in a document are consistent with the navigation links for example? Users click on the latter and are taken to another page, they click on the former and are taken in a different location on the same page. How consistent is that? Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen when he clicks on something that is going to do anything else than loading a *new* document. We see that with links that open popup windows so why should we think it should be different with other "behaviors"? In short, I believe that a FAQ page that says "clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below" is less an issue than "jump links" that do not warn the user of what's gonna happen next. Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Thierry Koblentz said: Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. So you keep saying, but your actions are different. you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an entirely new document. What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret the USEIT articles. I never said it did. What I said is you are practicing the opposite of what you are preaching. If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how wrong that logic is. I disagree in fact, you *do* agree with me, you just seem unable to see how it relates to the argument you are putting forward... Read on FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. Exactly. As is your assertion that a recommendation against opening new windows is a recommendation against using in-page anchors. Substituting anything in Nielsens recommendation distorts the recommendation: it *is not* what he said, and it *does not* make sense. using jump links is not the same as opening new windows and it clearly isn't chocolate orange cake. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with usability/accessibility. Web Standards. Consistency. Platform conventions. The thing that defines the web. It is about how things are supposed to work Exactly. If things work the way they are supposed to, then you can't get much more usable than that. [accesskey's have] usability/accessibility issues attached Yes they do, but that is a browser implementation issue, not a markup issue. e.g. Macs browser's and Opera's accesskey implemenatation do not conflict with the OS like other PC browsers. So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent with the navigation links for example? They don't have to be, in the same way that main nav, secondary nav, and in-content links are generally easy to distinguish and understand: they should be consistent within the context in which they appear (internally consistent within a block?). That said, you might have to hack in a div or heading here and there. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#toctitle Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen... a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below is less an issue than jump links that do not warn the user of what's gonna happen next. When a user clicks on a link they *know* they will be taken to the resource described by that hypertext link. It doesn't even need an explantion because it is so fundamental. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. So you keep saying, but your actions are different. I'm not sure I agree with that. Please see the bottom of this message. you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an entirely new document. What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret the USEIT articles. I never said it did. What I said is you are practicing the opposite of what you are preaching. I think you may be misinterpreting. I am *not* preaching anything, I am *not* saying what should be done or used, I am only arguing about the fact that jump links have been presented in this thread as a usability-free solution. That's all. If you replaced it with chocolate orange cake it would make sense according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how wrong that logic is. I disagree in fact, you *do* agree with me, you just seem unable to see how it relates to the argument you are putting forward... Read on FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. Exactly. As is your assertion that a recommendation against opening new windows is a recommendation against using in-page anchors. Substituting anything in Nielsens recommendation distorts the recommendation: it *is not* what he said, and it *does not* make sense. using jump links is not the same as opening new windows and it clearly isn't chocolate orange cake. I respectfully disagree for the following reasons: Following Jay's excellent advice, I wrote an email to Jacob Nielsen telling him about my interpretation of both of his articles. I explain the little issue we were discussing here and asked him if he could find the time to answer this question: My interpretation of these articles is that the reference to popup windows does not exclude jump links from being an issue themselves in regard to usability. Less than half an hour later, I received his brief answer: quote You are right: links within the same page almost always cause confusion in user testing, and it is almost always best to avoid them. /quote Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with usability/accessibility. Web Standards. Consistency. Platform conventions. The thing that defines the web. It is about how things are supposed to work Exactly. If things work the way they are supposed to, then you can't get much more usable than that. I respectfully disagree for the following reasons: In an ideal world, things work the way they are supposed to; unfortunatley the Web is not an ideal world and in my opinion there are 2 paths: recommendations and best practice. The latter usually address usability/accessibility issue. [accesskey's have] usability/accessibility issues attached Yes they do, but that is a browser implementation issue, not a markup issue. e.g. Macs browser's and Opera's accesskey implemenatation do not conflict with the OS like other PC browsers. What about assistive devices? Setting accesskeys that clash with user's shortcut keys? What about implementing redundant mechanisms that break keyboard navigation (onkeypress)? What about about implementing skip link that follow the recommendations but also break keyboard navigation. These are usability issues that often come up simply because authors implement techniques relying too much on recommendations. So how can you say that jump links in a document are consistent with the navigation links for example? They don't have to be, in the same way that main nav, secondary nav, and in-content links are generally easy to distinguish and understand: they should be consistent within the context in which they appear (internally consistent within a block?). That said, you might have to hack in a div or heading here and there. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#toctitle Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen... a FAQ page that says clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below is less an issue than jump links that do not warn the user of what's gonna happen next. When a user clicks on a link they *know* they will be taken to the resource described by that hypertext link. It doesn't even need an explantion because it is so fundamental. Apparently Jacob Nielsen doesn't agree on these points... Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Thierry Koblentz said: Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list said so? It's a pretty common design pattern, and no-one challenged it. But discuss vs. mention is a pedantic argument - let's move on. USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new document in the same browser window. News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling USEIT doesn't support you on this point either. IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right below it he knows that he's still viewing the same document, because the surrounding elements did not change. I believe clicking on a link that jumps way down the page may bit a bit more confusing for the average user. Revealing content means the surrounding elements *do* change. Following a hypertext link is the single most understood aspect of the web. In fact, it is it's defining feature - hence HyperText Markup Language. What about if the question is at the very bottom of the viewport and the content is reveal below the window chrome? What about screenreader users who are, in effect, reading a copy of the page as it first loads? I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see between a heading and a paragraph. Huh? What is the purpose of headings then? Headings and paras precede the web and definition lists. It is an inherent feature of reading and writing. Definition List comes with a bonus, a natural wrapper (the DL). Adding a div is hardly a hack - W3C says a div offers a generic mechanism for adding extra structure to documents. Half a dozen one way, six the other. But then you create redundancy for the sake of visual browsers. No, the redundancy is acutally for the opposite of visual browsers, but ultimately every browser/user benefits. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new document in the same browser window. News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling USEIT doesn't support you on this point either. Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html (#6) A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be missing some subtle nuances here, but it seems to me that Jump links do not fit the bill. Interaction consistency is an additional reason it's wrong to open new browser windows: the standard result of clicking a link is that the destination page replaces the origination page in the same browser window. Anything else is a violation of the users' expectations and makes them feel insecure in their mastery of the Web. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html (#3) In this short section the author says *twice* that it is all about *consistency*, and again he use the words *replace the origination page*; so my understanding of that document is that jump links are considered by the author as bad as popup windows. Note that my point is not to say that showing/hiding elements is better than using jump links, I'm just saying that - IMO - jump links are not issue free as it has been suggested. IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right below it he knows that he's still viewing the same document, because the surrounding elements did not change. I believe clicking on a link that jumps way down the page may bit a bit more confusing for the average user. Revealing content means the surrounding elements *do* change. Following a hypertext link is the single most understood aspect of the web. In fact, it is it's defining feature - hence HyperText Markup Language. Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Anyway, I guess you missed my point. The *only* elements that move are the ones below the Qs, users can see that the elements above are still there, the navigation menu still appears in the exact same place in the sidebar etc. They may be surprised by what just happend, but they know for a fact that they didn't leave that document. IMO, this is very different when they click on a link that takes them way down the page, they lose all visual bearings. What about if the question is at the very bottom of the viewport and the content is reveal below the window chrome? What about My guess is that if that question is at the bottom of the viewport there is a good chance that the user already knows how it works (for having clicked on previous questions). The Open All link at the top of the document is an extra hint. screenreader users who are, in effect, reading a copy of the page as it first loads? I don't know, you tell me. As far as I know the Qs As are fully accessible to screen-readers users with or without script support, with or without styles applied. I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see between a heading and a paragraph. Huh? What is the purpose of headings then? Headings and paras precede the web and definition lists. It is an inherent feature of reading and writing. I didn't say they had no purpose, I said that I didn't see the same relationship between the 2. Do you see the same relationship between them? Definition List comes with a bonus, a natural wrapper (the DL). Adding a div is hardly a hack - W3C says a div offers a generic mechanism for adding extra structure to documents. Half a dozen one way, six the other. I appreciate the fact that you think discuss vs. mention is a pedantic argument but that structural hack (a DIV) vs. generic mechanism for adding extra structure to a document is not. ;) Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Thierry Koblentz said: A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be missing some subtle nuances here Yes, you have completely missed the point of the recommendation. You are misquoting a recommendation against using javascript links to open new windows. The replacing the current page part of the quote means not a page opened via javascript. Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new windows. I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article, you are misinformed. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new windows. I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article, you are misinformed. Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Of course I can be wrong, but IMO the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links you'll see that both articles make as much sense . It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*, atleast that's how I read it... Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new windows. I'm just saying that jump links are not issue free If your opinion is based on your understanding of the USEIT article, you are misinformed. Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Of course I can be wrong, but IMO the popup window reference is irrelevant. If you simply replace opening new windows with using jump links you'll see that both articles make as much sense . It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*, atleast that's how I read it... Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Justin Carter said: It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on the page. Agreed. One of the basic tenents of usability is to prevent errors. Breaking basic browser funtionality (find function) contravenes this... The rest is fixing what you just broke isn't it? kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] Justin Carter said: It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on the page. Agreed. One of the basic tenents of usability is to prevent errors. Breaking basic browser funtionality (find function) contravenes this... The rest is fixing what you just broke isn't it? From a very strict accessibility/usability persepctive you make an excellent point. However, a marketing-oriented person wanting to show 6 major headlines above the fold would probably eat you for lunch in a meeting to decide whether to use this feature on a commercial site :-) I also agree that for the type of site which targets people in our business, it should not be used. -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =) Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been discussed in this thread. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =) I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh? -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Al Sparber said: I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh? Your foo beats mine Al =) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] Al Sparber said: I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh? Your foo beats mine Al =) You are a gentleman and a scholar :-) ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =) Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been discussed in this thread. Which one are you referring to? A serie of anchor links at the top of the page that jump down to the required content.? AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed; and FWIW, I don't think it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and what about semantic? I believe the document is more coherent with the answers following the questions rather than split in 2 groups,: the questions, the answers. Which brings a out of context issue that doesn't exist with a Definition List. And since we're talking about browser feature, what about printing the page? ;) Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Thierry Koblentz said: AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed; Please. I don't think it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and what about semantic? Why not? And what about semantics? I believe the document is more coherent with the answers following the questions rather than split in 2 groups,: the questions, the answers. No-one said anything about decoupling the QA. The suggestion was about *adding* a list of links to page content, not unlike those found on wikipedia for example. Which brings a out of context issue that doesn't exist with a Definition List. See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list is the semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's. The heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers), and it avoids the whole Q/A is not a term/definition argument. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by out of context - I'm guessing you are stuck on the idea that the Q's can only appear once on the page? And since we're talking about browser feature, what about printing the page? ;) Easily solved with CSS for print media. kind regards Terrence Wood ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list is the semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's. The heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers), and it avoids the whole Q/A is not a term/definition argument. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by out of context - I'm guessing you are stuck on the idea that the Q's can only appear once on the page? Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-) http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/ -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
On 2/8/06, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-) http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/ Hmm... it'd be nicer if there weren't anchor tags in there/the H3 were used directly. Not being amazingly JavaScript saavy, is there a compelling reason why not? ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Al Sparber said: Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-) http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/ Presume you are talking to me? Don't get me wrong Al, I love the interactive aspect of the net and that is, in fact, what drew me to it in the first place. I'm not going to stand on some philosophcal high ground and automatically dismiss solutions like this (I have built similar in the past, and probably will in the future), but like all things it needs to be considered in context. If I was confident the users were able to use this type of device and it sat well within the design and served a purpose then I wouldn't hesitate to use expanding and collapsing divs. I'd add an onfocus event though ;-) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed; Please. Please what? I'm sorry but AFAIK when this option came up nobody mentionned its pros and cons. Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list said so? If I remember correctly, there was an alert box on USEIT years ago that said that clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new document in the same browser window. IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right below it he knows that he's still viewing the same document, because the surrounding elements did not change. I believe clicking on a link that jumps way down the page may bit a bit more confusing for the average user. I don't think it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and what about semantic? Why not? And what about semantics? For example, I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see between a heading and a paragraph. Also, I believe the Definition List comes with a bonus, a natural wrapper (the DL). If the author needs to group the Qs As there is no need for a hack. I believe the document is more coherent with the answers following the questions rather than split in 2 groups,: the questions, the answers. No-one said anything about decoupling the QA. The suggestion was about *adding* a list of links to page content, not unlike those found on wikipedia for example. But then you create redundancy for the sake of visual browsers. Which brings a out of context issue that doesn't exist with a Definition List. See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list is the semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's. The heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers), and it avoids the whole Q/A is not a term/definition argument. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by out of context - I'm guessing you are stuck on the idea that the Q's can only appear once on the page? The advantage I can see regarding the use of headings for the Qs is that some users could cycle through them (Jaws users for example). And since we're talking about browser feature, what about printing the page? ;) Easily solved with CSS for print media. True. And with that extra markup, it's not an extra hook that would make a difference ;) Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable. Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q A (esp. if you have Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question. -- Rowan Walker RMW Web Publishing http://www.rmwpublishing.net ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
I'd have to challenge the statement about users normally using the browsers find feature. The majority of users that I have (or had rather) to accommodate for, didn't even know that their browser had a find feature. Instead preferring to use scroll and skim behaviours to locate information. Not wanting to debunk what you were saying, of course, but I think it would be less than complete to band everyone into the group that actually know that Ctl+F finds things within a page. The most recent iteration of FAQ's that we implemented had toggles delivered via css / div. but that said, we also included a find / search field to help expose what was hidden. Additionally we used a well versed information architect to review our headings and ensure we were using appropriate terminology to head up each FAQ. Feedback on that implementation was generally positive. That said the target user group was internal, and 40+ female administrative / data worker from a mainframe background and NOT the general public. I have not located detailed ebehavior reports addressing the find option within the more global public. Does anyone have this data? Ben Winter-Giles Interface Design Manager DEWR.gov.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable. Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q A (esp. if you have Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question. -- Rowan Walker RMW Web Publishing http://www.rmwpublishing.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Notice: The information contained in this e-mail 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 e-mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Just because a large subset of your users don't use a particular function on your web browser is not a good justification to disable its use. If a larger number of your users are skimming the headlines then clicking to find more details about a particular entry then post a series of anchor links at the top of the page that jump down to the required content. This is a: a fairly standard way of doing FAQs on the web and b: doesn't stop various browser features from working. WINTER-GILES,Ben wrote: I'd have to challenge the statement about users normally using the browsers find feature. The majority of users that I have (or had rather) to accommodate for, didn't even know that their browser had a find feature. Instead preferring to use scroll and skim behaviours to locate information. Not wanting to debunk what you were saying, of course, but I think it would be less than complete to band everyone into the group that actually know that Ctl+F finds things within a page. The most recent iteration of FAQ's that we implemented had toggles delivered via css / div. but that said, we also included a find / search field to help expose what was hidden. Additionally we used a well versed information architect to review our headings and ensure we were using appropriate terminology to head up each FAQ. Feedback on that implementation was generally positive. That said the target user group was internal, and 40+ female administrative / data worker from a mainframe background and NOT the general public. I have not located detailed ebehavior reports addressing the find option within the more global public. Does anyone have this data? Ben Winter-Giles Interface Design Manager DEWR.gov.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable. Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q A (esp. if you have Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question. -- Rowan Walker RMW Web Publishing http://www.rmwpublishing.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Notice: The information contained in this e-mail 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 e-mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
True. But I wasn't talking about disabling any features at all. And if the toggles are done correctly I understand that the find functions will still behave correctly, because the headings will have appropriate key words in them anyway. Presuming of course you have them written descriptively. One could also argue (for the sake of it) that if your toggled page extends so far as to warrant a large anchor listing at the top of the page, perhaps the information segmentation is not quite up to scratch either. To me, the core of this discussion revolves around there not being one way to skin the cat here. (apologies to any cat owners) Which simply reinforces the case for web standards that are constructed in a modular fashion to facilitate delivery of information in varied formats to accommodate for the intended user groups. benwg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] Just because a large subset of your users don't use a particular function on your web browser is not a good justification to disable its use. If a larger number of your users are skimming the headlines then clicking to find more details about a particular entry then post a series of anchor links at the top of the page that jump down to the required content. This is a: a fairly standard way of doing FAQs on the web and b: doesn't stop various browser features from working. WINTER-GILES,Ben wrote: I'd have to challenge the statement about users normally using the browsers find feature. The majority of users that I have (or had rather) to accommodate for, didn't even know that their browser had a find feature. Instead preferring to use scroll and skim behaviours to locate information. Not wanting to debunk what you were saying, of course, but I think it would be less than complete to band everyone into the group that actually know that Ctl+F finds things within a page. The most recent iteration of FAQ's that we implemented had toggles delivered via css / div. but that said, we also included a find / search field to help expose what was hidden. Additionally we used a well versed information architect to review our headings and ensure we were using appropriate terminology to head up each FAQ. Feedback on that implementation was generally positive. That said the target user group was internal, and 40+ female administrative / data worker from a mainframe background and NOT the general public. I have not located detailed ebehavior reports addressing the find option within the more global public. Does anyone have this data? Ben Winter-Giles Interface Design Manager DEWR.gov.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable. Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q A (esp. if you have Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question. -- Rowan Walker RMW Web Publishing http://www.rmwpublishing.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Notice: The information contained in this e-mail 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 e-mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Replies in body, And if the toggles are done correctly I understand that the find functions will still behave correctly, because the headings will have appropriate key words in them anyway. Presuming of course you have them written descriptively. Your effectively disabling it because it is either going to highlight the hidden content inside the div (where you won't be able to see it) or ignore that completely, either way you can't effectively search on the content that is hidden, only the headers. One could also argue (for the sake of it) that if your toggled page extends so far as to warrant a large anchor listing at the top of the page, perhaps the information segmentation is not quite up to scratch either. To me, the core of this discussion revolves around there not being one way to skin the cat here. (apologies to any cat owners) Which simply reinforces the case for web standards that are constructed in a modular fashion to facilitate delivery of information in varied formats to accommodate for the intended user groups. Zah? I thought this was about showing/hiding content within divs. Not matter how well written your content/headings whatever, you shouldn't disable parts of the browser interface. I've read that sentence above about three times and I can't understand it. Samuel ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
From: Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zah? I thought this was about showing/hiding content within divs. Not matter how well written your content/headings whatever, you shouldn't disable parts of the browser interface. I've read that sentence above about three times and I can't understand it. For the few people who might take offense at this kind of interactivity (likely web developers who are passionate about usability), it might not be an issue worth agonizing over. It's accessible to both the blind and to keyboard users. It's one of those judgement calls best left to the client and not to a committee of standards experts :-) -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) wrote: A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a keyword they are looking for. If that search result is in a hidden element the browser will not show it - making the page less usable. You should revisit that page. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp I'm not disabling any browser feature, there is an Open All link to let the user expand all the DDs before using Ctrl + F Also it is helpful to use anchors on each Q A (esp. if you have Customer Service Reps directing users to the page). To make the page more useful, you could allow for bookmarks and emailed URLs to expand an answer by checking the URL 'hash' for the related question. I don't see any problem here either. A short script could check past #, find the matching named anchor in the document and expand the next node... Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on the page. ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
A short script could check past # ... as eg. Moo.FX does - http://moofx.mad4milk.net/#introduction So it's pretty easy to add. -- Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net ** 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] cool FAQ page [follow up]
On 2/7/06, Justin Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on the page. Did you see Thierry's reply? There's an open all link, which anyone who has even a slight knowledge of unobtrusive JS could have added themselves. Thierry is just providing a tool, and it is up to the end designer to decide how to use it. Don't put all the flame on Thierry for going through a lot of trouble for making what might be the best show/hide page ever. If you know what works best, you too can take Thierry's solution and serve up an FAQ page that might be just slightly better than a laundry list of qa's AND not go against your preferences. Anyway, thanks Thierry for putting all this together, I know sometimes clients want this functionality and this is something I might use in the future. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 **
[WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Following a bug report (not in the script, but in a browser), I have made a few changes to the original solution; it now uses images and seems to work in everything but Opera 6.05. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 **
RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
It's very nice Thierry. IE/Mac cannot access it via keyboard though. The only way I see around it is: a) Ignore IE/Mac as it's now officially unsupported b) Add an onkeypress event, check for enter key, do stuff. Messy. Grant -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 03:23 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] Following a bug report (not in the script, but in a browser), I have made a few changes to the original solution; it now uses images and seems to work in everything but Opera 6.05. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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 ** ** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
