Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass 
I actually found a nice image-enabled testing script which works well: 
http://webgeekblog.com/2007/04/15/unobtrusive-javascript-for-detecting-whether-images-are-enabled-or-not/


I tried using the onload even, but that will still go off even if images 
are disabled.


Thomas Thomassen wrote:
You could make the javascript trigger on the image onload events. 
Though, I think some older version of Opera, v8 or 7.54, doesn't 
support the onLoad event for images.



- Original Message - From: "Christian Snodgrass" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image



That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base:
1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable
2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up 
as the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't 
aware, Safari is the major browser for Mac computers.


So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images 
aren't available. I'm working on this. Then, you  find an 
alternative, working method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this 
as well.


The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, 
just that the look isn't consistent when it should be.


Likely, James A. wrote:

Agreed thanks,
 I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to 
make sure that you get all users?


 

*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

"What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?"

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with 
images disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and 
JavaScript on so that the presentation and any enhanced 
functionality is still available.


I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do 
exist.




On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:




From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.

How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested
something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
    To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org <mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no 
images, it

fails completely.

Likely, James A. wrote:
> Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will
from now

> on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and 
found

> this example.
>
> http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
>
> What are your thoughts on this approach?
>
> To me it looks pretty user friendly.
>
> Please let me know as this is new to me.
>
> Thanks
>
> James
>
>

 


> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
    <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
<mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>

> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
>
> The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes
instead of
> trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then 
there's
> really no better accessible method than using the correct 
element as

> it was meant.
>
> If you go down this route then you're likely to create all 
kinds of

> problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
> available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
> using screenreaders.
>
> If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
> enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that
don't
> support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the 
fall back

> of regular forms.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> - - - - -
> http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
>
>
> On 23/01/2008,

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Thomas Thomassen 
You could make the javascript trigger on the image onload events. Though, I 
think some older version of Opera, v8 or 7.54, doesn't support the onLoad 
event for images.



- Original Message - 
From: "Christian Snodgrass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image



That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base:
1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable
2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up as 
the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't aware, 
Safari is the major browser for Mac computers.


So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images aren't 
available. I'm working on this. Then, you  find an alternative, working 
method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this as well.


The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, just 
that the look isn't consistent when it should be.


Likely, James A. wrote:

Agreed thanks,
 I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make 
sure that you get all users?



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

"What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?"

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images 
disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so 
that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available.


I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist.



On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:




From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.

How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested
something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
    To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org <mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it
fails completely.

Likely, James A. wrote:
> Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will
from now

> on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found
> this example.
>
> http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
>
> What are your thoughts on this approach?
>
> To me it looks pretty user friendly.
>
> Please let me know as this is new to me.
>
> Thanks
>
> James
>
>

> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
    <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org <mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
>
> The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes
instead of
> trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then 
there's
> really no better accessible method than using the correct element 
as

> it was meant.
>
> If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
> problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
> available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
> using screenreaders.
>
> If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
> enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that
don't
> support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall 
back

> of regular forms.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> - - - - -
> http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
>
>
> On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a new site for a client and need some
thoughts on
> a problem

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass 

That script has two flaws that reduce it's user base:
1) As said many times now, Javascript+CSS-Images = unusable
2) The imaged version doesn't work in Safari. In Safari, it shows up as 
the default (to me, this isn't acceptable). Also, if anyone isn't aware, 
Safari is the major browser for Mac computers.


So, to fix this, first you make it so it doesn't load if images aren't 
available. I'm working on this. Then, you  find an alternative, working 
method for Safari. I'm gonna attempt to fix this as well.


The images is the biggie, the Safari thing isn't so much usability, just 
that the look isn't consistent when it should be.


Likely, James A. wrote:

Agreed thanks,
 
I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make 
sure that you get all users?



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

"What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?"

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images 
disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so 
that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available.


I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist.



On 25/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:




From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.

How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested
something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
    To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org <mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it
fails completely.

Likely, James A. wrote:
> Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will
from now

> on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found
> this example.
>
> http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
>
> What are your thoughts on this approach?
>
> To me it looks pretty user friendly.
>
> Please let me know as this is new to me.
>
> Thanks
>
> James
>
>

> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org <mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
>
> The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes
instead of
> trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's
> really no better accessible method than using the correct element as
> it was meant.
>
> If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
> problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
> available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
> using screenreaders.
>
> If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
> enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that
don't
> support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back
> of regular forms.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> - - - - -
> http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
>
>
> On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a new site for a client and need some
thoughts on
> a problem that I have.
>
> I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
> have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question
is, what
> would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
> code.
>
> The reason I ask is
>
> 1) If I use images, we can

RE: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Likely, James A. 
Agreed thanks,
 
I don't know much about JavaScript, but is there really a way to make
sure that you get all users? 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dave Woods
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image


"What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?"

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images
disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so
that the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available.

I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist.




On 25/01/2008, Likely, James A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 



From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.

How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested
something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
    Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no
images, it
fails completely.

Likely, James A. wrote:
> Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will
from now

> on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and
found
> this example.
>
> http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
>
> What are your thoughts on this approach?
>
> To me it looks pretty user friendly.
>
> Please let me know as this is new to me.
>
> Thanks
>
> James
>
>


> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
    > *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
>
> The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes
instead of
> trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then
there's
> really no better accessible method than using the correct
element as
> it was meant.
>
> If you go down this route then you're likely to create all
kinds of
> problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have
css
> available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or
are
> using screenreaders.
>
> If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript
to
> enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents
that don't
> support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the
fall back
> of regular forms.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> - - - - -
> http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
>
>
> On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a new site for a client and need some
thoughts on
> a problem that I have.
>
> I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes)
that
> have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question
is, what
> would work best. Using background images or adding images
to the
> code.
>
> The reason I ask is
>
> 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what
function
> the images have. This would help with screen readers and
people
> with disabilities.
>
> 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about
the alt
> text and how screen readers and people with disabilities
would
> read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for
background
> images?
>
> You can see an example of both ways at:
>
> Using images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
> Using background images:
> _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_
>
> Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work
best.

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Dave Woods 
"What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?"

You'd be surprised... I know a few dialup users who browse with images
disabled to speed up loading times but leave CSS and JavaScript on so that
the presentation and any enhanced functionality is still available.

I agree that these types of users are in the minority but they do exist.



On 25/01/2008, Likely, James A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
> accommodates most users.
>
> How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something
> similar to the example that I found?
>
> Thanks again for the help.
>
> James
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
>
> That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it
> fails completely.
>
> Likely, James A. wrote:
> > Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now
>
> > on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found
> > this example.
> >
> > http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this approach?
> >
> > To me it looks pretty user friendly.
> >
> > Please let me know as this is new to me.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> --------------------
> > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
> > *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
> >
> > The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of
> > trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's
> > really no better accessible method than using the correct element as
> > it was meant.
> >
> > If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
> > problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
> > available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are
> > using screenreaders.
> >
> > If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to
> > enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't
> > support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back
> > of regular forms.
> >
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> > - - - - -
> > http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
> >
> >
> > On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
> > a problem that I have.
> >
> > I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
> > have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
> > would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
> > code.
> >
> > The reason I ask is
> >
> > 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
> > the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
> > with disabilities.
> >
> > 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
> > text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
> > read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
> > images?
> >
> > You can see an example of both ways at:
> >
> > Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
> > Using background images:
> > _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_
> >
> > Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
> > love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
> > done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
> > do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> >
> ***
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > <http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubs

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass 
In this particular case, the script will fail and fall back to the 
default look of the radio and check boxes if either Javascript or CSS is 
missing, which is good. The only problem in this case is if Javascript 
and CSS -are- available, but images are not. In that case, it becomes 
100% unusable.


Thomas Thomassen wrote:
Most mobile phones won't use Javascript or CSS either. And the usage 
of handheld devices is rapidly increasing. So is other gadgets. 
Nintendo DS for instance. We can't assume that only browser 
applications is used to access our webpages.


- Original Message - From: "Christian Snodgrass" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image


I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, 
most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form.


However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser 
with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read 
a document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no 
idea. I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for 
disabled users, but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a 
scientific or statistically evaluation.


You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently 
working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help 
eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as 
you probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). 
I'll let you know how it turns out.


Likely, James A. wrote:

What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

>From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.
How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested 
something

similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, 
it fails completely.


Likely, James A. wrote:


Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now




on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found 
this example.

 http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
 What are your thoughts on this approach?
 To me it looks pretty user friendly.
 Please let me know as this is new to me.
 Thanks
 James



 



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead 
of trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then 
there's really no better accessible method than using the correct 
element as it was meant.


If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of 
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css 
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are 
using screenreaders.


If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to 
enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that 
don't support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the 
fall back of regular forms.


Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
a problem that I have.

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
code.

The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
images?

You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
done any testing to see how this would work for s

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Thomas Thomassen 
Most mobile phones won't use Javascript or CSS either. And the usage of 
handheld devices is rapidly increasing. So is other gadgets. Nintendo DS for 
instance. We can't assume that only browser applications is used to access 
our webpages.


- Original Message - 
From: "Christian Snodgrass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image


I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, most 
have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form.


However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser with 
screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read a document 
in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no idea. I'd say it'd 
have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for disabled users, but that is 
just an educated guess and is in no way a scientific or statistically 
evaluation.


You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently working 
on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help eliminate this 
problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as you probably 
noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). I'll let you know 
how it turns out.


Likely, James A. wrote:

What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

>From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users.
How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it 
fails completely.


Likely, James A. wrote:


Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now




on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this 
example.

 http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
 What are your thoughts on this approach?
 To me it looks pretty user friendly.
 Please let me know as this is new to me.
 Thanks
 James






*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of 
trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's 
really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it 
was meant.


If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of 
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css 
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using 
screenreaders.


If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance 
the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support 
JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular 
forms.


Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
a problem that I have.

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
code.

The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
images?

You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?

Thanks for the help.

James





***


List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass 
I haven't tested on many screen readers, but from what I understand, 
most have CSS disabled, so it would read this as a regular form.


However, there is the possibility that someone uses a regular browser 
with screen reading technology (just like what you could use to read a 
document in Word). As for how likely this case my be, I have no idea. 
I'd say it'd have somewhere from 75-95% success rate for disabled users, 
but that is just an educated guess and is in no way a scientific or 
statistically evaluation.


You've actually gotten me interested in this idea so I'm currently 
working on my own version of that, with some fail safes to help 
eliminate this problem, as well as make it work on Safari (since, as you 
probably noticed, in his notes he said he disabled it in Safari). I'll 
let you know how it turns out.


Likely, James A. wrote:

What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

>From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users. 


How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it 
fails completely.


Likely, James A. wrote:
  

Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now



  
on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found 
this example.
 
http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
 
What are your thoughts on this approach?
 
To me it looks pretty user friendly.
 
Please let me know as this is new to me.
 
Thanks
 
James






  
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of 
trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's 
really no better accessible method than using the correct element as 
it was meant.


If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of 
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css 
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are 
using screenreaders.


If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to 
enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't 
support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back 
of regular forms.


Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
a problem that I have.

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
code.

The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
images?

You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?

Thanks for the help.

James





***
  

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


*** 
  


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mai

RE: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Likely, James A. 
Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now
on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found this
example.
 
http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
 
What are your thoughts on this approach?
 
To me it looks pretty user friendly. 
 
Please let me know as this is new to me.
 
Thanks
 
James



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dave Woods
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image


The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of
trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's
really no better accessible method than using the correct element as it
was meant. 

If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using
screenreaders. 

If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance
the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support
JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular
forms. 

Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk



On 23/01/2008, Likely, James A. < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Hello, 

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts
on a problem that I have. 

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would
work best. Using background images or adding images to the code. 

The reason I ask is 

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what
function the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the
alt text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read
the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images? 

You can see an example of both ways at: 

Using images: http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html
<http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html>  
Using background images:
http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html
<http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html>  

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done
any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have
suggestions on how to make it more accessible? 

Thanks for the help. 

James 



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

*** 



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


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

RE: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Likely, James A. 
What are the chances of that happening? I would think it would be very
slim wouldn't it?

>From all of the examples that I have seen this is the one that
accommodates most users. 

How would a screen reader read this option? Has any one tested something
similar to the example that I found?

Thanks again for the help.

James 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it 
fails completely.

Likely, James A. wrote:
> Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now

> on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found 
> this example.
>  
> http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
>  
> What are your thoughts on this approach?
>  
> To me it looks pretty user friendly.
>  
> Please let me know as this is new to me.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> James
>
>

> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image
>
> The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of 
> trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's 
> really no better accessible method than using the correct element as 
> it was meant.
>
> If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of 
> problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css 
> available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are 
> using screenreaders.
>
> If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to 
> enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't 
> support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back 
> of regular forms.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> - - - - -
> http://www.dave-woods.co.uk
>
>
> On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
> a problem that I have.
>
> I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
> have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
> would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
> code.
>
> The reason I ask is
>
> 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
> the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
> with disabilities.
>
> 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
> text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
> read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
> images?
>
> You can see an example of both ways at:
>
> Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
> Using background images:
> _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_
>
> Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
> love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
> done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
> do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> James
>
>
>
***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> <http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm>
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
*** 
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> **

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-25 Thread Christian Snodgrass 
That isn't bad, but if you have Javascript and CSS, but no images, it 
fails completely.


Likely, James A. wrote:
Thanks for the emails. Some things I didn't think of but will from now 
on. I have been doing some reading and looking at options and found 
this example.
 
http://www.chriserwin.com/scripts/crir/
 
What are your thoughts on this approach?
 
To me it looks pretty user friendly.
 
Please let me know as this is new to me.
 
Thanks
 
James



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Woods

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 AM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of 
trying to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's 
really no better accessible method than using the correct element as 
it was meant.


If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of 
problems for yourself... what happens when users don't have css 
available (mobile devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are 
using screenreaders.


If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to 
enhance the existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't 
support JavaScript or have it disabled you should have the fall back 
of regular forms.


Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, *Likely, James A.* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on
a problem that I have.

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that
have a checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what
would work best. Using background images or adding images to the
code.

The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function
the images have. This would help with screen readers and people
with disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt
text and how screen readers and people with disabilities would
read the site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background
images?

You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images:
_http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I
love the background images as the code is clean, but has any one
done any testing to see how this would work for screen readers or
do you have suggestions on how to make it more accessible?

Thanks for the help.

James


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




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



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ <http://www.arwebdesign.net>
Phone: 859.816.7955



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

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Jixor - Stephen I 

Nick Fitzsimons wrote:

On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:29, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
[quote]
Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. If
you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and then
use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that solution,
if they don't have Javascript, normal check boxes appear (which are easy
for screen readers and the like), and if you do have Javascript, you get
your cute image check boxes. And, I'd say use normal images for those as
well and use alt text like "checked, unchecked, disabled", however, that
wouldn't work well with a screen reader.
[/quote]

Even the JS approach would potentially be an issue for screen reader
users. When a screen reader is used for filling in a form, it switches
from its usual reading mode into "forms mode", which allows the user to
interact with the form. If, however, your JavaScript has removed the form
elements, there is then nothing to interact with - it can't tell that the
images are supposed to be like the clicky widgets it understands.

So you would definitely need to look into using some kind of offscreen
positioning technique, rather than just replacing the checkboxes with
images, so that users of such assistive technologies would be able to use
the page.

HTH,

Nick.
  
It would be quite simple to simply place the images visually over the 
checkboxes. Not sure how you would deal with tabbing however I'm sure 
that you could make something decent. Maybe ad an on focus event to the 
checkbox that would change the image to indicate focus.



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

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Nick Fitzsimons 
On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:29, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
[quote]
Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. If
you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and then
use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that solution,
if they don't have Javascript, normal check boxes appear (which are easy
for screen readers and the like), and if you do have Javascript, you get
your cute image check boxes. And, I'd say use normal images for those as
well and use alt text like "checked, unchecked, disabled", however, that
wouldn't work well with a screen reader.
[/quote]

Even the JS approach would potentially be an issue for screen reader
users. When a screen reader is used for filling in a form, it switches
from its usual reading mode into "forms mode", which allows the user to
interact with the form. If, however, your JavaScript has removed the form
elements, there is then nothing to interact with - it can't tell that the
images are supposed to be like the clicky widgets it understands.

So you would definitely need to look into using some kind of offscreen
positioning technique, rather than just replacing the checkboxes with
images, so that users of such assistive technologies would be able to use
the page.

HTH,

Nick.
-- 
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/




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

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Christian Snodgrass 
Basically, here is the simplest way to answer this question. "Is there 
meaningful and important alt text you can give the image, or is their 
something they'd miss out on without the image or alt text?". If the 
answer is yes, use images. If not, then use background images. 
Basically, background images are supposed to be purely -decoration-. If 
they are in any way, shape, or form content, use images.


Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. 
If you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and 
then use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that 
solution, if they don't have Javascript, normal check boxes appear 
(which are easy for screen readers and the like), and if you do have 
Javascript, you get your cute image check boxes. And, I'd say use normal 
images for those as well and use alt text like "checked, unchecked, 
disabled", however, that wouldn't work well with a screen reader.


Likely, James A. wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a 
problem that I have.


I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a 
checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work 
best. Using background images or adding images to the code.


The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the 
images have. This would help with screen readers and people with 
disabilities.


2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text 
and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the 
site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images?


You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love 
the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any 
testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have 
suggestions on how to make it more accessible?


Thanks for the help.

James


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



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ 
Phone: 859.816.7955



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

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

2008-01-23 Thread Dave Woods 
The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying
to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no
better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant.

If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems
for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile
devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders.

If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the
existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript
or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms.

Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, Likely, James A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Hello,
>
> I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a
> problem that I have.
>
> I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a
> checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best.
> Using background images or adding images to the code.
>
> The reason I ask is
>
> 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the
> images have. This would help with screen readers and people with
> disabilities.
>
> 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and
> how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is
> there a way to imitate the alt for background images?
>
> You can see an example of both ways at:
>
> Using images: 
> *http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html*
> Using background images: 
> *http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html*
>
> Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the
> background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to
> see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how
> to make it more accessible?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> James
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


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