Re: [WSG] Site check requested :: Lecoat

[David Laakso]

Rick Lecoat wrote:

On 31/10/07 (14:19) David said:

  

Rick,

It is working far better than when you wrote for a check a week or so ago.





If I assign a media type to import.css, will that propogate down to the
stylesheets that are imported within it?

  


Rick,

I see Georg Sortun has answered your style sheet import question.

I seem always to skate on thin ice with regard to matters of opinion: I 
would delete the re-set style sheet , giving one rather than two style 
sheets to import.  Target only what needs to be targeted-- less bloat, 
easier maintenance, better learning experience, and more...

But in the end, it is your call. Not mine.

Best,

~dL



--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/



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

Re: [WSG] Site check requested :: Lecoat

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Rick Lecoat wrote:
[...] I'm not sure how to specify media types when most of my 
stylesheets are referenced by @import rules from inside a single 
stylesheet called import.css.


You can leave the @import without a media type, and use @media wrappers
around the entire set of relevant styles in each stylesheet...


I always do it this way, and leave old browsers with unstyled pages in
the process.

You can of course then also use IE/win's @import bug to feed IE/win some
additional styles...

...in case it needs any, and/or you can use the bug to keep IE/win from
seeing styles that upsets it.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


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

Re: [WSG] Site check requested :: Lecoat

[Rick Lecoat]

On 31/10/07 (14:19) David said:

>Rick,
>
>It is working far better than when you wrote for a check a week or so ago.
>
>It is, imo, a little daunting to arrive on it at 116.5 dpi-- the font 
>start point (at which one might begin to scale the fonts) for the 
>content text is very tiny; and, the value contrast a little weak. I am 
>not so sure the "top" links are really necessary as this is a keyboard 
>function for most experienced users. And whether the "coda" information 
>should be the same font-size as the content text is yet another matter 
>of opinion, as is whether it should be there in the first place (I think 
>I'd opt for deleting everything but "privacy").
>
>Some IE users, myself among them, run all versions of that browser in 
>"accessibility" mode at text-size "largest" with font-sizes ignored-- 
>your page /may/ wish to accommodate same.
>
>Best,

Thanks for that David.
Plenty of good points, and nothing that I disagree with.

Currently, this is a site that slightly falls between two stools; I'm
updating it away from tables-based layout but since the client hasn't
actually requested any sort of redesign (I'm doing it as a surprise
goodwill gesture), I'm trying to keep the look and feel as close as I
can to the original, even if I no longer consider that 'look' to be
necessarily the best solution.

So type sizes, if I was redesigning from scratch, would indeed be
larger, and some colours might be different. And I wouldn't use a semi-
fixed height design, that's for sure. Certainly, this is not an
accessibility-perfect site, and I fully accept that. It's more of an
exercise for me -- practise, if you like, for someone just getting on
the web standards bus, just learning about elastic layouts, and just
making the jump from GoLive to the world of "hand-coded-from-the-ground-up".

I was interested by your comment about the 'top' links; I find them
useful on sites even as a fully-abled mouse-using web user, especially
where there is lots of scrolling going on. But then I've never really
been a big user of the page-down and home/end keys on the keyboard
(techniques that I suspect are possibly more common amongst people who
use word processor software on a regular basis -- just my speculation)
so you may well be right about the redundancy of those links.

I'm going to remove the Access keys I think; since I put them in place
I've read quite a lot of stuff to the effect that they are generally
more trouble than they're worth.

BTW, I don't know when you viewed the site in Explorer, but if it was
between this morning and this afternoon it was in a hell of a state, due
to a change I'd made; I had not realised that Explorer ignores media-
specific @import commands, eg:

@import url(styles.css) screen;

So for much of today the site was looking, well, unstyled in IE. That's
fixed now but I'm not sure how to specify media types when most of my
stylesheets are referenced by @import rules from inside a single
stylesheet called import.css.

If I assign a media type to import.css, will that propogate down to the
stylesheets that are imported within it?

-- 
Rick Lecoat



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

Re: [WSG] Site check requested :: Lecoat

[David Laakso]

Rick Lecoat wrote:

I'm recreating a table-based site that I did a few years back,
rebuilding it (hopefully) to web standards and making it as accessible
as I can. 




  



Rick,

It is working far better than when you wrote for a check a week or so ago.

It is, imo, a little daunting to arrive on it at 116.5 dpi-- the font 
start point (at which one might begin to scale the fonts) for the 
content text is very tiny; and, the value contrast a little weak. I am 
not so sure the "top" links are really necessary as this is a keyboard 
function for most experienced users. And whether the "coda" information 
should be the same font-size as the content text is yet another matter 
of opinion, as is whether it should be there in the first place (I think 
I'd opt for deleting everything but "privacy").


Some IE users, myself among them, run all versions of that browser in 
"accessibility" mode at text-size "largest" with font-sizes ignored-- 
your page /may/ wish to accommodate same.


Best,

~dL






--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/



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

Re: [WSG] Site check requested :: Lecoat

[David Laakso]

Rick Lecoat wrote:

Hi;

I'm recreating a table-based site that I did a few years back,
rebuilding it (hopefully) to web standards and making it as accessible
as I can. Currently it's one static page and the links largely don't go
anywhere, but I would appreciate feedback from the list before I proceed
with more pages.



It's really my first stab at a semantic markup, fully-CSS, accessible
site; it's also my first ever attempt at an elastic layout, so be merciful.

Many thanks!

  




No offense intended.

Always a good idea to do a little /brutal/ power testing (and most of 
the time, if not all the time, I am not able to live up to my own 
expectations):


Left column float drop IE6.0 text-size "largest" in "accessibility" mode 
in IE6.0; and, unusable in IE7.0 text-size "largest" in "accessibility" 
mode.
Header and top-navigation disappear under chrome at min font-size 24 in 
Firefox/Mac in a short window.
Some say "jump links" are not necessary if the primary content is 
followed by the secondary content, is followed by the navigation...


And so on...

Best,

~dL

--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/



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