RE: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

2006-01-30 Thread Giles Clark
Paul, I think you are way off topic here. If you want to contact me directly I'd be happy to help [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Paul CollinsSent: 30 January 2006 15:33To:

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

2006-01-30 Thread Jixor - Stephen I
I believe this question would fall within the scope of this group. Anyway I would be very interested to know the answer to this, with a link to the related legislation. Giles Clark wrote: Paul, I think you are way off topic here. If you want to contact me directly I'd be happy to help

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

2006-01-30 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh
On 31 Jan 2006, at 12:33 am, Paul Collins wrote: I recall reading somewhere a while back that UK law states you can't have a check box ticked on a form EG - untick this box if you don't want to receive emails would be illegal for a UK site. That would be European Community law, not only

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

2006-01-30 Thread Joshua Street
Just out of curiosity, what about Tick this box if you don't want to receive massive amounts of spam? Is it really anti-checked box, or anti-default-opt-in? Seems pretty... open to abuse and/or re-interpretation, unless it's the latter. On 1/31/06, Philippe Wittenbergh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

2006-01-30 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
Richard Czeiger wrote: I agree - I think the areas of Web Standards and Best Practices should go side by side. If one country has decided to actually legislate on something then it's at least worth discussing. I fail to see how the UK's anti-spam law is relevant to web standards...but

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

2006-01-30 Thread Jude Robinson
Paul Collins wrote: Could anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong and if possible give me some credible links to back this up? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/26/prior_consent_does_not_mean/ Kind of right, kind of wrong :) ** The

Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)

2006-01-30 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
To quickly follow up, before the thread gets presumably closed for being way off topic: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: The Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (2002/58/EC) http://www.dti.gov.uk/industries/ecommunications/directive_on_privacy_electronic_communications_200258ec.html

Re: [WSG] Check

2005-10-03 Thread Alan Trick
Interesting, Not really a problem with your site, but I just checked the headers of the top 4 sites and they had Content-Type: text/html. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, please check my new experiment. A Xhtml Websites List Directory. Sorry but is in italian language.

RE: [WSG] Check

2005-10-03 Thread Conyers, Dwayne
Running the page through the translator at babelfish.altavista.com was good enough to translate the text. Looks good. -- Dwacon www.dwacon.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 02,

Re: [WSG] Check

2005-10-03 Thread infopre
thanks ;) - Original Message - From: Conyers, Dwayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 4:16 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Check Running the page through the translator at babelfish.altavista.com was good enough to translate the text. Looks good

Re: [WSG] check website -- creareconkaterina

2005-09-16 Thread David Laakso
re: check website http://www.creareconkaterina.com/ A little late on replying, sorry. This is my personal Web style sheet... True Confessions -- (or how to suceed at Web design without driving yourself nuts): -start with a robust, stable, cross-browser reliable layout -let the content be

Re: [WSG] check website

2005-09-15 Thread Kenny Graham
A few suggestions: 1) The site could fit at 800x600, but the fixed margins make it too large. 2) Consider using text with background images for the menu and footer, instead of images of text. This would reduce file size and make the site useable by people who can't or won't view images. If that

Re: [WSG] check website

2005-09-15 Thread Thierry Koblentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, please, check this website http://www.creareconkaterina.com Hi Daniele, You have more than *140kb* of images on this page... IMHO, you should try to reduce that... Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The

Re: [WSG] check website

2005-09-15 Thread infopre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : A few suggestions: 1) The site could fit at 800x600, but the fixed margins make it too large. 2) Consider using text with background images for the menu and footer, instead of images of text. This would reduce file size and make the site useable by people who

Re: [WSG] Check website

2005-02-21 Thread Gizax Studios
thanks :))) Daniel - Original Message - From: David Laakso [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Check website On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:18:44 +0100, Gizax Studios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Check this website

RE: [WSG] Check website

2005-02-20 Thread James Gollan
Nice and clean looking site. A couple of issues I have noticed: You may have designed on a high resolution, but at 800x600 (still a common res) the logo disappears behind the content. I think that the white line around the top nav looks a little out of place. Cheers James -Original

Re: [WSG] Check website

2005-02-20 Thread David Laakso
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:18:44 +0100, Gizax Studios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Check this website for a marketing company. Some section are coming soon. http://www.arcapplied.org/tempodaniele/index.php regards Daniel http://www.gizax.it Daniel, I like the color and general feel ot the

RE: [WSG] check list for development

2004-05-30 Thread Hill, Tim
I would suggest some business orientated checks as well (most likely off-topic though) - Are you meeting user goals? - Is your content web orientated? There would be a lot more in there I would think, but I think it should be included for any check list of a development plan. Tim Hill Computer