RE: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)
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: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law) Hello all 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 beillegal for a UK site. Could anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong and if possible give me some credible links to back this up?Thanks heaps, Paul Collins
Re: [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *Paul Collins *Sent:* 30 January 2006 15:33 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* [WSG] Check boxes ticked (UK Law) Hello all 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. Could anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong and if possible give me some credible links to back this up? Thanks heaps, Paul Collins ** 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] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)
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 UK law. And yes, I believe this to be correct. You have to make this 'opt- in', default being 'opt-out'. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.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] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)
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: 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 UK law. And yes, I believe this to be correct. You have to make this 'opt- in', default being 'opt-out'. Philippe ** 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] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)
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 nonetheless: IANAL, but the reference I can find is The Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (2002/58/EC) http://www.dti.gov.uk/industries/ecommunications/directive_on_privacy_electronic_communications_200258ec.html extends controls on unsolicited direct marketing to all forms of electronic communications including unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE or Spam) and SMS to mobile telephones; UCE and SMS will be subject to a prior consent requirement [ed. an opt-in], so the receiver is required to agree to it in advance, except in the context of an existing customer relationship, where companies may continue to email or SMS to market their own similar products on an 'opt-out' basis; This is in line, as Philippe mentioned, with the European directive http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ecomm/todays_framework/privacy_protection/spam/index_en.htm Article 13(1) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive requires Member States to prohibit the sending of unsolicited commercial communications by fax or e-mail or other electronic messaging systems such as SMS and MMS unless the prior consent of the addressee has been obtained (opt-in system). The only exception to this rule is in cases where contact details for sending e-mail or SMS messages (but not faxes) have been obtained in the context of a sale. Within such an existing customer relationship the company who obtained the data may use them for the marketing of similar products or services as those it has already sold to the customer. Nevertheless, even then the company has to make clear from the first time of collecting the data, that they may be used for direct marketing and should offer the right to object. Moreover, each subsequent marketing message should include an easy way for the customer to stop further messages (opt-out). The opt-in system is mandatory for any e-mail, SMS or fax addressed to natural persons for direct marketing. It is optional with regard to legal persons. For the latter category Member States may choose between an opt-in or an opt-out system. Now, I can't find a definitive piece of legislation or code of practice that clearly says an opt-in needs to be an unticked checkbox that the user needs to actively check, and an opt-out needs to be a ticked checkbox that the user needs to actively uncheck, but I strongly suspect that there is case law relating to this, and any double-triple-negative obfuscation a la don't check this checkbox if you don't want to receive no spam would not hold in a court of law and make a contract thus entered null and void. Again, IANAL, but speaking purely from a common-sense point of view. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)
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 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] Check boxes ticked (UK Law)
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 extends controls on unsolicited direct marketing to all forms of electronic communications including unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE or Spam) and SMS to mobile telephones; UCE and SMS will be subject to a prior consent requirement That seems to be an interesting distinction to the EC directive: it only mentions prior consent, not necessarily an opt-in. According to law firm Pinsent Masons' article http://www.out-law.com/page-5657 (free reg required) Consent by definition requires some sort of positive action on behalf of the recipient. However, it is a widely held misconception in data protection terms that consent requires that the user opts-in to their data being used. Prior consent does not mean the same thing as opt-in. [...] Prior consent, however, does not specify any particular means of assessing the user's intention. Therefore, while opt-in is one way of demonstrating a user's consent, it is not the only way. Another equally acceptable practice would be to collect the customer's details, at the same time presenting them with a data protection notice which is drafted to state that by providing their details the user consents to the receipt of unsolicited marketing emails. Key to this is the way in which the consent statement is drafted. It must be a positive statement, the effect of which is to be considered as positive consent by the user. At the same time the user must be provided with an opportunity to opt-out of their details being used for this method. The best way of achieving this is to include an opt-out tick box as a part of the data protection notice. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] Check
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. http://www.gizax.it/vtre/xwl.php?pag=0 cheers Daniel http://www.gizax.it ** 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] Check
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, 2005 2:16 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Check Hi guys, please check my new experiment. A Xhtml Websites List Directory. Sorry but is in italian language. http://www.gizax.it/vtre/xwl.php?pag=0 cheers Daniel http://www.gizax.it ** 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] Check
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. -- Dwacon www.dwacon.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:16 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Check Hi guys, please check my new experiment. A Xhtml Websites List Directory. Sorry but is in italian language. http://www.gizax.it/vtre/xwl.php?pag=0 cheers Daniel http://www.gizax.it ** 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] check website -- creareconkaterina
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 first in the source order -do not throw a horizontal scroll bar at 800 -make believe IE does not exist -code for FF/Operera/Safari -let the user determine her font-size -never use an image when you can do without one -never use br / unless there is no alternative -validate css/markup (frequently) -check page at 800, 1024, 1280 (frequently) -check that layout does not break at 200% (frequently) -ask help of the list to get it to work in the 'evil one' FWIW, this http://www.dlaakso.com/sandbox/2c.html is not intended as an answer to any of the above, but rather as an example of a possible place to start? Good luck. ~dL -- David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.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] check website
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 isn't an option, at least provide alt attributes for the images that contain text. 3) I'd recommend replacing multiple br / tags with margins or padding. 4) You have more than one element with the ID cent. Use classes instead, and your site will validate. 5) Use headings such as h1 and h2 instead of symantically empty elements such as div id=header ** 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] check website
[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 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] check website
[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 can't or won't view images. If that isn't an option, at least provide alt attributes for the images that contain text. 3) I'd recommend replacing multiple br / tags with margins or padding. 4) You have more than one element with the ID cent. Use classes instead, and your site will validate. 5) Use headings such as h1 and h2 instead of symantically empty elements such as div id=header Thanks a lot :)) ** 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] Check website
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 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 site but find the nav menu and content text too small. The banner logo is not happy with it's position at 800, nor at higher screen resolutions with a sidebar in place, sliding under the outer container. Alternate text for that image might be a good idea. A couple of errors on the CSS file, including the inclusion of MS proprietary stuff, keeps it from validating. Page shift happening when going to and from pages not long enough to draw a scroll bar.The comment form is breaking right on zoom. Regards, David -- de gustibus non est disputandum http://www.dlaakso.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 ** ** 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] Check website
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 Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gizax Studios Sent: Monday, 21 February 2005 5:19 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Check website 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 ** 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] Check website
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 site but find the nav menu and content text too small. The banner logo is not happy with it's position at 800, nor at higher screen resolutions with a sidebar in place, sliding under the outer container. Alternate text for that image might be a good idea. A couple of errors on the CSS file, including the inclusion of MS proprietary stuff, keeps it from validating. Page shift happening when going to and from pages not long enough to draw a scroll bar.The comment form is breaking right on zoom. Regards, David -- de gustibus non est disputandum http://www.dlaakso.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] check list for development
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 Associates Graphic Artist tel: +612 9937 0792 fax: +612 9937 0546 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russ Weakley - Maxdesign Sent: Saturday, 29 May 2004 11:33 AM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Critique That was the abridged version. A more extensive list of check points would include: 1. Quality of code - Valid HTML? - Valid CSS? - Semantically correct code? 2. Degree of separation between content and presentation - Full CSS? - Decorative images in css? 3. Accessibility for users - Scalable Content? - Visible skip menus? - Accessible forms? - Accessible tables? - Sufficient colour brightness/contrasts? - Colour alone used for critical info? - Responsiveness for dropdown menus? - Descriptive links for blind users? (many others can be added here) 4. Accessibility for devices - Test across range of modern and older browsers - Without CSS? - Without images? - Without Javascript? - Text browser such as Lynx? - Print preview? - Hand Held devices - Detailed metadata? 5. Usability (probably the most important and may be outside the scope of this list) - Easy to understand navigation? - Consistent navigation through site? - Consistent language? (heaps of others could be added here, such as Neilson's ten basic guidelines) Would be good for the group to add/edit this list so that we could have a solid checklist - WSG's things to check during development. Russ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
