Kupu is a client-side WYSIWYG editor that is written entirely in
JavaScript, works on Internet Explorer as well as Mozilla based browsers
and can be integrated into any type of webserver. It has a clean,
object-oriented codebase and a flexible plugin API. It supports
client-side cleanup (e.g. Word
Hi,
I'd be very grateful if people could check this site, particularly on
Mac and Linux platforms. It seems to run OK in FireFox 1, Mozilla 1.7.3,
Opera 7.50 and IE 6, and it validates correctly. URL:
http://www.stgauderic.net/en/
It will eventually have some textual content, and be available in
if people could check this site
My response has nothing to do with your's or anybody's specific request but
I think folks should specify something wrt web standards that they are
requesting evaluation or feedback with/about in their message other than
please check this on your Mac browsers or
I agree in part with your first comment. The problem is that a lot of
the time (I would guess) most people want a complete test in a
browser/platform they don't have access to - useability, standards,
validity etc etc. BrowserCam is great, but doesn't give you any help
regarding useability - other
Chris Taylor wrote:
BrowserCam is great, but doesn't give you any help
regarding useability - other pairs of eyes are what is needed.
Before trying BrowserCam I also used to post to places like here and
CSS-Discuss to get a wider range of browsers/OS tests and
recommendations for fixing any CSS
Based upon some recent discussion related to how some content should be
marked up (as semantically correct as possible), an idea was bandied
around to possibly put together a decision tree. This process flow
would start with the intended content and ask questions in an attempt to
isolate the
Mac running in 9.2 and IE 5.1.4 shows some small bugs. Attaching a screen
shot of the problem areas ... specifically the slogan line and separation of
menu from header. Hope this helps.
attachment: Internet Explorer 21.jpg
hi,
i'm working on a design based off of http://www.21degrees.com.au/ and
i'm running into problems with overlapping elements.
here's my work so far (i coded for the Fox at first):
html - http://www.thorstenpeh.de/test/devhelp/z-index/
css -
And all that Malarkey
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/css_markup_guides.html
has a recent post about how he creates sites with black and white drawings and
adds the div id's etc after the client has approved...
This made me think that I should go back to our re-designed web site and
my own words:
but doesn't suggest any solution. can you?
i found a solution myself right after sending off my request for help...
i set the header picture as the background image of my main container
div and added padding-top based on the height of the image.
if anyone comes up with a more
Hi all,
For quite a while, I've been using my spare time to improve the
standards, CSS, usability, and accessibility of one of my projects. In
doing so I've also been trying to move away from IE hacks in my CSS in
favor of conditional comments, which for the most part has been a fairly
Hi,
Any opinions on going with a voice over approach. Perhaps Quicktime or
FLASH. I know, I said the F word but the question is related to
standards and captioning
On Friday, January 7, 2005, at 08:35 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
As far as I'm aware, Emacspeak is the only browser that supports
Hi,
If your trying to achieve the effect that 21 degrees make, you should
take a look that they've used a full body background for both the main
and navigation, second, they have used another footer background image
to achieve the ending footer.
Check it using firefox and rightclick on the
hiya Jolorence Santos,
If your trying to achieve the effect that 21 degrees make, you should
take a look that they've used a full body background for both the main
and navigation, second, they have used another footer background image
to achieve the ending footer.
that's what i meant with:
1) HTMLArea RC3 - pretty darned powerful. suspect support. It's been at RC3
since the stone ages and nothing much since then. I'm also not very sure
about the validity of the output code since changing font families will
churn out font tags by default (didn't try to explore changing this as I
In response to Kornel and some of the more cynical posters, I would say
keep your faith. There will always be a Microsoft present in our world,
whether they come with the moniker Microsoft, Sun or Oracle.
Fortunately, there're other elements to keep things in balance. Opensource
is increasingly
And all that Malarkey
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/css_markup_guides.html
has a recent post about how he creates sites with black and white
drawings and adds the div id's etc after the client has approved...
This made me think that I should go back to our re-designed web site
and
I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is
interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being
addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest
...but at least they are aware of it.
Bruce
www.bkdesign.ca
Dear Bruce,
Thank you for
Ted Drake wrote:
And all that Malarkey http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/css_markup_guides.html
[...]
I was wondering if there is a css2 method to show the id or class within the div?
Only made a start, but something like:
/* general styling for all of the :before bits */
:before {
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
/* long list of all the ones you need (only catering for id...similar
for class,
and need to do separate rules for the case in which it's just id, just
class, or both
id and class */
And to elaborate, as an example:
div:before { content: 'div'; }
div[id]:before { content:
Bruce wrote:
I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is
interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being
addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest
...but at least they are aware of it.
Considering it's a governmental site
Strictly following the tabularlist example would be rubbish in this context,
but if we extend the idea into an ol list with a definition table inside
each list element, it may not be so absurd idea.
I'm still troubled by using tables to implement a song chart as the semantic
meaning behind each
Wong Chin Shin wrote:
I'm still troubled by using tables to implement a song chart as the semantic
meaning behind each row's position (eg. Row 2 is there cos it's ranked LOWER
than row 1) is lost.
Not if one of your columns is specifically for the chart position. Then,
on the first row the data
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:55:38 -0500, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is
interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being
addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest
...but at least they
Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit?
Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units
and soon this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
**
The discussion
That's not exactly the way I read it. But then I can't read. ~d
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:45:24 -, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit?
Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units
and soon this one:
These are *guidelines* are they not? As opposed to hard-fast rules?
...This document provides information to Web content developers who
wish to satisfy the success criteria of Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0
note the word 'Guidelines'...
?
Tom Livingston
Senior
I absolutely hate to jump into the topic of font-size issue, because I
think this is
the question of religion, not web standards.
Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit?
On the issue of pixel sizes, the guideline that best describes the pixels
issue is Web Content
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit?
WCAG 1.0, checkpoint 3.4
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-relative-units
(although there have been discussions recently on the WAI-IG list about
whether or not some of these have now been overtaken by
This is great Patrick.
I'm going to save it as a layout.css and use it for all sorts of stuff.
You are the bomb!
Ted
-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:15 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam]
To quote part of what I posted from G8 web:
This is an accessibility issue that we are aware of and hope to be able
to address in the near future.
I really don't think this is an important matter that would need
permission to post anywhere. It isn't a secret. Perhaps I am out of
line here,
Ted Drake wrote:
This is great Patrick.
I'm going to save it as a layout.css and use it for all sorts of stuff.
You are the bomb!
We aim to please ;-)
May have to expand on it a bit more and make it into a proper experiment
on my site, I think. Watch this space...
--
Patrick H. Lauke
I'll second that choose ( 'Comic Sans MS' ) but, use both the long
short version of the name.
===
On Jan 6, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Andrew Krespanis wrote:
Tricia Fitzgerald wrote:
Does anyone know of a whimsical font that works in all browsers?
I've
tried
Charles Eaton wrote:
I'll second that choose ( 'Comic Sans MS' ) but, use both the long
short version of the name.
No offense, but I think you missed the point, which is: you, as
developer, don't know what fonts users may or may not have installed.
Therefore, you should opt for generic family
-Original Message-
From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 6:49 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
To be more precise: what percentage of unfortunate web surfers knows
that it is possible to change
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:17:53 +1100, russ - maxdesign
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
As pointed out, these are guidelines only, and open to interpretation. For
example, pixels could be interpreted to be relative units, as explained by
Derek Featherstone:
russ - maxdesign wrote:
I'd put the question back to the group... Rather than ask why should
I not use pixels, as there is nowhere that forces me not to, why
not ask how can I make my content as accessible to the widest
audience possible.
If you ask this question, then right now, with the
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:18:55 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
...
- It may be hard to believe for some, but many computer users do not know
how to install a different browser. In fact, many of them don't even know
that there is anything else but IE.
...
All you say is true.
And there
I hope this is not off topic. If it is please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
privately.
I have a href/a links to files on a web site. What would be the best web
standard to make these links an FTP download? So, an individual clicks on a
filename and the FTP window opens. I am not sure why my work is
I think that the point of this discussion is partially missed, making font
size scalable is not just about making a site accessible for people with
special needs - it benefits everyone! Consider this scenario:
Acme Company hires Zippo Web Dev to create their website
Zippo decide 8px Arial is
-Original Message-
From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 10:44 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
So what exactly makes you think those users will:
a) know hot to change font size
We have to make
The Man With His Guide Dog At The Tent Store wrote:
I have a href/a links to files on a web site. What would be the best web
standard to make these links an FTP download?
No, you don't mean FTP download (which would only happen if you were
using the FTP *protocol*, i.e. your links were pointing
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:51:54 +1100, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that the point of this discussion is partially missed, making font
size scalable is not just about making a site accessible for people with
special needs - it benefits everyone! Consider this scenario:
Acme Company
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:02:53 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
...
Not all users with visual disabilities use a screen reader. Some may only
require a larger font size or a different font colour. Others use screen
readers in combination with enlarged fonts. A user I tested once insisted
Some time back I used to add a font sizer to my site as a trial. Font + -
Perhaps it isn't a bad idea.
I used to have that specifically for the article text, and scaled down
for menus.
Then I could go back to using fixed fonts, and if someone cannot read
12px text-make it bigger at a click from
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
These users would benefit most from the 'Accessibility' options under
Options menu.That allows them:
Ignore colors specified on Web pages
Ignore font-styles specified on Web pages
Ignore font-sizes specified on Web pages
Use own stylesheet
Cute...first you argue that
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement
something what is never used.
How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause
real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and
therefore calls for an interim
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Quote:
And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a
lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through
accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the
ones that show a minimal amount of consideration).
Hi,
To get validated by Bobby, I need to have a label for=xxx for each
input tag. I've got a 2 inputs, a drop down for salutation and a text
input for name that really don't want to have a separate label for each. Is
it possible/advisable for me to declare a label for both?
Thanks
Wong
Bruce wrote:
Some time back I used to add a font sizer to my site as a trial. Font + -
Perhaps it isn't a bad idea.
I used to have that specifically for the article text, and scaled down for
menus.
Then I could go back to using fixed fonts, and if someone cannot read
12px text-make it
Wong Chin Shin wrote:
To get validated by Bobby,
Forget validated by Bobby. It's really to be accessible. Bobby is
just a tool, and it's irrelevant whether or not your site passes its
automated tests or not...anyway, rant over, now to the issue...
I need to have a label for=xxx for each
input
Bruce wrote:
Some time back I used to add a font sizer to my site as a trial. Font + -
Perhaps it isn't a bad idea.
The problem with custom font sizers is that they only apply to that
particular site.
I used to have that specifically for the article text, and scaled down
for menus.
Then I could
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:13:03 +, Patrick H. Lauke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause
real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and
therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:23:20 -0500, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Quote:
And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a
lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through
accessibility options and disabling things for *all*
G'day
The problem with custom font sizers is that they only apply to that
particular site.
And it only applies to one page (without resorting to the use of
cookies, javascript, server side technology etc to remember the
user's preference).
Luckily I am one of the few older guys with poor
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I
didn't know this...
I guess I have nothing to add here.
This would be insightful if Bruce was a user that actually needed/relied
on resizable fonts.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:37:24 +, Patrick H. Lauke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with custom font sizers is that they only apply to that
particular site.
This is very true, so users should figure where it is, what it is (at
least how to use it
is prety obvious).
On the other hand
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'?
Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented?
Arguably, UAAG 1.0 guideline 4.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-configure-text-scale
--
Patrick H. Lauke
That was my point. Not that I was dumb or anything, but lots of us don't
know some things. Including those with eyesite difficulties, and that a
site guide would be nice. If I could miss that, many others have also.
Bruce
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Amazing! I have been
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
G.S: Two factors creates this accessibility-problem with
pixel-defined text: - Web designers in general don't know that
IE/win can *override* font sizes. - Users in general don't know
that either.
The technical side of it:
IE/win has ignore font size...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:17:17 +, Patrick H. Lauke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'?
Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented?
Arguably, UAAG 1.0 guideline 4.1
61 matches
Mail list logo
