Since the only reply to my query about the practice of hiding link targets was
from Olajide Olaolorun himself
It is from Google. My host requires me to put it there in exchange for
the free hosting :)
It must be that everyone accepts it.
John Cherry.
Matt,
Am Dienstag, 22. März 2005 um 00:14:11 haben Sie geschrieben:
M That way users without Flash can still link through to the target page.
M Any Ideas?
You can pass the URL to a Flash variable by using the param-Tag and/or
the URL of the Flash itself.
This looks like:
object
Dear experts,
I have just upgraded a site to xhtml/css, no tables etc. It all seems to
work fine in FF, Opera, IE5.5 and 6 (dunno about MAC!). Fine, that is,
apart from in IE, where I see a short blue line in between the thumbnails
in any of the gallery sections. it is as though it's
-Original Message-
From: designer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2005 8:47 PM
To: webstandards group
Subject: [WSG] linked image problem in IE
Dear experts,
I have just upgraded a site to xhtml/css, no tables etc. It
all seems to
work fine in FF, Opera,
That way users without Flash can still link through to the target page.
Any Ideas?
Cheers,
Matt
I would use code something like this:
object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=play.swf width=460
height=300
param name=movie value=play.swf /
param name=pluginspage
It must be that everyone accepts it.
Maybe... Although I doubt it.
I don't like sites that interfere with my normal browser
settings. I often look at the status bar before clicking on a
link. If the target is hidden, it's probably not worth visiting.
Luckily this particular nuisance is a
designer wrote:
Dear experts,
I have just upgraded a site to xhtml/css, no tables etc. It all seems to
work fine in FF, Opera, IE5.5 and 6 (dunno about MAC!). Fine, that is,
apart from in IE, where I see a short blue line in between the thumbnails
in any of the gallery sections. it is as though
Andreas, Scott:
thanks a million! I would never have thought of that in a million years!
Much Obliged,
Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent:
I also hate hideen links but those links are from Google and it is a
JS script which i have no idea how it is generated or how to make it
as a popup i hate it because when it is clicked it navigates away
from the website.
Thangs Guys... :)
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:04:54 +0800, Bert Doorn
Hi!
Am Dienstag, 22. März 2005 um 11:01:34 haben Sie geschrieben:
RP I would use code something like this:
RP object type=application/x-shockwave-flash data=play.swf width=460
height=300
RPparam name=movie value=play.swf /
RPparam name=pluginspage
RP
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:46:35 -, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The only problem is that a browser without css support will show the
two objects/images.
Use conditional comments around object tags.
Hint:
!--[if !IE]x-- normal code !--![endif]--
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
Dear Webstandards,
Are there any articles or standards out there that talk about how to pick colors for both LCD and traditional monitors?
I have a website that is an intense blue that looks great in a tradiational monitor but looks terrible in an LCD monitor.
Nancy Johnson
Do you Yahoo!?
Nancy,
How are you calibration both? (generating
ICC profiles). I have 7 monitors here at work a mix-match of LCD
and CRT I have to calibrate the LCDs sometimes as much as once a
week. Unless youre using Eizo or Lacie professional graphic LCDs,
most LCDs dont have the color gamut of
Kornel,
Am Dienstag, 22. Mrz 2005 um 14:40:02 haben Sie geschrieben:
KL Use conditional comments around object tags.
Sometimes one can't see the forest, 'cause there are too many trees...
Thanks
Martin.
**
The discussion list for
Could be the color calibration on the LCD or 'traditional' CRT. Check out some
tools like:
http://www.colorvision.com/ (PANTONE Spyder - hardware based)
http://www.easyrgb.com/calibrate.php
Also if you own Photoshop it does have an adjustement tool that provides some
color calibration
for
Nancy Johnson wrote:
Dear Webstandards,
Are there any articles or standards out there that talk about how to
pick colors for both LCD and traditional monitors?
I have a website that is an intense blue that looks great in a
tradiational monitor but looks terrible in an LCD monitor.
Nancy
Hi,
LCD screens are prone to fading in both brightness and saturation over time.
From the WAI accessibility guidelines:
2.2 Ensure that foreground and background colour combinations provide
sufficient contrast.
There is also a perceivable difference between Mac and PC (LCD or CRT) due
Just to make it explicit (as I guess you probably meant it implicitly):
Mike Foskett
So avoid subtle colour effects
...if they're used to distinguish pieces of information. If it's purely
for subtle visual effect (e.g. a minimal gradient in the background)
you can still use those subtle
I found using both works best... Get a video card the supports dual display
and run both at the same time, you can then switch in-between the two
monitors and view any colour differences
Kind Regards
Jacobus van Niekerk
Creative Consultant
web:
I recently attended a workshop on this very issue.
1. I now calibrate all my monitors (PC and Mac, LCD and CRT) at least once a
month using Eye-One
Display.
2. I have also changed my Macs to gamma 2.2 (rather than the obsolete 1.8) in
line with PCs.
These are the two main changes, and have
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:56:56 +1100, Sarah Peeke (XERT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
1. I now calibrate all my monitors (PC and Mac, LCD and CRT) at least
once a month using Eye-One
Display.
2. I have also changed my Macs to gamma 2.2 (rather than the obsolete
1.8) in line with PCs.
These
David Laakso wrote:
Cool. Did the workshop you attended offer any suggestions on how
everyone else in the world can obtain the same output on their monitors
as you have on yours?
This site best viewed with correctly calibrated monitors ... click here
to order your calibration kit today
Hi David
Cool. Did the workshop you attended offer any suggestions on how everyone
else in the world can obtain the same output on their monitors as you have
on yours?
The two methods I listed (below) will go a long way towards addressing this.
The Eye-One Display is
very easy to use
All,
Without out taking up too much of your time, itd
be great if you could take a look at http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/
and let me know anything that leaps in your face as bad.
Please be brutal.
Im hoping there wont be too much of a
beating, but if there is Id prefer to do it
On 22 Mar 2005, at 23:34, Tatham Oddie wrote:
All,
Without out taking up too much of your time, itd be great if you
could take a look at http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/ and let me know
anything that leaps in your face as bad.
Please be brutal.
(PS. Notice the XHTML1.1 validating ASP.NET? J)
Other than the 404 errors on some of the menu items (which I assume you
already knew about :) the only thing I can see is a couple of validation
issues:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1uri=http%3A//testdrive.fueladvance.com/Default.aspx
just to do with the html tag
Otherwise looking
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:34:38 +1100, Tatham Oddie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Without out taking up too much of your time, it'd be great if you could
take
a look at http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/
[...]
Nice, clean, and simple. Setting font-size 0.9em on the body is doing a
number in IE on
Oh the dangers of over constraining form elements:
url from a previous thread
http://www.gretagmacbeth.com/index/products/products_color-mgmt-spec/
products_cm-for-creatives/products_eye-one-display.htm
The select element at the top of the page looks like this on my
Firefox, nightly, OS X
Ok... tad embarrassed right now.
Not that this is my staging location - so I upload to it every few minutes.
It *was* working... I emailed you... I broke it... you looked.
Now works again - I think.
Do you mind checking the XHTML compliance again for me?
Thanks!
-Original Message-
Seems to validate as XHTML 1.0 strict...maybe that was the doc type you
had in mind when coding?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftestdrive.fueladvance.com
%2FDefault.aspxcharset=%28detect+automatically%29doctype=XHTML+1.0
+Strictverbose=1
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 19:28 -0500, David
David,
Thanks for taking the time to look.
I had totally forgotten to test font-zooming (too excited to launch it) so
I'll look into this.
As for the alt text - there's no image! If you take a look at the HTML it is
just a series of H1 and H2 elements. The image replacement is done totally
It seems to validate fine as XHTML 1.1 for me:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1uri=http%3A//testdrive.fueladvance.c
om/Default.aspx
And that's the doctype on all the pages.
I'm getting kinda confused as to how we're getting different results here...
-Original Message-
From:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:58:24 +1100, Tatham Oddie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
David,
[...]
As for the alt text - there's no image! If you take a look at the HTML
it is
just a series of H1 and H2 elements. The image replacement is done
totally
using CSS.
In FF there are two words Fuel Advance--
Tatham Oddie wrote:
I've learned that artificial intelligence is no match for natural
stupidity.
--
All,
Without out
taking up too much of your time, itd
be great if you could take a look at http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/
and let me know anything that leaps in your face
Like many other things that look fine in one browser, but not in
others - this really just comes down to testing, doesn't it? I'm using
Firefox on Windows XP and it looks the same as your screenshot - so
it's not a platform issue. Not hard to test in this case.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:41:51
Thanks Peter
Just to make it
clear that P tag isnt always empty, its where messages
like Invalid Credentials appear. I should make the whole element
dynamic rather than just the content.
It certainly isnt
there for any presentation reason Ill look into what happens when
I make the
36 matches
Mail list logo
