On 9/26/05 10:24 PM Jake Badger [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
I'll be there
http://www.flickr.com/photos/webessentials/44913770/
Hi,
Could anyone fill out more photos' legends? S' cool to match some names with
faces, since I'm here in USA and will never be able to go to WE and meet you
Me too^H^H^HWhy yes, I'll be there :)
Will be doing a little 'live-bloggin' on http://notinteractive.com/
and more professional coverage on http://leftjustified.net/
Man, is this conference going to be buzzword compliant or what.
WE05! Comin' atcha! We got podcasts! We got liveblogs! We got
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:18:42 +1000, Webmaster wrote:
So who's going to the Web Essnetials conference this week?
I'm going!
Russ is making me work though fake grumble so I'll be the tall
redhead with the Welcome! smile ;)
Lea
~ no photos here!
--
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems -
Ok - just so I've got this right
We hold up your middle 3 fingers in a 'W' shape and touch tips as a secret handshake, whilst saying youve been on this list *how* long and your site still uses tables?Got it.
I think Dean's classic W3C comment from WE04would make a goodpassword Most people
In the interests of not boring the 95% of the list who aren't going,
I've set up a Discuss thread.
So thread closed, please, and go to
http://discuss.webstandardsgroup.org/archives/22.htm
to comment and see what all the other attendees are doing :)
Lea
~ yes, yes, I know I should have done
Big Thanks also to Thomas Marban from Austria who went to the trouble to set
up a WE05 Wiki.
http://futurefarm.net/we05/
Sorry, it only happened in the last 24 hours or so and we've been kinda busy
here setting everything up.
P
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,on a new site I am working on (http://www.fortuneinteractive.com/) inMozilla/FF. you get the horizontal and vertical scroll bars on some of the pagesand I know
the reason why. It is because I am overflow:auto on my content div. Iadded this after googling and finding this was a float
Hi Bruce
Try floating the content div instead. I've
often found this to be the easiest fix. A floated parent will contain its
floated children.
I've been writing a document for my
fellow programmers about nested lists and if write parent/child one more time I
think I'm going to change
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on the flash thing. I love CSS for
yet another reason whenever I add flash to a site, since it usually
involves a background image the same size as the movie, which when large
(wider than 400px) can add to the wait time for the movie to run
considerably.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:18:16 -0400, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
CSS solution: Put the flash movie into a div, then set the big
background image you'd use for the movie as the background image on the
div. Bang! Flash movie much smaller, loads much faster, big image
Validated the pages. Most were fine, actually, but there was a shocker
where I'd not closed a whole load of links and that was the page that
was really mis-behaving!! Thanks, again
AdamOn 9/26/05, Adam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Christain. I didn't think of doing that.
Adam
On
Thanks Ted,
not sure I am understanding you correctly, though. Say you have a parent div you would to extend the length of your content, and within that parent div you have a div at the top that you want to not float, but fit the width of the parent, and below the top child div, you have two more
#wrap{float:left;}
#header {}
#maincontent {float:right; width:49%;}
#sidebar{float:left; width:49%}
#footer {clear:both;}
div id="wrap"
div id="header/div
div id=""maincontent"/div
div id="sidebar"/div
/div
div id="footer"/div
Is this what you mean?
It's a very basic
Hi Adam
On a side note, I like the blue colors but
I get confused as a user with your use of orange on charisma throughout the
page. I keep thinking it is a link. Your actual links are white, the same color
as the text.
I find the site difficult to read and
explore. I would at
Hi Adam
I just sent a message about your linking
colors and then looked at your source code. Here's another suggestion I
would make for you.
li class=liststrongThe Energetics of Charisma/strongbr Delegates are introduced to span class=orangeCharisma/spanspan class=boldlab/span's
On 9/28/05, Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:18:16 -0400, Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
CSS solution: Put the flash movie into a div, then set the big
background image you'd use for the movie as the background image on the
div. Bang! Flash
that's more or less what I am doing, but
take a look at this page in FF
http://www.fortuneinteractive.com/About.htm
scroll bars are there, if I take out overflow:auto in CSS on div#text_area
it looks even worse cuz, in FF the div only extends as far as the #right_block_content on some pages.
Hi Bruce
I can't answer your question
immediately, due to time constraints. But my first suggestion is to simplify
your css to see where things are happening. Here's a snippet of the first
few rules:
/*global structure elements */body { margin: 0; padding: 0; color: #333; font:
The download time for the movie itself to start is reduced, obviously
everything still needs to download, but in the sense where I don't need
the image right away in the movie its swell.
Joe
Tom Livingston wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:18:16 -0400, Joseph R. B. Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another added thought is using flash detection to change the background
image if flash isn't seen via javascript, the replacement image can be
the same as the background image but with some text on it that emulates
what the flash would've been.
Joseph R. B. Taylor
Sites by Joe, LLC
408 Route
Well I don't know if everyone else is the die-hard fan of this group that I
am but I thought a forehead tattoo with 'WSG' would do the trick.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Herrod, Lisa
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2005 3:09 PM
To:
Andrew
I'd much rather use a limited palette PNG via CSS than cross my
fingers and hope that Flash's JPEG algorithm doesn't destroy my image
Agreed the jpg comppressor in flash is brutal on lower and med quality but
why not use the png in flash?
Obviously this wouldnt work if
Your thoughts please:
Let's say I have the classic 2 column layout with header and footer. I
always try to sneak an H1 within the header, but sometimes it doesn't
work within that context. That forces me to do one of 2 things.
1. Put the H1 in there, but set it's display to none on the
-Original Message-
From: Joseph R. B. Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:07 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Hiding Headings
Your thoughts please:
Let's say I have the classic 2 column layout with header and
footer. I
Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
1. Put the H1 in there, but set it's display to none on the style
sheet.
2. Set the header overflow to hidden, then set the top padding on the
H1 to be a pixel more than the header's height - thereby hiding the
heading text.
One problem I discovered with the
On 9/27/05, Nick Gleitzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
1. Put the H1 in there, but set it's display to none on the style
sheet.
2. Set the header overflow to hidden, then set the top padding on the
H1 to be a pixel more than the header's height - thereby
Psh, left? Do top:h1 {position: absolute;top: -1px;}No need to risk the embarrasment of having the h1 element seen on a 12,000 pixel resolution screen.
On 9/27/05, Lance Willett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/05, Nick Gleitzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: 1. Put
Don't both these solutions still have the same issue with
Firefox's ability to drag content areas?
Has display:none become un-PC of
late?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian
MontoyaSent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:53 PMTo:
Search Engines don't care which part of your layout the H1 is in.
They will care how close to the top of the source code it is though.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
I don't think b/b is valid. Just do another span, with { font-weight:bold; }And yes, the DL is much better.
On 9/27/05, Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Adam
I just sent a message about your linking
colors and then looked at your source code. Here's another suggestion I
On 9/27/05, Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't both these solutions still have the same issue with Firefox's ability
to drag content areas?
Has display:none become un-PC of late?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Heal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 1:02 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding Headings
Search Engines don't care which part of your layout the H1 is in.
They will care how close to the top of
Christian Montoya wrote:
I don't think b/b is valid. Just do another span, with {
font-weight:bold; }
b tags are still valid in xhtml1.0 strict, but they don't posess any
semantic value, which is why moving to strong is the preferred mark-up.
Actually... if I think about it... I am not a big fan of messing
with search
engine rankings either. Dumping headings all over the place just to
get a
better ranking is banned from search engines for a good reason.
That and having more headers - I would imagine - essentially dilute
how
Oh, great. So my skip links shouldn't be inside such a div then? :*
So I have now changed the top of my page code to read:
!-- old browser help --
div class=hide
pThis site will look much better in a browser that supports a
href=http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/;
title=Download a
But doesn't that depend on what you're using the bold tag for? There are
times, for instance - when you might want something to appear bold
visually, but it wouldn't need to be spoken louder/emphasized for a
screen reader, which - if I'm not mistaken, reads strong differently
than it would
Oh, it *is* valid. I was mistaken... I'll have to remember that. How do screen readers handle b and i ? Do they really ignore those tags? Just wondering because I know screen readers tend not to follow the rules.
I've read in several places that yes, screen readers ignore b and
i . However, as I don't have a screen reader, nor do I know any
facilities with one that I could use for testing purposes - I really
have absolutely no idea. lol.
Christian Montoya wrote:
Oh, it *is* valid. I was
On 9/28/05, Reeka Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But doesn't that depend on what you're using the bold tag for? There are
times, for instance - when you might want something to appear bold
visually, but it wouldn't need to be spoken louder/emphasized for a
screen reader, which - if I'm not
39 matches
Mail list logo
