On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, you're
> fine with clicking "back" 12 times to get back to the original site?
Ever notice that little down-pointing arrow next to the back button?
You know, the one that lists al
On 2/16/06 12:05 AM "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:
>> So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, you're
>> fine with clicking "back" 12 times to get back to the original site?
>
> Ever notice that little down-pointing arrow next to the back button?
> You
On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have that little down-pointing arrow (probably not using the same
> browser as you are). After 12 clicks, I probably wouldn't even remember the
> original site's title anyway.
I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have wit
Rick Faaberg:
All popup windows break the back
button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not).
So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window,
you're
fine with clicking "back" 12 times to get back to the original site?
Assuming of course that no-one else is opening w
On 2/16/06 1:22 AM "Philippe Wittenbergh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:
> Safari has this same functionality: onclick=> 1 step back;
> onmousedown=> popup menu with your recent widow history. I'm not sure
> how many steps it remembers, I never use Safari except for testing.
> Even then, there
On Feb 16, 2006, at 5:58 PM, James Bennett wrote:
I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have within arm's
reach (which includes all the popular browsers except Safari -- I
don't have a Mac here at home to refer to) implements some form of
extended Back functionality which displays
On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it
> and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-)
One click to close the window.
Two clicks to summon the appropriate "Back" functionality.
- - This is an automatic reply - -
I am out of the office until Monday 20 Feb.
If your email is regarding the University webite, please email [EMAIL
PROTECTED] in my absence, or contact:
Sarah Bell
Marketing Communications Manager
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t: 023 9284 2948
or
Paul Krycler
Web Cont
ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED
Reason:
There has been a lot of good points raised within this thread, on both
standards and usability. However, we have definitely moved away from
cooperative, useful advice on web standards practices towards strongly held
and vocal personal opinion.
Please do not continue
On 2/16/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They can of course continue in that new window - their choice.
>
> Their choice? *You're* the one who made their browser open a new window...
Yeah. That's MY (emphatically "my"... no wide
>
> It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it
> and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-)
>
Well, your audience will be where _they_ need to be, no matter how
many new window one may try to open to keep them.
If someone intends to k
There have been a lot of opinions expressed in this thread - lot's of
valid points and lots of invalid points. However, cutting through the
maze of details etc leads me to emphasise that when dealing with
accessibility (for the able as well as the disabled) one should always
approach web desig
Designer wrote:
Back button? I'd like to bet that >75% of users don't know what that is!
Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forfty
percent of all people know that.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussi
> There have been a lot of opinions expressed in this thread - lot's of
> valid points and lots of invalid points. However, cutting through the
> maze of details etc leads me to emphasise that when dealing with
> accessibility (for the able as well as the disabled) one should always
> approach web
> Back button? I'd like to bet
> that >75% of users don't know what that is!
Then how comes, that researches constantly show that
"Back" buttons is second most used navigational device,
first being clicking a link?
AFAIK first research on the subject was by Catledge and Pitkow in 1995[1]
then co
> Back button? I'd like to bet
> that >75% of users don't know what that is!
> But I repeat, we MUST start at the lowest common denominator and design
> for the 'ordinary' user so that the site is easy to use on day one, but
> as he/she becomes more literate he/she can use the options of their ow
Ian Anderson wrote:Name one for which a popup window is the only valid and, indeed, best solution!There is one very common use that makes great sense - online banks use this to open a new window (often full screen in size) for logging in with no menu bars or toolbars so users don't continue surfing
---"we MUST start at the lowest common denominator and design for the
'ordinary' user so that the site is easy to use on day one, but as he/she
becomes more literate he/she can use the options of their own choice."
I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain
hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, i got some great help
here allready for it.
..1st it dosnt validate right now but i will get it to pass after i address
some other issues.
the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant- here is
the original email.
-not sure
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://63.134.237.108/
>
> any feedback at all greatly appreciated
Table-based layout? Was that guy looking at the same site? Looks
pretty layout-table free to me...
You're missing a H1, which isn't great... wrap the header image in an
H1 element
blqberi wrote:
I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain my dept's
intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site
with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty, or
maybe these are less than ordinary use
I don't see what this person is complaining about. Are you sure he looked at
the right site?
I do see a table in your code that could easily be replaced and should be.
But in general, the home page didn't look bad.
I got a similar message from a client that had a friend look at the design.
The gu
kvnmcwebn wrote:
> hello i have a site that i need a bit of advice on, ...
> the site was critiqued rather harshly by a third party consultant-
> here is the original email.
> Well I had a very quick look at it and though visually the site is
> nice there are a couple of serious problems, I'm af
blqberi:
I agree, but just how low do you go?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -
Einstein.
.. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are
so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease...
unfortunately the adults using
I'd love to see the site of the third party consultant... come on... sneak
it into a message to us...
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:35 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] site
Joshua Street:
The BIGGEST thing I can see wrong with this site is the image map.
Nice site. Check the typos: Skip to nazvigation (top of page).
Outside of that I mostly agree with Josh except I'd like to see the
county names as plain text and positioned instead on the map instead of
as grap
I've been following this discussion with great interest.
I've taught HTML, CSS and JavaScript at a TAFE, but not as part of a
coding course, as part of a graphic design course. That's an
interesting environment in which to think about standards -- the
students were totally focused on design an
thanks guys,
Yes we did double check and make sure he checked the right site.
at first i thought he surely must have been checking the old site...
http://www.families.ie/
but no he was checking the right url.
The consultant is an employee of the irish government.nevermind i wont
go there.
I will do as josh suggested.
Actually using flash is a good idea for the maps especially as they are
going national and will have all counties in the republic on there.
The "you are here" is a breadcrumb that has yet to be programmed.
good idea on using positioned text instead of the image ma
Hi John,How long ago was this per chance?I find your comments very interesting because it's taken right from direct experience in formal web education (albeit to graphic designers at the time).In essense, higher/further education guidelines (IT/Graphic Design or otherwise) don't seem to be able to
One other thing... typo, "your are here »" above the imagemap.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice?
It must've been offlist, but I'd guess it was about fonts ;-) My
second opinion is "I agree"... he's generally right about such things!
**
The discus
kvnmcwebn:
Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice?
What did Felix advise?
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on po
What did Felix advise?
"He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility
problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in the
screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as one of
manners: 'body {font:75%...'. Browser makers provide users with
Terrence Wood wrote:
kvnmcwebn:
Can i get a second opinion on felix's advice?
What did Felix advise?
Stab in the dark: don't define font size below 100%...
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositive
kvnmcwebn wrote:
What did Felix advise?
"He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility
problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in the
screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as one of
manners: 'body {font:75%...'. Browser makers p
On 17 Feb 2006, at 1:31 PM, kvnmcwebn wrote:
What did Felix advise?
Let your visitors be able to use your site
without fighting through this rude and unnecessary basic
usability/accessibility obstacle. See:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html";
I didn't really need to ask... a
Title: Re: [WSG] Web design education
How long ago was this per chance?
Just last year.
In essense, higher/further education guidelines (IT/Graphic
Design or otherwise) don't seem to be able to bridge the gap between
basic 'HTML know-how' and 'Web Standards-friendly' web design
techniques.
To
On 17 Feb 2006, at 00:43, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
kvnmcwebn wrote:
What did Felix advise?
"He's right as far as he went. There's another serious accessibility
problem he didn't touch on, plus a corollary, which you can see in
the
screenshot. In your CSS is an accessibility issue, as well as
Yes but Patrick,
If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they
right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user
could increase the font as much as they like.
It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'.
L
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick H. Lau
Herrod, Lisa wrote:
Yes but Patrick,
If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they
right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user
could increase the font as much as they like.
It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'.
But only if the button for "larg
Herrod, Lisa wrote:
Yes but Patrick,
If you provide the user with a Javascript pop-up window that they
right-click to display a pretty flash-based font-increasing app, the user
could increase the font as much as they like.
It's known as the 'Clydesdale Hack'.
L
Oh, Lisa Herrod came to town
I've always wanted my own theme song.
I believe I have finally arrived.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 17 February 2006 12:27 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] site check: FONT sizes
>
>
> Herrod, Lisa wrote:
> >
Stephen Stagg wrote Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:02:11 +:
> On 17 Feb 2006, at 00:43, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> > It's just a shame that people who pay for web design usually insist
> > on the smaller text sizes, because historically 99% of web sites in
> > the wild have tended to serve a slightly r
I think that requires a purchase order felix.
> -Original Message-
> From: Felix Miata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Please tell us which combination(s) of display size and resolution and
> at which DPI values your description applies to:
>
> 13" on 800x600
> 14" on 800x600
> 15" on 800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been following this discussion with great interest.
I've taught HTML, CSS and JavaScript at a TAFE, but not as part of a
coding course, as part of a graphic design course. That's an
interesting environment in which to think about standards -- the
students were to
On 2/16/06, James Gollan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It would be great, however, if there was a course that started taking
> responsibility for the different aspect of web design in a far more
> holistic way right from the begiinning.
I think in terms of four year or two year programs, especial
47 matches
Mail list logo
