Re: [WSG] Help with menu

2005-11-15 Thread Charlie Bartlett
Because it is a hack, I tend to use the same technique as Joesph, I think its best to avoid hacks wherever possible. Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 11/15/05, The Visual Process [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm confused at your suggestion, why add extra markup when you just needto use the

Re: [WSG] Help with menu

2005-11-15 Thread Charlie Bartlett
moaning at me because their sites have suddenly stopped working. This technique is far more future proof, and allthough its not semantically perfect, i prefer it to having unnecessary voice selectors in your style sheet. On 11/15/05, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charlie Bartlett wrote

Re: [WSG] Firefox :hover font-weight: bold

2005-11-18 Thread Charlie Bartlett
also are you certain you have closed all your a tag's? Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 11/19/05, James Gollan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: its not to do with a bold font taking up more space and shifting otherelements?Stuart Sherwood wrote: Does anyone have any experience with a bug in

Re: [WSG] jump menu method

2005-11-20 Thread Charlie Bartlett
If you have to do it this way, and like everyone else I don't recommend it, then you could help the SEO by adding the pages in link tags to the head. see http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_link.asp for more info. Cheers Charlie web : http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Re: [WSG] More on character encoding

2005-11-23 Thread Charlie Bartlett
this link might help http://www.remote.org/jochen/mail/info/chars.html Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 11/23/05, Jona Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am assuming there are other web developers in Exchange environmentsthat might have some insight into a problem I'm having. It's

Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions

2005-12-15 Thread Charlie Bartlett
This might help you, Screen Res is near the bottom somewhere. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.aspThe latest figures are for July, so its a little out of date. I agree with Bobs point though, it interesting that we used to design for 800x600 so all our visitors could read our

Re: [WSG] Technical Aberrations?

2006-01-16 Thread Charlie Bartlett
Heres another link that might help, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/ Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 1/15/06, Rob Mientjes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/01/06, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The simplebits is very interesting. But it seems angled images in a list that

Re: [WSG] .htm include file into another .htm

2006-01-18 Thread Charlie Bartlett
They work fine on IIS in windows, as long as yourusing .shtml or .asp as yourfile extension. As long as the code in the file you are calling is standards compliant,it doesn't make any difference how you call it. The browser will justtreat the code as if it were part of the calling page, just like

Re: [WSG] site check

2006-02-17 Thread Charlie Bartlett
On 2/17/06, kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://63.134.237.108/ This enables a blind user to see the document and navigate it easily. Can your consultant find a cure for world hunger, as well as enabling the blind to see? ;-) ** The