Re: [WSG] Dreamweaver : was [ Standards Macromedia Contribute]

2004-12-16 Thread heretic
Hi, Michael Wilson wrote: What would you consider to be the key standards and accessibility settings for Dreamweaver that some of us might be overlooking? The settings I recommend to people at work Accessibility tab: Enable all of the Show Attributes when Inserting options Code Format

Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute

2004-12-16 Thread heretic
You can edit pages which contain SSI's, just not any of the content IN the SSI's. This is the perfect way to lock parts of the design you don't want the client to touch. No need for DW Templates at all! :) Slightly OT, but anyway: Is there a way to get DW to display the contents of SSIs on a

Re: [WSG] Dreamweaver : was [ Standards Macromedia Contribute]

2004-12-15 Thread heretic
Hi all (hmm, this would be a de-lurk..), Also, I must admit I'm growing rather weary of all the negative remarks about Dreamweaver. From my humble perspective I use Dreamweaver MX 2004 I must say I agree. As with all tools, you find out how best to use them and what (if any) downsides there

Re: [WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4

2004-12-21 Thread heretic
Hi Nick, We successfully moved NN4 off our primary support list a couple of years ago, despite the lingering in-house installs due to NN4 once upon a time being the standard browser. My thoughts on your situation I have a requirements document here that I'm quoting for, that mentions that

Re: [WSG] Is sending abusive spam doing standards good or harm?

2005-01-04 Thread heretic
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html Effective design principles would dictate that the whole point of the page is to get the information to the target audience, but really does it? Its offensively written, rude, long and even a bit angry I've seen this page before and

Re: [WSG] being framed!

2005-01-04 Thread heretic
I'm having a bit of trouble using frames without a border and getting the frameset to validate. This may be of interest http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2003/03/04/swf_seeking_vwm.html Hard as it is to accept, borderless framesets just won't validate. The best thing to do is go for something

Re: [WSG] Intro and first question

2005-01-05 Thread heretic
hi, I haven't spent a lot of time worrying about the disabled or impaired users of my projects because of the youth-focussed intent of them. Just a thought on demographics: there are plenty of young people with relevant disabilities. Plus there are people with technological disadvantages or

Re: [WSG] ATO - shame shame shame...

2005-01-06 Thread heretic
I just fired that page up in NN7, but rejected their applet/certificate. I got this priceless error message: You have chosen not to trust the ATO. Please close all browser windows and start again. You know, I never did trust the ATO ;) Can I sue the ATO over this - like the SOCOG case. I

Re: [WSG] Slightly OT... Interview with IE Dev team

2005-01-06 Thread heretic
How does microsoft benefit by offering IE at all? It's free. Updates are free. It costs them bandwidth for downloads and updates. It costs them staff time to code, fix, patch, etc. and they don't get a dime off it. Rhetorical I guess but it's a good point. MS benefits from ubiquity. MS

Re: [WSG] Site Tracking and Validation

2005-01-10 Thread heretic
Hi, SO, question... is there a tracker that I can use that will still allow my page to validate? On some sites where I have no server log access, I use Nedstats (http://www.nedstatbasic.net/service/) with my own rewritten version of their code. Validates ok and gives reasonable info. It does

Re: [WSG] Has news.com.au redesigned to Standards?

2005-01-23 Thread heretic
I had a pleasant surprise this morning when I saw this redesign. Good to see another big site making the effort. Mmm, I had a pleasant surprise; followed by disappointment; followed by a rude shock; followed by sustained aggravation. Pleasant surprise: hey, looks nice. Disappointment: not a

Re: [WSG] standards and meta tags

2005-02-03 Thread heretic
[meta-data] Good Lord! You could spend your whole life devoted to this area! :-) you could, very easily. in fact, if you have major questions about meta-data i recommend asking a librarian :) when you get into serious meta-data and controlled vocabularies, you discover an entire industry. h

Re: [WSG] XHTML Strict alternative to ol start=11

2005-02-07 Thread heretic
Hi there, ol start=11liFirst result/li liSecond.../li ... /ol My two cents: use this method. It's one of those times that the standards are too strict without providing a robust alternative (more the fault of browsers than standards, though). I would support the idea of using Transitional

Re: [WSG] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread heretic
This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I know

Re: [WSG] Peoplesoft and standards

2005-02-10 Thread heretic
Hi there, I am not too sure where else to ask about this. I have recently been part of discussions about the Peoplesoft application that we and many Universities use (not my fault) and its adherence to accessibility recommendations, and web standards. Peoplesoft claims to adhere to section

Re: [WSG] accessibilty and responsibility

2005-02-10 Thread heretic
Hi all, Jumping in on all these architectural analogies... nobody seems to have made this point: ultimately EVERYONE has some level of responsibility, since everyone is and will remain involed. Let's continue the analogy, for a new building: 1) The government sets out physical access

Re: [WSG] accessible ways to avoid spam

2005-02-23 Thread heretic
I'm wondering if any of you have any tips on creative ways to keep spambots from harvesting email addresses on you page, and still keep then accessable to diabled people and text-browsers. Here's my thoughts If you only need to protect a small number of email addresses, there's another

Re: [WSG] SEO, Semantics, and Web Standards

2005-02-24 Thread heretic
hi, I recently paid a visit to a certain SEO forum and had a look at the forums there. Whilst reading the threads, I couldn't help but be shocked and appalled at the FUD being spread there. Most SEO seems to be either complete FUD or ideas with very questionable sources/backup info.

[WSG] Re: you've been framed!

2005-03-28 Thread heretic
Let me get it off my chest - I use frames sometimes! You're not alone, although admittedly I didn't get to make the decision :) However, what I want to know is, which browsers don't support frames? As far as I know all of the common browsers support frames, but you're forgetting that it's

[WSG] Re: Hidden Content

2005-03-30 Thread heretic
Flash actually is searchable. Hmm. Does it have to be a specific version of flash, built a specific way? Just thinking of claims that flash is accessible, which actually means flash mx can be accessible if the developer really knows what they are doing; and the user knows how to use it, has the

[WSG] Re: Hidden Content[This Was Not My Idea]

2005-03-30 Thread heretic
Sometimes I think this web design game is more like a (neurotic) jigsaw puzzle than an intelligent occupation :-) *laughs* ... only sometimes? ;) h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson

Re: [WSG] skip flash intro question

2005-04-17 Thread heretic
hi there, I'm wondering if a site would be more accessible if the flash intro (never mind how it's a bad idea to have a flash intro!) skipped automatically if the viewer had seen the intro before. I'm also wondering if I could detect browser for the sight impaired and skip the intro then

Re: [WSG] Skip Navigation Visibility

2005-04-17 Thread heretic
Oh Damn, I guess I will have to make it visible again. I have only tested it on FF, IE6 and IE5. FYI, on the first tab Opera 8 beta 3 jumps to the name input at the bottom. h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson

Re: [WSG] Mystical belief in the power of Web Standards, Usability, and tableless CSS

2005-04-20 Thread heretic
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/biggest-web-design-mistakes-in-2004.html What do you think? Well... the piece would would have made sense if his point was you still need to do this, but you need to filter the way you tell the client. Instead, the implication here is that we should stop

Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)

2005-04-21 Thread heretic
I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people

Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)

2005-04-21 Thread heretic
So, the point is, to say that 'Flash is awful because it's not accessible' and all that stuff is to completely miss the point - it isn't for folk with disabilities - the html option is. Surely? I'd say Flash is mostly a problem because it frequently breaks all usability and accessibility

Re: [WSG] Headings within ul Navigation

2005-05-05 Thread heretic
Does anyone know whether it's correct to use headings in your navigation? I'd say it's not correct; although I'd counterpoint by saying that nested lists imply the sort of structure I think you're trying to define. That is... the nested lists are one level down from the containing LI. So

Re: [WSG] realistic placement of 'high contrast' 'text too small?' links?

2005-05-10 Thread heretic
Hi Jamie, Aside from this though, the links are in the same size as the body text, wouldn't a high contrast link need to be massive and bold? There's no WAY anyone can do that on a high profile site, surely? What to do? Any help and ideas would be great, thanks in advance, I'd suggest

Re: [WSG] frames

2005-05-12 Thread heretic
hi, Can anyone tell me if/when it is 'OK' to use frames? Since the W3C spec still includes them, I wondered (if) when it was considered legit to employ them - on a par with tables, which are avoided at all costs, except when displaying 'tabular data'. So I assume the W3C have included

Re: [WSG] A way to skip a Flash-intro if Flash is not installed?

2005-05-24 Thread heretic
I thought that if Flash wasn't installed, the browser would prompt you to download and install it rather than just displaying the alternate content? Not necessarily - plus many browsers now give the option to *disable* the plugin which may result in different behaviour. For example I use

Re: [WSG] Definition lists for comments in blogs

2005-05-27 Thread heretic
dtAt x:xxpm so-and-so said:/dt ddblah blah blah/dd Accurate I suppose although I'm a bit undecided about numbering inserted as content. Similarly been thinking about markup for search engine results. ol liAt x:xxpm so-and-so said: blockquoteblah blah blah/blockquote /li /ol Thinking

Re: [WSG] Making PDF and Word files accessible

2005-06-03 Thread heretic
Hi there, My first question is that if I convert the PDF files to HTML to make them more accessible, am I right in thinking that this is only half my job done? If the original file wasn't marked up correctly in the first place before being saved as PDF (with headings, etc) does this mean

Re: [WSG] CSS List Separator

2005-06-14 Thread heretic
Wondering how we can get CSS to specifity the spearator used in ordered lists (ie: the thing between the list item number and the value of the list item). For example... As someone has already mentioned, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/generate.html#counters will eventually be the way to do

Re: [WSG] the use of reset buttons on forms

2005-06-14 Thread heretic
Seriously: how many people enter data into a form and go so completely wrong that they want to erase everything they have just done and start over new? Some users may want to do that; alternatively some users will change their minds about submitting at all and do not trust simply closing the

Re: [WSG] Followup to Tuesday's Brisbane Meeting

2005-06-19 Thread heretic
Sticks, carrots staying sane: An approach to standards advocacy in large organisations and very interesting it was. You are too kind ;) The presentation is online at http://weblog.200ok.com.au/2005/06/sticks-carrots-staying-sane.html and the video appears to have been successful, so

Re: [WSG] accesability and backwards compatibility - WAS [Hi there!]

2005-06-21 Thread heretic
requirement; I have said that if they want an accessible site written in CSS they can't have it looking exactly the same in older browsers that don't support CSS 2.0 unless I use 'old skool' presentation techniques. Has anyone else run into this problem? I suspect there are plenty of people,

Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad

2005-06-29 Thread heretic
We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain that (and what we

Re: [WSG] base css

2005-07-04 Thread heretic
plug Couldn't help myself ;) Patience is a virtue, young padawan ;) h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for

Re: [WSG] base css

2005-07-04 Thread heretic
Hi there, what are you guys using as a base css file to start a site with common hacks and what not? These days I invariably kick off with the global whitespace reset (hi Andrew!) http://leftjustified.net/journal/2004/10/19/global-ws-reset/ ...and some controlled whitespace settings. If I

Re: [WSG] base css

2005-07-05 Thread heretic
Hi, Hi Heretic, please explain this. How does setting a % for text-size in body prevent the appearance of smaller than 1em font sizes? Is 100% a good starting point for body? Enquiring minds want to know. Basically the idea is this: don't use settings smaller than 1em, for example don't set

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

2005-07-12 Thread heretic
Hi, Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in on the discussion. Are all other web standards folks on here really in agreement that (X)HTML is a visual language by design, or at least has a strong bias towards the visual? I would have thought not, but there you

Re: [WSG] Opening external links in popup windows with no extra markup

2005-07-31 Thread heretic
In a controlled input situation (eg: a web developer's blog), a solution like Patrick Lauke's 'type' link styling expermient ( http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/38/ ) adds more useful info to the markup and can be used the same way; but when a client is in control of the content you set

Re: [WSG] Does anyone still design for 640x480?

2005-08-03 Thread heretic
What sizes are you designing for? For the sites I work on, the majority of the audience has 1024x768 *or better*, but a significant amount (10-25% depending on the site) still have 800x600. So we design for 1024x768, but designs have to remain usable/functional at 800x600 without horizontal

Re: [WSG] Reason for leaving

2005-08-15 Thread heretic
Are the disabed really the main priority when it comes to web standards? Not exactly, they're just one of many groups that benefit. They happen to benefit quite a lot, of course.. :) Standards benefit pretty much everyone, whether they realise it or not. Standards compliant sites are

Re: [WSG] accessibility - opening new windows philosophy

2005-08-15 Thread heretic
Hi, We've had a discussion at work about pdf documents and hijacking the user's browser / making it more user-friendly. What is the general feeling towards having pdf and other non-html documents open in a new window? I view PDF, .MS Office documents etc as *non web content*. That is, they

Re: [WSG] Need recomendations for CMS system

2005-08-16 Thread heretic
I am looking for a CMS system that will produce code/mark-up that follows web standards. A lot of systems spits out tables and weird tags that doesn't validate. I'm mostly interested in freeware, but if I need to buy one to get such a system then that's fine too. I have been searching the net

Re: [WSG] Online Resources for HTML Beginners

2005-08-29 Thread heretic
Hi, http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ http://validator.w3.org/ I'm all for teaching students how to look up the answer, but in this case I also recommend they read http://www.alistapart.com/articles/readspec/ first so they have a better chance of understanding the answers :) I've never found a

Re: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar

2005-08-30 Thread heretic
Hi there, I ask the question partly tongue-in-cheek, but it does make me wonder iftools such as this should be the butt of responsibility? No, I'd say tools like this are workarounds for the failings of the native browser. You certainly can't start using pixels for sizing just because a user

Re: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar

2005-09-01 Thread heretic
It alleviates the problem, but realistically I still think designers are better off using relative units Just as a matter of clarification: pixels *are* a relative unithttp://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units However, they're relative to the screen resolution, rather than

Re: [WSG] label for=

2005-09-10 Thread heretic
I'm wondering about the use of the label tag in certain cases where thelabel relates to multiple fields. Is there a recommended practice here? Should each select box have itsown label? Yes, each one should have its own label; with the set grouped in a fieldset (with appropriate legend tag). Also,

Re: [WSG] wishing not for picky browsers (was) Barclays standards redesign

2005-09-14 Thread heretic
At 03:44 PM 9/7/2005, Christian Montoya wrote: I was actually thinking the other day, browsers should be more like compilers... they should refuse to parse incorrect code. Then the enforcement would be on the output end, too. Why on earth would I want to use a browser that refused to show me

Re: [WSG] Click here--reference

2005-09-19 Thread heretic
linked. Does anyone know a rule I can point to (and send my client to read) re accessibility and click here? Dey Alexander has a neat and concise paper on the issue - http://www.deyalexander.com/papers/clickhere.html Covers usability and readability as well as accessibility. cheers, h -- ---

Re: [WSG] Opera 8.5 released, now no registration fee ad-free permanently

2005-09-20 Thread heretic
Yes, Opera has gone insane with happiness and have released their browser free, without an ad bar permanently. I guess it was inevitable. Yeah, to really get competitive they needed to go free. People might use their browser pretty much constantly, but it doesn't occur to them that perhaps

Re: [WSG] WE05 - who's going?

2005-09-27 Thread heretic
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

Re: [WSG] Emulating text browser

2005-10-25 Thread heretic
Hi there, One of the Technical Guidelines is to use a text browser such as Lynx to ... But recently I found that the Opera browser has an option to view your web in the way a text browser should do ( View/Style/User/Emulate Text Browser). Do anyone knows if the Lynx's browser is something

Re: [WSG] Emulating text browser

2005-10-25 Thread heretic
Does anyone actually use lynx anymore though Actually I know someone who uses it on a daily basis, due to an extremely limited network/bandwidth quota at his workplace. He can't install a second browser (locked down desktop), and he has to keep IE set up for sites that don't work without

Re: [WSG] to border or not to border, that is the question

2005-10-31 Thread heretic
Hi, However, today I disabled styles on a fairly complicated table and realized it made very little sense without any demarcation between the cells. It would be simple enough to do table border=1. I've found that tables really need a border to make sense, much the same as a fieldset needs the

Re: [WSG] standards, accessability and validation?

2005-11-01 Thread heretic
i dont know if i will be able to sell them on it. I was going to try the angle that web standards are helpful/essential for accessability-which they get alot of requests for these days. The programmers dont want me to do any coding or as little as possible-so as not to step on thier toes. If

Re: [WSG] standards, accessability and validation?

2005-11-01 Thread heretic
That and clean XHTML is easier to hand-code than tables... Without wanting to open a can of worms here; how so? Do you mean in conjunction with CSS, or just that XHTML markup is cleaner than that of HTML? Just that XHTML markup is faster to type by hand than nested tables and font tags. Most

Re: [WSG] advices for using headings more correctly

2005-11-02 Thread heretic
Hi there, One reason there is so much debate is the HTML 4.01 spec actually whimps out of making a call ;) In other words, it doesn't actually say if skipping a level is wrong; it just says some people think it's wrong. What the spec DOES say is that the headings are ordered from 1 to 6 in order

Re: [WSG] starting ordered lists from a number other than 1

2005-11-23 Thread heretic
the first, for example: ol start=40 li divtext info in here/div /li What do people suggest? I'd vote for: ol start=40 litext info in here/li /ol I think the specs should not have deprecated the attribute - breaking up huge lists into separate pages is entirely legit, which means the

Re: [WSG] Oracle/Peoplesoft and accessibility/standard code

2005-12-04 Thread heretic
Hi there, - Does anyone know of an accessible PeopleSoft built application? I haven't heard of one which is what I would call accessible :) - Has the issue of PeopleSoft generated code been an issue or is the responsibility that of the company using it? The PS code is all tables and bad

Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards

2005-12-08 Thread heretic
What, when I can whinge on a mailing list? No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;) OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :) Yeah, good luck finding usable contact details on their site ;) As far as I can tell, Google doesn't write

Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards

2005-12-08 Thread heretic
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :) Interesting timing rumour is that http://www.google.com/ig is going to become their new My Google style portal page. The markup still stinks. h -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

2005-12-12 Thread heretic
A desperate attempt to simplify: CSS Driven: No presentational markup, no semantic markup used improperly for presentational purposes. CSS handles all presentation. Not CSS Driven: Lots of presentational markup, but CSS for font sizes and colors. For this thread I'd add Either one can use

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

2005-12-12 Thread heretic
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) One quick comment on this... I always write must in draft policy documents; but

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

2005-12-13 Thread heretic
As for a standards-based page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against this page - keeping strictly within the context of standards: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm I would

Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?

2005-12-13 Thread heretic
I would pose the counter question: agreeing that it could have been done easily enough in CSS, why use a table? No arguments for the table? :) Fair enough. Of course, my opinion differs in that I believe that there is no standard mandating that a table not be used for layout. Personally

Re: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms

2005-12-13 Thread heretic
[snip] ACRONYM and ABBR I take a fairly simplistic view on this one: 1) Future standards only include ABBR. 2) Acronyms are a form of abbreviation. 3) For the sake of good writing, you should spell out the full term on first use anyway. That covers bad browsers, too. so, I just use ABBR

Re: [WSG] Frames ?

2005-12-15 Thread heretic
I have a client who wants to set up his business site in such a way that his logo and business presence is always maintained when the client visits a link to one of the manufacturers that my client represents. ... Now, I am not a proponent of frames, but this sounds like frames to me. Is

Re: [WSG] Source Attribution for data tables

2005-12-18 Thread heretic
Hi, Should the caption be changed to include the attribution? Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators (source: Foo Corp 2005) I'd go with this solution. It's a logical place for attribution and it doesn't really go anywhere else without losing specific association with the table contents. h --

Re: [WSG] Form editor that doesn't use tables for layout

2006-01-08 Thread heretic
Hi, I've recently put online a free visual form editor that allows the creation of html forms without using tables for layout and I'd appreciate any suggestions for the editor and the html/css code it generates. Once I had added a couple of items it wasn't clear to click to the next tab to

Re: [WSG] small screen rendering

2006-01-19 Thread heretic
I have just discovered the 'small screen rendering' tool in Firefox (web developer toolbar). Am I right in thinking this is an attempt to show what a site looks like on a mobile device or similar? Is it a good guide? etc. That's the theory, but with the vagaries of handheld/small screen

Re: [WSG] mailto: and email-subjects

2006-01-28 Thread heretic
Always use example.com, example.org or example.net in examples in the Heh I never knew about those! You learn something every day :) thanks! h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson

Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

2006-01-30 Thread heretic
My question is: is web-standards really considered a part of the professionalism of web people considering that even the IT media (AustralianIT) ignores this aspect? Well, yes. The IT Media really haven't caught on to standards. That doesn't mean web professionals haven't, or shouldn't. I'd

Re: [WSG] Web Standards Shetland Ponies

2006-01-31 Thread heretic
Hi there, I've been on this list since returning from WE05 in Sydney last October, hoping that the same feeling of sharing and openness would prevail. It does to a certain extent, but the few glaring exceptions have tended to put me off posting to the list. I doubt an email list could ever

Re: [WSG] IE7 Now what?

2006-02-01 Thread heretic
You should seriously consider how you are doing your CSS right now and how you should begin planning for the not so distant future of IE6 being the minority browser. Microsoft wants to ditch IE6. IE7 will be part of a service pack upgrade to xp and as part of the fabled vista platform. Just

Re: [WSG] Web Standards Shetland Ponies

2006-02-01 Thread heretic
I wanted to understand why this happened. Is standards only really something a small contingent of geeky developers go for? I think it's fair to say that standards developers are still the minority, but that doesn't make them wrong. What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not

Re: [WSG] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.

2006-02-05 Thread heretic
So here is the question: What are the benefits of web standards for small business that can be sufficiently measured in results for the business both in the long and short term? I've been thinking a bit about this one... Actually, I think some of the benefits touted for large-scale sites

Re: [WSG] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.

2006-02-06 Thread heretic
The problem is that many small/micro businesses don't see it (y)our way. They only see the shiny coat of paint, not the rust underneath it, or the engine under the bonnet. Bombarding them with technical jargon isn't going to help. They just see a web page in their browser. It either looks

Re: [WSG] Opera Labs and Opera 9 Preview 2

2006-02-07 Thread heretic
I just noticed Opera have opened the Opera Labs page and they now have Opera 9 Preview 2 available for testing. The site has minimal content at the moment (after all it just opened) but there is a short speil on Opera supported web standards and the direction they are heading in:

Re: [WSG] Opera Labs and Opera 9 Preview 2

2006-02-07 Thread heretic
Maybe the standards community prefer to ride ponies instead of real race-horses? ;-) Must be something to do with keeping nearer the earth. Opera spoils web developers, and makes Internet Explorer (and Firefox, to a lesser extent) that much more shocking ;-) hehehehh ahhh dear, we're the

Re: [WSG] Address Element

2006-02-19 Thread heretic
Hi there, Dear WSG members, I'm a bit confused about the correct use for address-element. W3C documentation states that it should be used to supply contact information for a document or a major part of a document such as a form.. Now as I'm working on phone (and address) directories, I am

Re: [WSG] A legitimate case for pop-ups

2006-02-20 Thread heretic
I never thought the day would come when there actually was a legitimate use for pop-ups! It's legitimate to use pop-ups, if a court judge orders you to :) http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18214048%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html I suspect the judge is confused about pop ups versus

Re: [WSG] Confusing the users...

2006-02-21 Thread heretic
Or do we just dumb everything down until we have some small subset that everyone understands? I've often found the Nielsen goes too far - beyond make it more usable, through to make it more stupid or even cater to such a low common denominator that average users actually start to get

Re: [WSG] Should logo not link to the homepage?

2006-02-23 Thread heretic
I would like to ask your opinion here, if a web site logo should or not link to the homepage. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of users who do click the logo - especially if it's placed at the top left of the page. It's not a standard, but it's a common design element which many users pick up very