RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-21 Thread Jason Turnbull
Terrence Wood wrote: Jakob Nielsen responded to my request for clarification Jacob has used this request for his latest article http://www.useit.com/alertbox/within_page_links.html Regards Jason ** The discussion list for

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-10 Thread Terrence Wood
My sincerist apologies to Thierry, his interpretation of Nielsen was indeed correct. And thanks, I have certainly learnt something With reference to the articles Thierry cited earlier Jakob Nielsen responded to my request for clarification as follows: Does this imply that links to

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said: Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Al Sparber
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency* Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of links to resources within a page is a convention for

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Terrence Wood
Al Sparber: Very distracting Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first and you must scroll to get the first screen of content? - even more so when there are mixed links some scroll to another point, others load new documents. Agreed. This is really about consistency

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Paul Novitski
At 12:22 PM 2/9/2006, Al Sparber wrote: Getting away from the FAQ thing to links within documents, I find that sort of navigation almost as annoying as popup windows. It might very well be a convention, but I do consider it a negative for usability. Very distracting - even more so when there

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Al Sparber
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al Sparber: Very distracting Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first and you must scroll to get the first screen of content? For me, it's any link that scrolls the page. I'm old enough to get disoriented, I guess. The

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. Further, you are defending

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles or that I am plain wrong? Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. Further, you are defending

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Al Sparber
From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] If a web designer further distinguished between links that jump within a page vs. those that load a new page, would that obviate your objection? It would mitigate it. I find it easier to tolerate a FAQ or Q/A thing if it's apparent that all of the

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Jay Gilmore
Hey Tierry and Terrance, This is a respectful suggestion. Since Jakob Nielsen is not dead and Useit.com is not the King James Bible, Talmud, Torah, Quaran etc., why not email him and get his opinion on this. In fact, I asked his opinion on this recent adlinks phenomena just today, where

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said: Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. So you keep saying, but your actions are different. you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an entirely new

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-09 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion based on that misintrepretation. I disagree. So you keep saying, but your actions are different. I'm not sure I agree with that. Please see the bottom of this message. you use

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said: Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list said so? It's a pretty common design pattern, and no-one challenged it. But discuss vs. mention is a pedantic argument - let's move on. USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading a new document in the same browser window. News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling USEIT doesn't support you on this point either. Links that don't behave as expected undermine

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said: A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be missing some subtle nuances here Yes, you have completely missed the point of the recommendation. You are misquoting a

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-08 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another part of the same document. Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are talking about not opening new

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Justin Carter said: It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on the

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] Justin Carter said: It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =) Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been discussed in this thread. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Al Sparber said: I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh? Your foo beats mine Al =) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] Al Sparber said: I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food markets in America

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =) Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been discussed in this thread. Which one are you referring to? A serie of anchor links at the

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Thierry Koblentz said: AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed; Please. I don't think it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and what about semantic? Why not? And what about semantics? I believe the document is more coherent with the answers following the questions rather

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Al Sparber
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list is the semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's. The heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers), and it avoids the whole Q/A is not a

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Joshua Street
On 2/8/06, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-) http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/ Hmm... it'd be nicer if there weren't anchor tags in there/the H3 were used directly. Not being amazingly JavaScript saavy, is there a

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Terrence Wood
Al Sparber said: Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-) http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/ Presume you are talking to me? Don't get me wrong Al, I love the interactive aspect of the net and that is, in fact, what drew me to it in the first place. I'm not going

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-07 Thread Thierry Koblentz
Terrence Wood wrote: Thierry Koblentz said: AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed; Please. Please what? I'm sorry but AFAIK when this option came up nobody mentionned its pros and cons. Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list said so? If I remember correctly, there

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread R Walker (RMW Web Publishing)
A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to a keyword they are looking for.

RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread WINTER-GILES,Ben
DEWR.gov.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Samuel Richardson
] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason

RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread WINTER-GILES,Ben
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up] Just because a large subset of your users don't use a particular function on your web browser is not a good justification to disable

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Samuel Richardson
Replies in body, And if the toggles are done correctly I understand that the find functions will still behave correctly, because the headings will have appropriate key words in them anyway. Presuming of course you have them written descriptively. Your effectively disabling it because it is

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Al Sparber
From: Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zah? I thought this was about showing/hiding content within divs. Not matter how well written your content/headings whatever, you shouldn't disable parts of the browser interface. I've read that sentence above about three times and I can't understand

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Thierry Koblentz
R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) wrote: A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature. Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Justin Carter
It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on the page.

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Jan Brasna
A short script could check past # ... as eg. Moo.FX does - http://moofx.mad4milk.net/#introduction So it's pretty easy to add. -- Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net ** The discussion list for

Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-06 Thread Christian Montoya
On 2/7/06, Justin Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read

RE: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]

2006-02-02 Thread Focas, Grant
It's very nice Thierry. IE/Mac cannot access it via keyboard though. The only way I see around it is: a) Ignore IE/Mac as it's now officially unsupported b) Add an onkeypress event, check for enter key, do stuff. Messy. Grant -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL