Hi Ben,
cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in the pre-signoff phase
I agree - that's why I questioned it. With my internal clients a little
naive displaying this long list of 'pieces of functionality' broken down it
conveys the impression that there's a lot of 'extra' work involved.
2008/11/21 Rob Enslin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Ben,
cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in the pre-signoff phase
I agree - that's why I questioned it. With my internal clients a little
naive displaying this long list of 'pieces of functionality' broken down it
conveys the impression
Rob -
What I would interpret that to mean is that, by clicking on the link
in the footer, the visitor will be presented the content either
without any graphics or without any graphics or CSS. If it were
merely a matter of the CSS being removed, that shouldn't be a
billable item. However,
Rob Enslin wrote:
I'm involved in a CMS-based website project where the supplier has
provided me with a breakdown of costs - before I sign it off.
One of the items highlighted in the breakdown is a footer-accessed link
for a text-only version. The supplier claims it's the same technology
@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Rob -
What I would interpret that to mean is that, by clicking on the link in the
footer, the visitor will be presented the content either without any
graphics or without any graphics or CSS. If it were merely a matter of the
CSS being
Steve Green wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
Unless you set your user agent to do that, because presumably that's
something you'd need on all sites, not just one particular one.
P
--
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: 20 November 2008 20:54
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Steve Green wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes
Steve Green wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
CSS is quite capable of that.
The following works fine in Opera 9.62 (the only browser I've bothered
to test for this proof of concept).
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you can't
do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
Does this solve some problem?
--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.net
November 2008 21:07
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
Does
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: 20 November 2008 21:06
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Steve Green wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images
Hi Patrick,
Appreciate the feedback - thought as much, but always worth checking
with the pros.
Best,
--Rob
On 20 Nov 2008, at 20:39, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Rob Enslin wrote:
I'm involved in a CMS-based website project where the supplier has
provided me with a
November 2008 21:33
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Steve Green
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
Does
Do you think it's a service I should be paying for? Although not expensive,
I'm wondering why the 'functionality' needs to be highlighted at all?
Surely, it's the same as saying we'll charge you separately for css or html
markup?
I'm naturally cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in
14 matches
Mail list logo
