> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: WSG Digest
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:51:13 +1000
>
> *********************************************************************
> WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST
> *********************************************************************
>
>
> From: MichaelMD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:37:04 +1000
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Google chrome...
>
>
> >
> > I can't figure out why it has to load the process three times
> > in order to run.
>
>
> To be able to kill locked up tabs or windows without having to kill the
> browser sounds like a nice feature to me ... about time!
>
>
> >
> > First i thought it felt unfinished, but then the
> > minimal design grew on me. Very uncluttered. And drop
> > down menus consolodate a lot of screen real estate.
> > Well designed gui, all its needs now is firebug and
> > id use it. And i like the incognito windows, thats a
> > slick feature.
>
> I hope they fix the bug that prevents me from saving those thumbnails it
> generates.
> What use is that feature if I can't save them?
>
> ..and yes I'll still want Firebug and Operator !
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> From: David Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:09:51 +0200
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Google chrome...
>
>
> On 6 Sep 2008, at 04:12, Marius Milcher wrote:
>
> > Has anyone noticed how Hotmail is 'unavailable' in Chrome??
> > Recommending one upgrades to either: IE, FF or Safari.
> >
> > Could this be a snub by Microsoft?? Innocent browser compatability
> > issue? What's the opinion?
> >
> > Seconds out...Round 3
>
> They block themselves too. Google has a history of browser sniffing
> and blocking browsers such as Opera. On Google groups for example,
> they block Opera, Safari *and* Chrome when trying to change your
> profile photo. I'm sure there are other examples too as the block
> Opera on many sites. It's an example why browser sniffing is so bad.
> Not only is it often used to block browsers that would otherwise be
> capable, but you never know when a new browser will come out (even
> from your own company).
> >
> >
> >
> > 2008/9/5 Michael Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Because that is an intentional part of the way the system is designed.
> >
> > Read the comic for all the details
> > http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html
> >
> >
> > Michael Horowitz
> > Your Computer Consultant
> > http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
> > 561-394-9079
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nancy Gill wrote:
> > One thing I have noticed today is that it creates 3 different
> > processes in the Task Manager to run one coyp of chrome. I have
> > tested this several times with the Task Manager open and everytime I
> > open the browser, I add three processes all named chrome. They vary
> > from 5mb to 44mb of memory usage.
> >
> > I can't figure out why it has to load the process three times in
> > order to run.
> >
> > Nancy
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "kevin mcmonagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [WSG] Google chrome...
> >
> >
> > First i thought it felt unfinished, but then the minimal design grew
> > on me. Very uncluttered. And drop down menus consolodate a lot of
> > screen real estate. Well designed gui, all its needs now is firebug
> > and id use it. And i like the incognito windows, thats a slick
> > feature.
> >
> >
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *******************************************************************
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature database 3416 (20080904) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *******************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *******************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > Marius G. Milcher
> > Web Design & IT Consultancy
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > w: http://www.mariusmilcher.com
> > e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > t: +44(0)7961 436 733
> > skype: mgmilcher
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *******************************************************************
>
> David Storey
>
> Chief Web Opener,
> Product Manager Opera Dragonfly,
> Consumer Product Manager Opera Core,
> W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member
>
> Consumer Product Management & Developer Relations
> Opera Software ASA
> Oslo, Norway
>
> Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> From: MichaelMD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:52:44 +1000
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Google chrome...
>
>
> >
> > They block themselves too. Google has a history of browser sniffing
> > and blocking browsers such as Opera. On Google groups for example,
> > they block Opera, Safari *and* Chrome when trying to change your
> > profile photo. I'm sure there are other examples too as the block
> > Opera on many sites. It's an example why browser sniffing is so bad.
> > Not only is it often used to block browsers that would otherwise
> > be capable, but you never know when a new browser will come out (even
> > from your own company).
>
> Yes its funny watching this common scenario with large organisations..
> one department is often not aware of what another department is doing
> until they start getting complaints from the public about something not
> working!
>
> ...most likely it has something to do with the browser-specific
> javascript quirks you are likely to come across when trying to build
> those fancy drag'n'drop user interfaces.
>
> Do they have an alternate way to change that photo that doesn't use
> javascript?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> From: David Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:43:34 +0200
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Google chrome...
>
>
> On 7 Sep 2008, at 04:52, MichaelMD wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> They block themselves too. Google has a history of browser sniffing
> >> and blocking browsers such as Opera. On Google groups for example,
> >> they block Opera, Safari *and* Chrome when trying to change your
> >> profile photo. I'm sure there are other examples too as the block
> >> Opera on many sites. It's an example why browser sniffing is so bad.
> >> Not only is it often used to block browsers that would otherwise
> >> be capable, but you never know when a new browser will come out (even
> >> from your own company).
> >
> > Yes its funny watching this common scenario with large organisations..
> > one department is often not aware of what another department is doing
> > until they start getting complaints from the public about something
> > not
> > working!
> >
> > ...most likely it has something to do with the browser-specific
> > javascript quirks you are likely to come across when trying to build
> > those fancy drag'n'drop user interfaces.
> >
> > Do they have an alternate way to change that photo that doesn't use
> > javascript?
>
> The point is it works fine in Opera, Safari and Chrome, if they didn't
> have the browser sniffing there. You can test it in Opera by masking
> the user agent as Firefox. It's the same with the majority of the
> cases I deal with, with browser sniffing and Opera. It just blocks a
> browser that would otherwise be capable to access the content.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *******************************************************************
>
> David Storey
>
> Chief Web Opener,
> Product Manager Opera Dragonfly,
> Consumer Product Manager Opera Core,
> W3C Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member
>
> Consumer Product Management & Developer Relations
> Opera Software ASA
> Oslo, Norway
>
> Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> From: MichaelMD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:21:45 +1000
> Subject: Re: [WSG] best practices for using access keys
>
>
> >
> > Before you add accesskeys, check out
> > http://www.wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html#GL9 ... basically the
> > errata captures best practice methodology as it evolved in the years
> > after WCAG 1.0 was released. Accesskeys are problematic between
>
> it says not to use them...
>
> but ... what about mobile sites?
> (where you might want to use keypad shortcuts for ease of use with a
> very tiny mobile phone screen)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> From: "Ben Buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:20:58 +1000
> Subject: Re: [WSG] best practices for using access keys
>
> > Before you add accesskeys, check out
> >
> > http://www.wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html#GL9 ... basically the
> > > errata captures best practice methodology as it evolved in the years
> > > after WCAG 1.0 was released. Accesskeys are problematic between
> >
> > it says not to use them...
> > but ... what about mobile sites?
> > (where you might want to use keypad shortcuts for ease of use with a
> > very tiny mobile phone screen)
>
> WCAG 1.0 was released in 1999 - ie. before people seriously started using
> the web on mobiles - and the errata address WCAG 1.0. Realistically it's
> about web pages for computers, not mobile-specific web pages.
>
> For mobile sites, I'd look at Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/), released just a few weeks back. Based off
> a *very* quick look, it does appear to recommend/allow accesskeys, although
> given that this directly conflicts with the Samurai-updated guidelines for
> general web pages, I'd only use accesskeys for *dedicated* mobile sites.
>
> If one site is doing both general web and mobile web duty, personally I'd
> suggest that conflicts should be resolved in favour of general web
> guidelines. At this stage, that's still doing the greatest good for the
> greatest number. But I'd also expect that this point will be debated more as
> the lines between mobile/general web blur further.
>
> cheers,
>
> Ben
>
> --
> --- <http://weblog.200ok.com.au/>
> --- The future has arrived; it's just not
> --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
>
>
> **************************************************************
> Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> **************************************************************
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Are you paid what you're worth? Find out: SEEK Salary Centre
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fcareer%2Dresources%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Asc%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_salary&_m=EXT
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
