RE: [WSG] CSS & the Linux documentation project

[Hill, Tim]

They look at it from a purely visual point, the advantages of css for
accessibility will outweigh getting the layout right for 0.01% of the
viewing population.

One of the comments had me in shock, 
"The important thing to remember here is that the new CCS'ed documents
should render well on older browsers...So for example, also include the
FONT SIZE, bgcolor and Bold or Italics tags. Also, make sure you don't
make make tables on CSS, use HTML markup for heavy layout stuff, because
most of the browsers above won't be able to handle it."

Someone responsed with a sane post about how this was incorrect.


Tim Hill
Computer Associates
Graphic Artist
tel: +612 9937 0792
fax: +612 9937 0546
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cameron Adams
Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS & the Linux documentation project

Geeze, if Slashdot is meant to be the domain of supposedly tech-savvy
readers, it's scary how many of them know jack-all about Web
development.

And statements like "I'd support standards if any modern browser was
compliant" ... Sure, they're not compliant, but for styling most of the
pages mentioned, (and the personal sites of some of the
commenters) I think that a blind monkey could probably make them look
better using only the intersection of all CSS rules that *do* work in
every modern browser.

--
Cameron Adams

W: www.themaninblue.com


--- Mark Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/03/30/0041253.shtml?tid=106&tid=1
26&t
> id=185&tid=95
> 
> Very interesting - even if just to demonstrate how little most people 
> understand about CSS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Stanton
> Technical Director
> Gruden Pty Ltd
> Tel: 9956 6388
> Mob: 0410 458 201
> Fax: 9956 8433
> http://www.gruden.com
> 
>
*
> The discussion list for
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>
*
> 
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

Re: [WSG] CSS & the Linux documentation project

[russ weakley]

Well, we have seen some amazing stuff come out of TheManinBlue - auto
accessible forms, css scrabble...

Is this a hint about an upcoming project? Something like a
Blind-monkey-auto-layout-tool ?

:)
Russ


> Geeze, if Slashdot is meant to be the domain of
> supposedly tech-savvy readers, it's scary how many of
> them know jack-all about Web development.
> 
> And statements like "I'd support standards if any
> modern browser was compliant" ... Sure, they're not
> compliant, but for styling most of the pages
> mentioned, (and the personal sites of some of the
> commenters) I think that a blind monkey could probably
> make them look better using only the intersection of
> all CSS rules that *do* work in every modern browser.
> 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] CSS & the Linux documentation project

[Cameron Adams]

Geeze, if Slashdot is meant to be the domain of
supposedly tech-savvy readers, it's scary how many of
them know jack-all about Web development.

And statements like "I'd support standards if any
modern browser was compliant" ... Sure, they're not
compliant, but for styling most of the pages
mentioned, (and the personal sites of some of the
commenters) I think that a blind monkey could probably
make them look better using only the intersection of
all CSS rules that *do* work in every modern browser.

--
Cameron Adams

W: www.themaninblue.com


--- Mark Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/03/30/0041253.shtml?tid=106&tid=126&t
> id=185&tid=95
> 
> Very interesting - even if just to demonstrate how
> little most people
> understand about CSS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Stanton 
> Technical Director 
> Gruden Pty Ltd 
> Tel: 9956 6388
> Mob: 0410 458 201 
> Fax: 9956 8433 
> http://www.gruden.com 
> 
>
*
> The discussion list for
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>
*
> 
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[James Silva]

Oh ffs... Sorry people (about the sig... again).

Heres the original...




Hi Miles,

> The first thing I though was 'oooh, how did he get the Go 
> buttons to align so nicely with the form fields?', coz I had 
> been trying to do it without resorting to a table or the 
> deprecated align=absmiddle parameter.  Then I realised you're 
> using images which gets around the problem, however this will 
> eventually become an accessibility issue as the only way to 
> submit the forms will be via href="javascript:submit()" on 
> the image, no good for screen readers.  As soon as you 
> replace the  with  I'm pretty sure 
> you'll have the same alignment issues I had.  If anyone knows 
> of a solution for this I'd love to know!

Nope. It's a 

I know exactly what you mean though. I spent more time on that silly search
form than any other element on the page. It basically came down to a balancing
act of padding, IE box model hack, vertical-align, height and font size. I
just kept fiddling with each untill it appeared "ok" in most browsers. Using
IE6 and my goal for "perfect".

Unfortunately, I don't have any hard/fast rules for inline form elements.
Every browser seems to treat them differently.
 
> That's that only thing I could find in what is an 
> aesthetically pleasing design that is a credit to the WSG.  
> Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's portfolio?

As Russ mentioned, there is a " Built by members" section at:

http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat12.cfm

Thanks for the feedback.

James Silva
Web Production
Gruden Pty Ltd

Tel:   +61 02 9956 6388
Fax:   +61 02 9956 8433
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:   http://www.gruden.com


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[James Silva]

Hi Miles,

> The first thing I though was 'oooh, how did he get the Go 
> buttons to align so nicely with the form fields?', coz I had 
> been trying to do it without resorting to a table or the 
> deprecated align=absmiddle parameter.  Then I realised you're 
> using images which gets around the problem, however this will 
> eventually become an accessibility issue as the only way to 
> submit the forms will be via href="javascript:submit()" on 
> the image, no good for screen readers.  As soon as you 
> replace the  with  I'm pretty sure 
> you'll have the same alignment issues I had.  If anyone knows 
> of a solution for this I'd love to know!

Nope. It's a 

I know exactly what you mean though. I spent more time on that silly search
form than any other element on the page. It basically came down to a balancing
act of padding, IE box model hack, vertical-align, height and font size. I
just kept fiddling with each untill it appeared "ok" in most browsers. Using
IE6 and my goal for "perfect".

Unfortunately, I don't have any hard/fast rules for inline form elements.
Every browser seems to treat them differently.
 
> That's that only thing I could find in what is an 
> aesthetically pleasing design that is a credit to the WSG.  
> Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's portfolio?

As Russ mentioned, there is a " Built by members" section at:

http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat12.cfm

Thanks for the feedback.

James Silva
Web Production
Gruden Pty Ltd

Tel:   +61 02 9956 6388
Fax:   +61 02 9956 8433
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:   http://www.gruden.com



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [WSG] best method for columns inside a column

[Justin French]

On Tuesday, March 30, 2004, at 03:57  PM, Miles Tillinger wrote:

I've managed to get it basically perfect in IE6, but there is small 
2-3 pixel discrepancy in Mozilla and Opera (haven't had a chance to 
check on Safari yet *shudder*) down the left side of the right column. 
 I'm guessing that its to do with how I've made the columns inside a 
column layout, but I can't work out a better way to do it.
You're worried about 2-3 pixels?  I wouldn't be, unless it looks awful, 
just aim for "close and visually balanced" rather than "pixel perfect".

Furthermore, I'd suggest that Safari, Mozilla, Opera et al are 
"correct" and IE is "2-3 pixels out", not the other way around :)

FWIW, it renders the same in Safari and Opera 7.5Beta on Mac OS X.


Is what I am trying to do not suited to CSS positioning?  Or is there 
a better way to do it?
Seems perfect to me -- you should be able to almost achieve everything 
(and then some) with CSS layout that you used to with tables, with the 
exception of tabular data, which should remain in tables.

---
Justin French
http://indent.com.au
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] best method for columns inside a column

[Hill, Tim]

Sorry no answer to the problem... But your services div has a margin
left of 197 and your splitter one has a margin left of 200. The splitter
seems to be pushing out as well in ie5.0, im not sure why that is.
Probably the width of the feature or services div becomes smaller in ie5
and so its out of whack. 

Also with regards to your box model hacks, if you haven't used a left or
right padding/margin, ie5 and 6 should read the width as the same non?
So no need to use the hack? Or does ie5 put some stupid 2 pixel space in
for some reason?

How come you decided to use float and abosolute positioning? I would
have thought to only use one or the other, not together. It is sitting
within the main div already so would float: right take care of the
positioning using a specific margin and width? Or does it break the
layout?

Site looks awesome btw, shadows are nicely done imo.


Tim Hill
Computer Associates
Graphic Artist
tel: +612 9937 0792
fax: +612 9937 0546
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Miles Tillinger
Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:57 PM
To: Web Standards Group (E-mail)
Subject: [WSG] best method for columns inside a column

Finally a chance for my first attempt at a 100% CSS positioning site and
besides using the deprecated align parameter for an input:image, the
site validates ok!

http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/index.html
http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/main.css
http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/astute.css

(sorry if the dyndns is borked, try 150.101.34.189 temporarily if it is)

Its a simple header > two-columns > footer layout based on a
layout-o-matic template.  I then use absolute positioning to float the
#feature div to the right of the #services div, however the correct top
& left values seem to differ between IE and Mozilla/Opera.

I've managed to get it basically perfect in IE6, but there is small 2-3
pixel discrepancy in Mozilla and Opera (haven't had a chance to check on
Safari yet *shudder*) down the left side of the right column.  I'm
guessing that its to do with how I've made the columns inside a column
layout, but I can't work out a better way to do it.

Is what I am trying to do not suited to CSS positioning?  Or is there a
better way to do it?

Cheers,

MT
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

RE: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[James Silva]

Hi Mike,

> I can't contribute anything on the mac side, but I have to 
> say I like it.
> I like the graphic device of using the fine white lines 
> across the page and
> down.   Nice effect.  And the transparent effect in the 
> heading looks great
> too.  Very smooth. 

Well, I'm just a lowly coder, but on behalf of the designer, thanks :)


> I think it's a clever way to use boxes as wide as the whole 
> screen to overlay one colour over another so it looks like 
> there is a LOT more work in
> the different sections than there actually is.   Screen 
> background in the
> dark red, then the middle wrapper box overlayed with the 
> olive colour, then the white lines through it looks like you 
> have a gazillion table cells there, but in fact there aren't any.

Horizontal line work is actually quite simple with CSS. Just use top/bottom
borders and wrapper divs that span the entire width of the page. Vertical line
work (that spans the entire height) can usually only be done with background
images. And become a right pain when dealing with fluid layouts in particular.


> Can you tell us a bit about the design process?  Did the 
> graphic designer start out with standards compliance in mind 
> or did you take the sketch/gif/PDF design or whatever and 
> force it into compliance?  How much does your designer take 
> CSS techniques into account when designing?

Well, to be honest, its been an on-going battle with the designers (which Mark
Stanton and I are slowly winning). The bottom line I guess, is getting your
designers to think in terms of "boxes".

We try to educate our designers as much as possible as to what can be achieved
with CSS. Once they get a grasp of the box model, they tend to design sites
which are usually relatively easy to code for. Meaning very little input from
us programmers during the design phase :)

The biggest issues I come across are vertical repeating background images;
images that span multiple "boxes" and content that requires mixed padding.
Especially when a designer wants headings to begin inside a padding area.
Always a pain in the rear as you then either need a single redundant div to
contain the rest of the content (if we're talking about a H1) or setting up
multiple rules for ALL the possible html elements (ugly).

I must say one thing at this point, background images are your friend. It is
WAY easier to achieve a complex *looking* site using background imagery than
it is using inlines images and excess html/css.

> The home page must have been a challenge - all those boxes to 
> line up.  How will you keep them more or less in balance once 
> they start adding content to
> it?Are you having a CMS back end on it?

I've tested it with various amounts of content in all columns (nav and side
bar included). It all works fine regardless of the amount of content.

The amount of content really makes no difference since all columns are
float:left and the footer set to clear:both. I think I threw in a  or 
with clear:both for good measure.

As for a CMS, yes, it will be completely CMS driven. We're currently using
ShadoMX built by our parters Straker (http://www.straker.co.nz/shado).

Heres a couple of our other (largely) CSS based ShadoMX sites:
http://www.ccfa.org.au/
http://www.thegeorgeinstitute.org/



> I know you're looking for html/css comments, but to tell the 
> truth, the site just looks brilliant in my browsers.  If it 
> was my work I'd be telling
> everyone in the world.   

Much appreciated :)

Cheers,

James Silva
Web Production
Gruden Pty Ltd

Tel:   +61 02 9956 6388
Fax:   +61 02 9956 8433
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:   http://www.gruden.com


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[russ weakley]

There is:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat12.cfm

Feel free to add your own work to this section, as that is what it is for!
Russ



> That's that only thing I could find in what is an aesthetically pleasing
> design that is a credit to the WSG.  Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's
> portfolio?


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[Miles Tillinger]

Very nice indeed James, thanks for passing me the links otherwise I would've missed 
out on seeing it...

The first word bold, second word normal thing seems to be gaining momentum amongst the 
various CSS sites I've seen lately, understandably as it is a nice effect for titles.

The first thing I though was 'oooh, how did he get the Go buttons to align so nicely 
with the form fields?', coz I had been trying to do it without resorting to a table or 
the deprecated align=absmiddle parameter.  Then I realised you're using images which 
gets around the problem, however this will eventually become an accessibility issue as 
the only way to submit the forms will be via href="javascript:submit()" on the image, 
no good for screen readers.  As soon as you replace the  with  
I'm pretty sure you'll have the same alignment issues I had.  If anyone knows of a 
solution for this I'd love to know!

That's that only thing I could find in what is an aesthetically pleasing design that 
is a credit to the WSG.  Maybe it's time for a WSG Member's portfolio?

MT.


-Original Message-
From: Ben Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback


pretty slick, I like it..

- with a few little coding tweaks you could probably eliminate most of 
your CSS IE width hacks.
- Rollover colours on top nav could have more contrast - difficult to 
read dark on dark..
- It seems weird to me that the underline disappears on mouseover of 
regular links..

well done.

B
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

RE: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[Michael Kear]

I can't contribute anything on the mac side, but I have to say I like it.
I like the graphic device of using the fine white lines across the page and
down.   Nice effect.  And the transparent effect in the heading looks great
too.  Very smooth. 

I think it's a clever way to use boxes as wide as the whole screen to
overlay one colour over another so it looks like there is a LOT more work in
the different sections than there actually is.   Screen background in the
dark red, then the middle wrapper box overlayed with the olive colour, then
the white lines through it looks like you have a gazillion table cells
there, but in fact there aren't any.

Can you tell us a bit about the design process?  Did the graphic designer
start out with standards compliance in mind or did you take the
sketch/gif/PDF design or whatever and force it into compliance?  How much
does your designer take CSS techniques into account when designing?

The home page must have been a challenge - all those boxes to line up.  How
will you keep them more or less in balance once they start adding content to
it?Are you having a CMS back end on it?

I know you're looking for html/css comments, but to tell the truth, the site
just looks brilliant in my browsers.  If it was my work I'd be telling
everyone in the world.   

Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of James Silva
Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

Hi guys,

Just looking for some feedback on our latest job*... Feel free to tear it a
new one :P

Sample homepage:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/homepage.htm

Sample content page:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/content.htm

CSS is at:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_main.css
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_content.cs
s
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_homepage.c
ss

(excuse the long URLs, DNS changes haven't come across yet)

Basically, im looking for some design/accessibility/UI comments that I can
pass on to our graphics department. 

Also, could someone run it through the usual Mac browsers for me (and
provide
feedback)? Our little iMac is playing up.

I'd be more than happy to discuss any html/css decisions I made.

*Obviously this is just a quick knockup of the initial design, as the client
wants to see it in HTML form.

Thanks in advance,

James Silva
Web Production
Gruden Pty Ltd

Tel:   +61 02 9956 6388
Fax:   +61 02 9956 8433
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:   http://www.gruden.com



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[James Silva]

> - with a few little coding tweaks you could probably 
> eliminate most of your CSS IE width hacks.

Hi Ben,

I'm assuming you're refering to the use of "padding" divs (which is the method
I normally use). If not, then please let me know.

I chose to use the IE5 box model hack this time around as I want to keep the
html as clutter free as possible. It also comes back to the fact that this
will be a dynamic website (Coldfusion CMS based) meaning pages won't
necessarily be cached, but the CSS will. Therefore, I want to keep as much of
the workarounds/hacks in the CSS as possible.


> - Rollover colours on top nav could have more contrast - 
> difficult to read dark on dark..

Duly noted. Ill bump the brightness of the orange.


> - It seems weird to me that the underline disappears on 
> mouseover of regular links..

Agreed. Link styles are always an after thought for me. We actually have a
generic template (html and css) that our designers use to define their content
styles. Which is excellent (when they actually use it - unlike this instance)
as it means the designers get a bit of insight into what can/cannot be done
with html/css.

Cheers,

James Silva
Web Production
Gruden Pty Ltd

Tel:   +61 02 9956 6388
Fax:   +61 02 9956 8433
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:   http://www.gruden.com




> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback
> 
> pretty slick, I like it..
> 

> 
> well done.
> 
> B
> *
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See 
> http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> * 
> 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] WSG member gets a good wrap

[David McDonald]

Good one Jeff!

Great work and a very interesting interview.

 Original Message 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] WSG member gets a good wrap
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:32:40 +1000

>Always exciting to see a WSG member getting a good wrap!
>
>The Weekly Standard has given this weeks award to Jeff Lowder from
>Accessibility 1st for his site - Young Achievement Australia. There
>is a
>review of the site and also an interview with Jeff:
>
>http://www.weeklystandards.com/archives/2004/03/29/index.php
>
>Well done, Jeff.
>Russ

Regards,

David McDonald
Web Designer
http://www.davidmcdonald.org

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

[WSG] best method for columns inside a column

[Miles Tillinger]

Finally a chance for my first attempt at a 100% CSS positioning site and besides using 
the deprecated align parameter for an input:image, the site validates ok!

http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/index.html
http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/main.css
http://streetdaddy.gotdns.com/astute/astute.css

(sorry if the dyndns is borked, try 150.101.34.189 temporarily if it is)

Its a simple header > two-columns > footer layout based on a layout-o-matic template.  
I then use absolute positioning to float the #feature div to the right of the 
#services div, however the correct top & left values seem to differ between IE and 
Mozilla/Opera.

I've managed to get it basically perfect in IE6, but there is small 2-3 pixel 
discrepancy in Mozilla and Opera (haven't had a chance to check on Safari yet 
*shudder*) down the left side of the right column.  I'm guessing that its to do with 
how I've made the columns inside a column layout, but I can't work out a better way to 
do it.

Is what I am trying to do not suited to CSS positioning?  Or is there a better way to 
do it?

Cheers,

MT
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

RE: [WSG] [OT] Outlook error: Can't open this item. Your Digital ID name ... etc

[James Silva]

> 'Can't open this item.  Your Digital ID name can not be found 
> by the underlying security system'

My apologies Miles and WSG members.

This has been raised as an issue in the past and the general consensus (at
least at Gruden) was to remove sigs before posting to the list.

Unfortunately, I forgot this time around. Sorry :P

Here's my original post...

--

Hi guys,

Just looking for some feedback on our latest job*... Feel free to tear it a
new one :P

Sample homepage:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/homepage.htm

Sample content page:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/content.htm

CSS is at:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_main.css
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_content.css
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_homepage.css

(excuse the long URLs, DNS changes haven't come across yet)

Basically, im looking for some design/accessibility/UI comments that I can
pass on to our graphics department. 

Also, could someone run it through the usual Mac browsers for me (and provide
feedback)? Our little iMac is playing up.

I'd be more than happy to discuss any html/css decisions I made.

*Obviously this is just a quick knockup of the initial design, as the client
wants to see it in HTML form.

Thanks in advance,

James Silva
Web Production
Gruden Pty Ltd

Tel:   +61 02 9956 6388
Fax:   +61 02 9956 8433
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:   http://www.gruden.com


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] WSG member gets a good wrap

[russ weakley]

Always exciting to see a WSG member getting a good wrap!

The Weekly Standard has given this weeks award to Jeff Lowder from
Accessibility 1st for his site - Young Achievement Australia. There is a
review of the site and also an interview with Jeff:

http://www.weeklystandards.com/archives/2004/03/29/index.php

Well done, Jeff.
Russ

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] [OT] Outlook error: Can't open this item. Your Digital ID name ... etc

[Miles Tillinger]

Firstly, apologies for the OT repost and I'm not even sure if anyone else worries 
about this, but...

First list member I started having the problem with was Mark Stanton back in January, 
now James Silva and Gary Greer as well (and another one-off from Dominique something 
or other).  I'm using MS Outlook 2000 SP3 on XP Pro.  I can't open the above member's 
emails to the list, I get the following error:

'Can't open this item.  Your Digital ID name can not be found by the underlying 
security system'

I know from this previous reply:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01806.html

that others on the list are having the same problem.  I can understand completely that 
the guys will occasionally neglect to remove the sig that causes the problem, so is 
there anything I can do at my end so I don't have to ponder what wonderfully 
enlightening web standards conversations I'm missing out on?  ;)

Cheers,

MT 

 <> 
<>

Re: [WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[Ben Smith]

pretty slick, I like it..

- with a few little coding tweaks you could probably eliminate most of 
your CSS IE width hacks.
- Rollover colours on top nav could have more contrast - difficult to 
read dark on dark..
- It seems weird to me that the underline disappears on mouseover of 
regular links..

well done.

B
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] Some suggestions needed

[Gary Greer]

Hi Leo.

What was the URL for the tutorial?

gary

Leo J. O'Campo wrote:
So Gary...  What is complicating it?  Just remember to put a clear: 
both; in the footer rule

Just check out this excellent tutorial on how to create footer for a 2 
column layout.  It step by step by the numbers, easy.

Leo

On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 02:25  AM, Gary Greer wrote:

Looking at http://www.muprivate.edu.au/index_frameset.asp I'm fighting 
to replicate the same layout as was used with tables. All is going 
fine, until I got to the footer, when it's just too complex for me to 
figure out.

Could I ask if the group could look at the above URL and see what 
could be done with the footer? It's the bit that starts "University 
web search"

Thanks greatly!

Gary



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

[WSG] New site - looking for feedback

[James Silva]

Hi guys,

Just looking for some feedback on our latest job*... Feel free to tear it a
new one :P

Sample homepage:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/homepage.htm

Sample content page:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/content.htm

CSS is at:
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_main.css
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_content.css
http://www.gruden.com/dev_sites/blacktown/templates/styles/styles_homepage.css

(excuse the long URLs, DNS changes haven't come across yet)

Basically, im looking for some design/accessibility/UI comments that I can
pass on to our graphics department. 

Also, could someone run it through the usual Mac browsers for me (and provide
feedback)? Our little iMac is playing up.

I'd be more than happy to discuss any html/css decisions I made.

*Obviously this is just a quick knockup of the initial design, as the client
wants to see it in HTML form.

Thanks in advance,

James Silva
Web Production
Gruden Pty Ltd

Tel:   +61 02 9956 6388
Fax:   +61 02 9956 8433
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:   http://www.gruden.com



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

[WSG] CSS & the Linux documentation project

[Mark Stanton]

http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/03/30/0041253.shtml?tid=106&tid=126&t
id=185&tid=95

Very interesting - even if just to demonstrate how little most people
understand about CSS.




Cheers

Mark


--
Mark Stanton 
Technical Director 
Gruden Pty Ltd 
Tel: 9956 6388
Mob: 0410 458 201 
Fax: 9956 8433 
http://www.gruden.com 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] What tha!?

[Universal Head]

Thanks much, I've forwarded this info to my server host. Weird.
Peter

On 30/03/2004, at 10:09 AM, P.H.Lauke wrote:

Your server is erroneously sending the CSS as text/html, which is the wrong MIME type as it should be text/css.
Check your server config.

Universal Head 
Design That Works.

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T	(+612) 9517 1466
F	(+612) 9565 4747
E	[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W	www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] What tha!?

[G A R Y C R O U C H [ A I T ]]

I think Patrick eserves a hand for stayingup so late!

<><><><><>

GC
- Original Message -
From: "P.H.Lauke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] What tha!?


> Your server is erroneously sending the CSS as text/html, which is the
wrong MIME type as it should be text/css.
>
> Check your server config.
>
> p.s.: apologies if this formats wrong...outlook web client is buggy
>
> Patrick
> 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Webmaster
> External Relations Division
> Faraday House
> University of Salford
> Greater Manchester
> M5 4WT
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 161 295 4779
>
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> webteam: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> www.salford.ac.uk
>
> A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Universal Head [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 30/03/2004 00:51
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Subject: [WSG] What tha!?
>
>
> I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't
applying CSS. what the A#%^$* have I done??
>
> Thanks
> Peter
>
>
> Universal Head
> Design That Works.
>
> 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
> NSW 2048 Australia
> T (+612) 9517 1466
> F (+612) 9565 4747
> E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> W www.universalhead.com
>
> NÇÈX  nËv y  jf ×wq Û)zX)

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[Chuck]

On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 11:07  AM, John Penlington wrote:

Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this 
Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web 
standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind.
 
I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac 
with Safari and IE5(Mac).
 
All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite 
well on all four browsers.
Well, in this case my IE 5.2 dosn't like your use of "position: 
relative; left: -24px;" on your "UL" setup (in both "UL" cases).

If you want to position the "UL", put it in a "DIV" container and 
position it.

 
When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence 
my opinion that no browser complies completely.
None ever will, unless the "Standards Committee" creates it's own 
...but that's another story for another day.

 
Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants 
pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least we achieved it on IE6 
with no tables, just CSS styling.
I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on.
(see  below)

 
After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on 
the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked 
me, even a spacer gif.
The problem is that your page is only "pixel-precise" on a 96dpi system.
To be "pixel-precise" on all systems, you have to use "relative 
measurement" in your CSS (ie: em, %, and or keywords)

 
The home page (with inactive links) is at:
www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp
 
and the CSS is at:
www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css
 
The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with IE6.
 
What he doesn't want is what you'll see on Safari, Firefox and 
IE5(Mac).
Well, as you already know ...you have to start with a "standards 
browser" first and work backwards. This is even true with "tables".

 
The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Even the 
Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac).
(see above)

 
Can anyone tell me why my valid (XHTML and CSS) page displays so 
differently in those four browsers - two of which are supposed to 
follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)?
(see above)

 
Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML and CSS?
 
What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same on all four 
browsers?  Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that and it 
simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despite all the 
hacks I could find.
Start with "ccs2" and a "standards browser" a include an import of 
"ie7-xml.css".
You can find this life-saver at: http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/intro/
Copy it from the "src" link in the breadcrump tail.


 
I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I really want 
to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client 
is very real !!
So, ...do it in "tables" first, make it look on all, ...then take on 
CSS2.

 
I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere.
Good luck and welcome to the club!!
-chuck
-a Mac guy-
 
Thanks to you all for such a helpful List.
 
John Penlington
web developer
 
 
 
 
 
 
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

RE: [WSG] What tha!?

[Chris Keane]

> 
I just checked my site 
www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't applying CSS. 

have 
you validated your CSS?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
 
I find 
that if part of the CSS is invalid, Mozilla ignores the whole thing.  
Sometimes even a single line will crash it.
Try 
commenting out chunks of the CSS to see if you have a problematic 
line.

RE: [WSG] What tha!? (CSS not rendering in Mozilla)

[David McDonald]

Peter,

I have had a similar problem with the BHP Billiton site recently. It
looks like the server does not have the mime type for CSS set
correctly.

In Mozilla, if you select Tools, Web Development, then Javascript
Console, you should see an error message reading:

Error: The stylesheet http://www.cinema4duser.com/css/main.css was
not loaded because its MIME type, "text/html", is not "text/css".

This is a problem on the server end, where they either don't have the
experience or the knowledge to set up mime types properly. I woulod
hazard a guess and say that the CSS mime type is set to
"text/x-pointplus.

More info at:

http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/incorrect-mime-types/


 Original Message 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] What tha!?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:51:00 +1000

>I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't 
>applying CSS. what the A#%^$* have I done??
>
>Thanks
>Peter
>
>
>Universal Head 
>Design That Works.
>
>7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
>NSW 2048 Australia
>T  (+612) 9517 1466
>F  (+612) 9565 4747
>E  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>W  www.universalhead.com
>

Regards,

David McDonald
Web Designer
http://www.davidmcdonald.org

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*

[WSG] Informative subject lines

[Mark Stanton]

Jut a quick note - can everyone please try to provide a summary of their
problem in their subject line. Subjects such as:

[WSG] What tha!?
[WSG] Somewhat frustrated
[WSG] Some suggestions needed
[WSG] What's wrong with this page??

...really provide us with no information related to the content of the post.
Some people access this list via email, some access via the web at
http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/. 

Where's here talking about web standards, part of that is semantics. Please
think of the subject line as the  or  tag of your post - it
should be a very tight summary.

What tha!? => CSS not being applied in Mozilla
Somewhat frustrated => Do any browsers really comply with the standards?
Some suggestions needed => Help required replicating existing table/footer
layout
What's wrong with this page?? => Body content not rendering in IE

Think about someone who is coming along in the future with the same problem.
First thing they do is search on Goolge. What would someone with the same
problem enter in the search field? What did you type into Google when you
were looking for the answer before posting to the list? :)


Cheers

Mark


--
Mark Stanton 
Technical Director 
Gruden Pty Ltd 
Tel: 9956 6388
Mob: 0410 458 201 
Fax: 9956 8433 
http://www.gruden.com 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] What tha!?

[P.H.Lauke]

Your server is erroneously sending the CSS as text/html, which is the wrong MIME type 
as it should be text/css.
 
Check your server config.
 
p.s.: apologies if this formats wrong...outlook web client is buggy
 
Patrick

Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster
External Relations Division 
Faraday House 
University of Salford 
Greater Manchester 
M5 4WT 

Tel: +44 (0) 161 295 4779

e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
webteam: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.salford.ac.uk

A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY  


-Original Message- 
From: Universal Head [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tue 30/03/2004 00:51 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: [WSG] What tha!?


I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't applying 
CSS. what the A#%^$* have I done?? 

Thanks 
Peter 


Universal Head  
Design That Works. 

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore 
NSW 2048 Australia 
T (+612) 9517 1466 
F (+612) 9565 4747 
E [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
W www.universalhead.com 

…çb±Ë²*'–+-~Šá¶Úÿ›²ÖuªÝ
è+ƒôžzm§ÿðy»-jwZ­Û ®‹©¢¸?™¨¥þ¢uébë~gè®Ê&z§¶Ê'¦‹-Šx-¢Ø^–+-ëmŠx!zZ

[WSG] What tha!?

[Universal Head]

I just checked my site www.cinema4duser.com in Mozilla and it wasn't applying CSS. what the A#%^$* have I done??

Thanks 
Peter


Universal Head 
Design That Works.

7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T	(+612) 9517 1466
F	(+612) 9565 4747
E	[EMAIL PROTECTED]
W	www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[russ weakley]

John,

Yes, there are slight differences in browsers, but these are easy to
overcome. There are a lot of un-needed classes in your code. The aim is to
use as few as possible, and use descendant selectors to do their work.
Theoretically, for this layout you should only need a few id's on the
containers and the rest should fall into place.

I am happy to talk offlist about this if you want...

Now, some overall points about table use (more for the overall list):

1. although tables and spacer gifs are hacks (when ued for layout, rather
than tabular data), there are worse things you can do when developing sites.
While important, building to standards are only part of the overall picture
that includes good design, useable navigation systems, interesting and
accessible content etc.

2. there are some layouts that are easier to achieve using tables. That is a
fact. However, you CAN build layouts without hacks (or with minimal hacks),
that are stable across all major browsers. Hang in there. Eventually it all
clicks into place and it becomes much easier.

3. We have talked before on the list about the two extremes - on one end you
have traditional layouts (tables, font tags, image spaces etc) and the other
end are standards based layouts (css, accessible, valid, semantically
correct code). The aim is to move towards standards based layouts, but at
your own pace and comfort level. If you feel that you want to stay with
tables for layout and use CSS for all other aspects, this is still a major
improvement over traditional layouts.

4. the aim of this list is to encourage developers to move towards web
standard not to flame people who are having trouble. Hopefully we can keep
this attitude as it is one of the things that sets this list apart from many
others.

Russ



> Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion List
> I've formed the opinion no browser will display web standards - every one of
> them requires hacks of some kind.
> 
> I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac with
> Safari and IE5(Mac).
> 
> All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite well on
> all four browsers.
> 
> When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence my
> opinion that no browser complies completely.
> 
> Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants
> pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least we achieved it on IE6 with no
> tables, just CSS styling.
> I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on.
> 
> After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely on the other
> browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even a spacer
> gif.
> 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[Luc]

Good evening Jeremy,
  
It was foretold that on 29-3-2004 @ 14:10:01 GMT-0600 (which was
22:10:01 where I live) Jeremy Flint would mumble:
  


JF> sure. why not.
  
 Thanks Jeremy. You described what i was thinking but couldn't get
 the words right :-)
 
-- 
Best regards,
 Luc
_

http://www.dzinelabs.com

Powered by The Bat! version 1.63 Beta/7 with Windows 2000 (build
2195), version 5.0 Service Pack 4 and using the best browser: Opera.

"Diplomacy - the art of letting someone have your way." - attributed
to Daniele Vare.

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[Jeremy Flint]

sure. why not.

-
Jeremy Flint
www.jeremyflint.com


Luc wrote:
Good evening Jeremy,
  
It was foretold that on 29-3-2004 @ 12:29:47 GMT-0600 (which was
20:29:47 where I live) Jeremy Flint would mumble:
  


JF> BTW, even with tables, sites will look differently on different 
JF> browsers. You speak of having to use hacks to get CSS to render 
JF> correctly in all browsers. I think using a spacer.gif would be 
JF> considered a hack. Tables display just as differently as CSS can. 
JF> Different browsers sometimes handle table heights and widths 
JF> differently. Some may measure cellpadding or spacing differently.
  
 Jeremy, can i steal this comment to use it for my blog?
 
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[Luc]

Good evening Jeremy,
  
It was foretold that on 29-3-2004 @ 12:29:47 GMT-0600 (which was
20:29:47 where I live) Jeremy Flint would mumble:
  


JF> BTW, even with tables, sites will look differently on different 
JF> browsers. You speak of having to use hacks to get CSS to render 
JF> correctly in all browsers. I think using a spacer.gif would be 
JF> considered a hack. Tables display just as differently as CSS can. 
JF> Different browsers sometimes handle table heights and widths 
JF> differently. Some may measure cellpadding or spacing differently.
  
 Jeremy, can i steal this comment to use it for my blog?
 
-- 
Best regards,
 Luc
_

http://www.dzinelabs.com

Powered by The Bat! version 1.63 Beta/7 with Windows 2000 (build
2195), version 5.0 Service Pack 4 and using the best browser: Opera.

"I have great faith in fools - my friends call it self-confidence." -
Edgar Allan Poe.

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] Some suggestions needed

[Leo J. O'Campo]

So Gary...  What is complicating it?  Just remember to put a clear: 
both; in the footer rule

Just check out this excellent tutorial on how to create footer for a 2 
column layout.  It step by step by the numbers, easy.

Leo

On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 02:25  AM, Gary Greer wrote:

Looking at http://www.muprivate.edu.au/index_frameset.asp I'm fighting 
to replicate the same layout as was used with tables. All is going 
fine, until I got to the footer, when it's just too complex for me to 
figure out.

Could I ask if the group could look at the above URL and see what 
could be done with the footer? It's the bit that starts "University 
web search"

Thanks greatly!

Gary

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] Some suggestions needed

[Jeremy Flint]

Wow, that menu gives me a headache with all the flying out and in and such.

The footer looks fairly easy.

It seems to be basically a 2 column layout, maybe a wrapper div to allow 
  the background colors to bleed off the edge.

use border: 1px dotted #hex for the...um, borders. I don;t think it 
renders in IE though. It will show up as dashes.

-
Jeremy Flint
www.jeremyflint.com


Gary Greer wrote:
Looking at http://www.muprivate.edu.au/index_frameset.asp I'm fighting 
to replicate the same layout as was used with tables. All is going fine, 
until I got to the footer, when it's just too complex for me to figure out.

Could I ask if the group could look at the above URL and see what could 
be done with the footer? It's the bit that starts "University web search"

Thanks greatly!

Gary
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

Re: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[Jeremy Flint]

I am using Firefox and IE6 on win2k and i don't see a difference.

Aside from that, why would pixel-precision be needed on such an open 
layout? I mean, there aren't even any borders or anything.

Also, it would help to show us the page using all css, not the tables 
version.

BTW, even with tables, sites will look differently on different 
browsers. You speak of having to use hacks to get CSS to render 
correctly in all browsers. I think using a spacer.gif would be 
considered a hack. Tables display just as differently as CSS can. 
Different browsers sometimes handle table heights and widths 
differently. Some may measure cellpadding or spacing differently.

Hacks are only used in certain instances, and there are ways to work 
around most hacks, especially BMH.

Though again, I go back to the fact that the layout of the site you 
linked to does not really scream pixel precision to me.
-
Jeremy Flint
www.jeremyflint.com



John Penlington wrote:
Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this 
Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web 
standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind.
 
I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a new eMac 
with Safari and IE5(Mac).
 
_All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2 display quite 
well on all four browsers_.
 
When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of results. Hence 
my opinion that no browser complies completely.
 
Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who wants 
pixel-precision layout on _all_ browsers. At least we achieved it on IE6 
with no tables, just CSS styling.
I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read on.
 
After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work _precisely_ on 
the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, 
even a spacer gif.
 
The home page (with inactive links) is at:
www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp 

 
and the CSS is at:
www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css 

 
The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with IE6.
 
What he doesn't want is what you'll see on Safari, Firefox and IE5(Mac).
 
The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS. Even the 
Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac).
 
Can anyone tell me why my _valid_ (XHTML and CSS) page displays _so 
differently_ in those four browsers - two of which are supposed to 
follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)?
 
Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML and CSS?
 
What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same on all four 
browsers?  Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that and it 
simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despite all the 
hacks I could find.
 
I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I really want 
to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client 
is very real !!
 
I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere.
 
Thanks to you all for such a helpful List.
 
John Penlington
web developer
 
 
 
 
 
 
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[Chatham, Will]

Hi John,
I understand your frustrations.  Let me respond to a few things you said.

>Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with this Discussion
List I've formed the opinion no browser >will display web standards - every
one of them requires hacks of some kind.

This is true of non-standard complaint pages as well.  Considering that
table layouts are 'hacks' by nature, it's even more true.

I know that a CSS-based layout is the light at the end of the tunnel, but
consider that it's still acceptable in many circles to use a table for
overall layout purposes (a header, two columns, and a footer, e.g.), use CSS
for everything else, and still validate as XHTML Transitional.  That's what
XHTML Transitional is all about - moving from the old way to the new.

I'm at work, so I can't dive into your code and see what specifically is
going on, but my initial impression is that you could streamline your CSS by
using some ID's and fewer classes.  This might be a first step in gaining
better control over your positioning.

Will Chatham
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

RE: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[theGrafixGuy]

I am far from an expert yet, but your
display issues are very similar to what I got the first time around using CSS –
I discovered IDs rather than classes fro layers provides more precision.

 

Also, you might want to try dropping the
 and running block level text.

 

Brian

 









From: John Penlington
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:08
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Somewhat frustrated



 



Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of months with
this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display web
standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind.





 





I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well as on a
new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac).





 





All my earlier web sites with tables rather than CSS 2
display quite well on all four browsers.





 





When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a medley of
results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies completely.





 





Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a photographer who
wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least we achieved
it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling.





I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but please read
on.





 





After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to work precisely
on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and yes, wicked me, even
a spacer gif.





 





The home page (with inactive links) is at: 





www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp





 





and the CSS is at:





www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css





 





The display my client wants is exactly what you'll see with
IE6.





 





What he doesn't want is what you'll see on Safari,
Firefox and IE5(Mac).





 





The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS.
Even the Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac).





 





Can anyone tell me why my valid (XHTML and CSS)
page displays so differently in those four browsers - two of which
are supposed to follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and Safari)?





 





Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for both XHTML
and CSS?





 





What do I need to do to get it to display roughly the same
on all four browsers?  Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried that
and it simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable despite all
the hacks I could find.





 





I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising this, but I
really want to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and my client
is very real !!





 





I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to persevere.





 





Thanks to you all for such a helpful List.





 





John Penlington





web developer





 





 





 





 





 





 

[WSG] Somewhat frustrated

[John Penlington]

Forgive my frustration, but after a couple of 
months with this Discussion List I've formed the opinion no browser will display 
web standards - every one of them requires hacks of some kind.
 
I test on Win XP Pro with IE6 and Firefox - as well 
as on a new eMac with Safari and IE5(Mac).
 
All my earlier web sites with tables rather than 
CSS 2 display quite well on all four browsers.
 
When I try to code for Web Standards, I get a 
medley of results. Hence my opinion that no browser complies 
completely.
 
Now the crunch: I'm building a site for a 
photographer who wants pixel-precision layout on all browsers. At least 
we achieved it on IE6 with no tables, just CSS styling.
I'm aware that I shouldn't have done that, but 
please read on.
 
After two weeks of frustration trying to get it to 
work precisely on the other browsers, I've finally resorted to tables and 
yes, wicked me, even a spacer gif.
 
The home page (with inactive links) is at: 

www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/index.asp
 
and the CSS is at:
www.bluemountainsgardener.info/hobbs/dhpg_style_tables.css
 
The display my client wants is exactly what you'll 
see with IE6.
 
What he doesn't want is what you'll see on 
Safari, Firefox and IE5(Mac).
 
The page validates for both XHTML 1.0 Transitional 
and CSS. Even the Unordered List menu breaks on IE5(Mac).
 
Can anyone tell me why my valid (XHTML 
and CSS) page displays so differently in those four browsers - two 
of which are supposed to follow Web Standards closely (Firefox and 
Safari)?
 
Where is my code sub-standard if it validates for 
both XHTML and CSS?
 
What do I need to do to get it to display roughly 
the same on all four browsers?  Please don't tell me to use CSS 2 - I tried 
that and it simply didn't work !! The variations were unacceptable 
despite all the hacks I could find.
 
I know I'll be shot down in flames for raising 
this, but I really want to code for Web Standards and the frustration for me and 
my client is very real !!
 
I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm keen to 
persevere.
 
Thanks to you all for such a helpful 
List.
 
John Penlington
web developer
 
 
 
 
 
 

RE: [WSG] Skip links and Accessibility Info Links

[Laura Carlson]

Here are a few more skip link references:

http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/navigation#skiplinks

Laura
___
Laura L. Carlson
Information Technology Systems and Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, MN  55812-3009
http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
* 

[WSG] Some display issues in IE and Opera

[theGrafixGuy]

Title: Some display issues in IE and Opera






Hello all,

I am setting up Zen-Cart on my site and have run into a couple of snags in regards to Opera and one in IE.


I thought I had done something wrong, but it ain't me as all other Zen Carts following this style are displaying the same

The right side border does not display in the lower Navbar and the footer. It is okay from the header down to this point. Apparently something somewhere in the code or CSS is not right or needs to be tweaked a bit for Opera correctness.

the following sites in the showcase duplicate the error I am getting on the footer in Opera 7.23 on my site. So others may check as well and see what I am referring to.

B3 Horse Supplies
Embroidery Adventures
Foamwings
Name-On Labels
Salem Lacrosse
Scosh
Stick It 2 Ya

Thanks for the assist.

The IE error is harder to explain and I’ll touch base on that later.

brian