RE: [WSG] Smallest valid html document (was validator.w3.org broken?)
Rimantas wrote: That's not minimal document. This one is: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN title./titlep. Strictly speaking, the p is optional - you only need a title and some content The shortest document I could get to validate is: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//X//DTD X//Xtitle/titlex Though I have doubts about the doctype, and whether the document could truly claim to be html. The shortest page I think is valid is: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//IETF//DTD HTML//ENtitle/title. Anyone? Cheers, Geoff. == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] div out of alignment
The problem here is IE and floats. You can make the design more robust by adding a negative margin on the side column that's equal to its width. But you won't get a perfect solution using percentage widths on the side column, only when using ems or pixels. Have a look at the samples on this site... http://www.strictlycss.com/examples/fluid-css-layout-with-faux-columns-1.asp On 2/1/07, Jermayn Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi yes that worked, however I moved it down to 36% or so I then tested it again in IE and it doesnt break until the window is 750 or so pixels. Is that ok?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31/01/2007 1:29 pm If you reduce the width of the window in FF you get the right column overlapping the left which suggests the maths on the columns doesn't add up which on quick look seems a bit odd because they seem to add up to less than 100%. I changed #sidebar to 39% instead of 40% though and the right column moved back into the correct position, so it might have a similar effect in IE. On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:39:40 +1000, Jermayn Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all I know this is a fairly simple problem but after spending a few days designing it and nutting out all these problems, im kinder over it (if you kow what i mean) In ie the divs which hold the main content go below the side menu divs if the window size isnt big enough. I think the problem is the space or the way they are floated but im not sure http://www.germworks.net Thanks for checking and help btw if anyone has any problems with design, accesability issues etc can you also please point them out Thanks again The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Tyssen Design Web print design services www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] Smallest valid html document (was validator.w3.org broken?)
That's not minimal document. This one is: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN title./titlep. Strictly speaking, the p is optional - you only need a title and some content In this case dots are optional, p is not. What you say is true for Transitional DTD. The shortest page I think is valid is: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//IETF//DTD HTML//ENtitle/title. Anyone? Well, I'll limit myself to HTML4.01 for now :) Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
Matthew Smith wrote: tolerate screen motion? (A bit off-topic, I know, but I believe that accessibility/standards doesn't stop at the content, but extends to software and OS.) Not liking fancy animations does not make you an accessibility advocate. Apparently everyone hates flash, but for different reasons. Hehehe. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Smallest valid html document (was validator.w3.org broken?)
But is it accessible? Rimantas Liubertas wrote: That's not minimal document. This one is: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN title./titlep. Strictly speaking, the p is optional - you only need a title and some content In this case dots are optional, p is not. What you say is true for Transitional DTD. The shortest page I think is valid is: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//IETF//DTD HTML//ENtitle/title. Anyone? Well, I'll limit myself to HTML4.01 for now :) Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
Funny enough, website development depends on your site goal, target audience and client's want. If your site demands that you use a flash (if it's a major communication) then you have to use flash. Sunday John Web Developer www.isslng.com -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barney Carroll Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:08 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;) Matthew Smith wrote: tolerate screen motion? (A bit off-topic, I know, but I believe that accessibility/standards doesn't stop at the content, but extends to software and OS.) Not liking fancy animations does not make you an accessibility advocate. Apparently everyone hates flash, but for different reasons. Hehehe. Regards, Barney *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
Milosz, those sites are incredibly flash-intensive. Without flash, they fail. With flash and a slow connection (or even processor), they run badly. I'm afraid any objective source would give those low marks for accessibility. But they are entirely based on style - there is no real substance in there, it's just visuals. So the demographics they're excluding have nothing to gain from accessing the sites anyway. At which point, to be honest, I'd stop worrying. There is no reason for you to beat yourself up over these things - perhaps nice little flash tests and messages of 'nothing for you here!' on fail, and you've left no-one unaccounted. Having said that, for creations entirely dedicated to art, they're awfully flimsy. This is the 'art' of college design student bimbos drunk on their own hormones and stumbling about the room looking to fall into the lap of the nearest fad. Of course the only fads that stand out when you're inebriated to this point are the ones with garish colours and stuff jumping out all over the place. I suppose if you gave these guys creative directors they could do corporate ads on the internet, possibly music group web sites. 'Emotional' is too strong a word, I reckon (or not strong enough, depending on where you stand). 'Sentimental' might be better. Although it still gives a good indication of the contents. We were warned! Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
Now that's what I'm talking about. When everything is available as raw XML and you've got XSLT, you're in flexible heaven. Rob O'Rourke wrote: Not necessarily, check out what Dan Cederholm wrote about his work on MTV.com [1], they have a fully flash site that runs from a server-side generated xml file. Dan's role was to create XSLTs that transformed the same information into an accessible HTML version of the site so that users could chop and change as they saw fit. Now that's the way things should be done if an ENTIRE site is to be made in flash =] [1] http://www.simplebits.com/work/mtv/ I'm actually working on a browser-based multiplayer game with a friend of mine that will work in this way, hopefully it'll be the first truly accessible one too. Rob O *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
Yea, I agree with your comment. Contents that is available through xml for flash improves performance. Also given the user a choice to switch to version of site is good idea to meet end users viewing experience. Like I said, all still boils down to the project goal, target audience and your client. Sunday John Web Developer www.isslng.com -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob O'Rourke Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:08 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;) Sunday John wrote: Funny enough, website development depends on your site goal, target audience and client's want. If your site demands that you use a flash (if it's a major communication) then you have to use flash. Sunday John Web Developer www.isslng.com Not necessarily, check out what Dan Cederholm wrote about his work on MTV.com [1], they have a fully flash site that runs from a server-side generated xml file. Dan's role was to create XSLTs that transformed the same information into an accessible HTML version of the site so that users could chop and change as they saw fit. Now that's the way things should be done if an ENTIRE site is to be made in flash =] [1] http://www.simplebits.com/work/mtv/ I'm actually working on a browser-based multiplayer game with a friend of mine that will work in this way, hopefully it'll be the first truly accessible one too. Rob O *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] Smallest valid html document (was validator.w3.org broken?)
On 2/2/07, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But is it accessible? Oh, man, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Okay, not really, but it really is funny. Dan *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
Sunday John wrote: Yea, I agree with your comment. Contents that is available through xml for flash improves performance. Also given the user a choice to switch to version of site is good idea to meet end users viewing experience. Like I said, all still boils down to the project goal, target audience and your client. Sunday John Web Developer www.isslng.com True, I'm starting to realise that more and more now as the works piling up =$ Still, at least the world of corporate merchandise e-commerce is a little more accessible now =] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 16:37 +, Rob O'Rourke wrote: True, I'm starting to realise that more and more now as the works piling up =$ Still, at least the world of corporate merchandise e-commerce is a little more accessible now =] Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity: ...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so terribly absent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/letters_0202/ -m *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
miden wrote: Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity: ...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so terribly absent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/letters_0202/ And that's really the key point I was trying to make when I started this thread (which, as Russ pointed out, has morphed considerably). Too many 'designers' regard accessibility as something you *do* to your site *after* you've developed its visual glory, with consequent compromises, and text-based alternatives. It should be, instead, a factor that influences your design choices from the beginning, sort of given these parameters, how do we get the effect we want which is a more sensible (and usually cheaper) option. Validate your test models before polishing and you're more than halfway to creating a site that satisfies on both criteria. Incidentally, I understand that the Googlebot can't read flash-based content, and will generally ignore your metadata. If you're not accessible to Goggle, you can hardly be said to be on the web. cheers mark (spending time at the Wellington 7's!) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
On 2/2/07, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: miden wrote: Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity: ...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so terribly absent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/letters_0202/ And that's really the key point I was trying to make when I started this thread (which, as Russ pointed out, has morphed considerably). Too many 'designers' regard accessibility as something you *do* to your site *after* you've developed its visual glory, with consequent compromises, and text-based alternatives. It should be, instead, a factor that influences your design choices from the beginning, sort of given these parameters, how do we get the effect we want which is a more sensible (and usually cheaper) option. Validate your test models before polishing and you're more than halfway to creating a site that satisfies on both criteria. Now I'm just compelled to mention Faust - Flash AUgmenting STandards. http://blog.space150.com/2007/1/11/faust-flash-augmenting-standards A great example of Faust in practice: http://www.ivyhotel.com/ -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
Christian Montoya wrote: On 2/2/07, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: miden wrote: Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity: ...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so terribly absent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/letters_0202/ And that's really the key point I was trying to make when I started this thread (which, as Russ pointed out, has morphed considerably). Too many 'designers' regard accessibility as something you *do* to your site *after* you've developed its visual glory, with consequent compromises, and text-based alternatives. It should be, instead, a factor that influences your design choices from the beginning, sort of given these parameters, how do we get the effect we want which is a more sensible (and usually cheaper) option. Validate your test models before polishing and you're more than halfway to creating a site that satisfies on both criteria. Now I'm just compelled to mention Faust - Flash AUgmenting STandards. http://blog.space150.com/2007/1/11/faust-flash-augmenting-standards A great example of Faust in practice: http://www.ivyhotel.com/ Thanks for pointing that out Christian, I always loved flash(y) sites before I knew anything about web standards etc... it's nice to know that there are options out there, at least when I have the ability to make something that might be considered arty. Anyone want to lend me a copy of flash 8? =P Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Targeting specific images with overflow:hidden
Hello All
I've designed some templates for a blogging system about 6 months back, but
neither I nor my client, anticipated
non-breaking text strings or oversized images being uploaded into these
non-liquid designs.
Designs are typical two column floats (nav and main content area are
floated) so when something is put into these
areas which are over the maximum width level we get float drops.
Of course, and as usual, Firefox handles these problems without breaking the
layout, and in IE i've used the
proprietary text-wrap property to deal with over-sized strings. Now I'm
trying to work out how to handle oversized
images.
I can put overflow:hidden in a div which has images - which does the trick
for IE - but then FireFox truncates any
overflowing text which may also be within that div.
What I want to do is target any img within the site
img {
font-size: 80%;
color: #000;
background-color: inherit;
border: none;
overflow:hidden;
}
with overflow:hidden - but for some reason, it's not working.
I've even tried using a class -
img.overflow {
overflow:hidden;
}
on each image, but that doesn't work either. Hummm.
What does work is if I hook overflow:hidden to a div which contains the
image, but like I said, that causes text
overflow problems in FireFox.
To see what's going on, please go here:
http://www.x7m.us/_problems/index_problem.htm.
According to my client, overflowing text and images is acceptable in firefox
- although it's ugly - but he can't have it break the site in IE.
Sure would appreciate any advise on how I can get overflow:hidden to target
just the images on this site.
Thanks to all in advance!!!
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 17:01 -0500, Christian Montoya wrote: On 2/2/07, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: miden wrote: Interesting letter on The Register WRT accessiblity: ...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so terribly absent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/letters_0202/ And that's really the key point I was trying to make when I started this thread (which, as Russ pointed out, has morphed considerably). Too many 'designers' regard accessibility as something you *do* to your site *after* you've developed its visual glory, with consequent compromises, and text-based alternatives. It should be, instead, a factor that influences your design choices from the beginning, sort of given these parameters, how do we get the effect we want which is a more sensible (and usually cheaper) option. Validate your test models before polishing and you're more than halfway to creating a site that satisfies on both criteria. Now I'm just compelled to mention Faust - Flash AUgmenting STandards. http://blog.space150.com/2007/1/11/faust-flash-augmenting-standards A great example of Faust in practice: http://www.ivyhotel.com/ Beautiful site - took 1 1/2 to 2 minutes for some pages to load completely on dialup but everything 'important' was available almost immediately. Great site and wasn't bothered by any ugly 'you need flash' notices (why do some/so many designers tolerate having their work marred by those notices when they could do something like this. Great stuff. -m *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Targeting specific images with overflow:hidden
Cole Kuryakin wrote:
[...] To see what's going on, please go here:
http://www.x7m.us/_problems/index_problem.htm.
Sure would appreciate any advise on how I can get overflow:hidden to
target just the images on this site.
You can target all images with 'max-width' in the good browsers, and add
an acceptable fix for IE6 through its own bugs.
Add the following...
img {max-width: 100%; height: auto;}
* html #gallery {overflow: hidden; width: 170px;}
* html #gallery img {position: relative; /* overflowing part visible */}
* html #content_main {overflow: hidden;}
* html #content_main img {position: relative;/* overflowing part visible */}
...and then decide whether you want the overflowing part of the images
visible in IE6, or not.
Just delete the '... img {position: relative;}' declarations and the
overflow will be completely hidden.
The layout won't break in IE6 either way.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Targeting specific images with overflow:hidden
At 2/2/2007 05:44 PM, Cole Kuryakin wrote:
What I want to do is target any img within the site
img {
...
overflow:hidden;
}
with overflow:hidden - but for some reason, it's not working.
Overflow applies to the contents of a block, not to the block
itself. img{overflow:hidden} would make sense only if an image could
have content, e.g.:
img
something /
/img
but that's not HTML.
See:
CSS 2.1 Specification
11 Visual effects
11.1 Overflow and clipping
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visufx.html#overflow-clipping
Regards,
Paul
__
Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Art and accessibility - my opinion ;)
A great example of Faust in practice: http://www.ivyhotel.com/ Bravo! I took a quick (and only quick) look in Lynx and got a meaningful site. I think that this could be a first. And also a last, as this example neatly takes away any excuse for a primarily Flash-based site to be inaccessible. I seem to recall this all started talking about awards - whoever did the Ivy Hotel design should certainly be in the running for one. Cheers M (Still can't get over it working well in Lynx.) -- Matthew Smith IT Consultancy Web Application Development Business: http://www.kbc.net.au/ Personal: http://www.smiffysplace.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/smiffy *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
