Re: [WSG] The Decline of Print Styles
Hi Jesse, You wrote: The University of Waterloo has print CSS ... ... not printing something that is totally useless on paper - navigation, search box, etc. One of the problems with it ... a lot of internal folks had a hard time figuring out why what was on the screen was not what was coming out of their printer. LOL! I take it, by "internal folks" you mean faculty types with, as one would expect, an education somewhat beyond a high school diploma. Not much hope for us external folks, then, is there? -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Background Image Bullets
Hi Patrick, At 03:07 PM 9/29/2006, you wrote: Based on that string, the version you're running was released on 16 June 2004... That seems about right--I've been using for quite a while and have generally liked it a lot better than IE6. Up to now I haven't been too anxious to upgrade. ...I occasionally run version 1.7.8 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 and don't see the issue you mention. That was one of the things I was wondering about--whether all or many Mozilla versions would also have the same problem. So yes, definitely looks like it was a bug (which has been fixed since 2004). Nice to know that when I get around to an upgrade the problem will probably be gone. In fact, it may have been around for a while (see this bugzilla report from 2002) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174981 Hmm--unless it is just one effect of a much larger glitch that does what 174981 describes for nested lists and also triggers my weird experience for very long unnested lists. Actually for me the bullet has not disappeared at all, I just get the vertical double image and it definitely does happen for local files. -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Background Image Bullets
Hi all, I have noticed a problem with a large local file for quite some time without any online presence to get much in the line of answers. I noticed the other day that the listmatic site, http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/ shows the same effect. That site shows a background image bullet problem that affects files with many list bullets formed using the background image method. I see this result running Mozilla 1.7 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616) on Win XP (Home) with SP2. It first shows up when I scroll down to the item Anton Andreasson's Big Boxes under the heading Experimental lists--the image is doubled up vertically as if the no repeat failed for that item. If I then scroll the entry up off the screen at the top and back down into view, or move another window over it then off again, or just hit Reload, the image is restored to its proper rendering. I get a similar result scrolling up from down on the page with some variation in which items are affected with varying distances scrolled down and back up--commonly this is the Using images for bullets entry. I asked Russ about this and his answer was "I have never noticed this behaviour but it is fascinating. It sounds like a rendering bug in Mozilla so probably very little that could be done about it. You could look through their bug reports to see if it is mentioned. "Feel free to post to the WSG to see if others have experienced this issue. Would be interesting to see if others have experienced it." I did have a brief look at the bug reports back when I first noticed the effect but didn't see anything that sounded like what I was seeing-- it's very likely I just don't know the correct wording and perhaps it's been there all along. Does anyone recognize this? Have a cure for it? -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] image border inside
Hi Taco, You wrote: Hi Gene, That might be an option to look at, will have a play with this later. Thanks. Hmm. Where I said, "... set the links to display: block, size them 2px by 2px smaller than the graphic, ..." obviously I did not allow for the border on the right and on the bottom--so, I should have said 4px by 4px. My buttons don't change on hover but do with a mouse click; I wanted to get the usual button behavior with a styled link. (My use is in a local file app rather than an online page, so I don't have something to show.) -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] image border inside
Hi Taco, In regard to your attempt to get an inside border effect, I see a few ideas were floated but you wrote: OK, the following is what I have now: ... In mozilla it does some strange stuff, the red border is around the image, not over it. As a last resort I can just decrease the image size by 2px, but ... The instances in your code look like this is a matter of styling links. Would it be possible to set the links to display: block, size them 2px by 2px smaller than the graphic, put the graphic in as a background positioned -2px top and left, and add the 2px borders to the block? I have no idea how good this would be for cross- browser but I have been playing around with the idea of styling links like buttons and it seems to work in IE6, Mozilla 1.7, and a recent Safari that my daughter uses. -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Accessibility statement
Hi R. B. You wrote: Hi Thierry, I read on that page : "All pages on this site use structured semantic markup. H2 tags are used for main titles, H3 tags for subtitles." H1 tags are missing. Is there a particular reason for this? Cheers Interesting--the source code for the page does use H1. I'll be watching for Thierry's answer. Perhaps, as it is written, the statement is intended for use on a page that reserves the H1 for the site name / company logo. -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Screenreaders and AJAX and bears...oh my...
Hi Mike, You wrote: However, what I've noticed that you do not see are articles pushing the screen reader manufacturers to make more capable and intellegent readers for the browsers.they seem to be able to do this for desktop applications (at least to a reasonable level). It seems that many of the efforts we are making (as well as the WSG) to enable accessibility are in fact disabling (and in many cases abandoning) the rich features on the net - this goes back to the whole "magazine article" site versus the "application" site - two different purposes, two different needs - both based on the same underlying technologies, and both need to be accessible. IMO this is because physical access rules came after there were wheelchairs that had, in turn, been developed long after most of the physical structures we take for granted were standardized. In spite of that timeline, there were some things that had to be changed such as the provision of ramps. In web development, we are, then, figuratively, trying to build doorways and invent the wheelchair at much the same time. Not only is there a major emphasis on web sites doing a lot of the work on this but also our efforts may be obsolete as soon as the next generation of assisting software is introduced. That may be a discouraging prospect, but I think we still have to keep up as best as we can. -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Pixel Perfect
Hi Steven, You wrote: I have used Coldfusion MX 7 server to generate PDF of HTML pages. ... I think .net has something similar too. I just came from checking for info on the site of one of our fine commercial enterprises that was, it seems, generated by .net. After not being able to successfully click on any of the apparent link icons, I checked the page source and it was a mess in regard to standards. The page markup had a nasty inline JavaScript line above the DOCTYPE, no URI in the DOCTYPE, JavaScript in the head, a call to an external JS in the head, and JavaScript in the body. I finally found the information I wanted in a .pdf that I had to magnify to be able to bring the tiny type up out of pixel hell. My impression is that the .net way is not a nice way to go if you want standards-based markup. -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] Pixel Perfect
Hi Steven, You wrote: I have used Coldfusion MX 7 server to generate PDF of HTML pages. ... I think .net has something similar too. I just came from checking for info on the site of one of our fine commercial enterprises that was, it seems, generated by .net. After not being able to successfully click on any of the apparent link icons, I checked the page source and it was a mess in regard to standards. The page markup had a nasty inline JavaScript line above the DOCTYPE, no URI in the DOCTYPE, JavaScript in the head, a call to an external JS in the head, and JavaScript in the body. I finally found the information I wanted in a .pdf that I had to magnify to be able to bring the tiny type up out of pixel hell. My impression is that the .net way is not a nice way to go if you want standards-based markup. -- Regards, Gene Falck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
