Re: [WSG] small screen rendering tools (plus other useful things)

2004-03-14 Thread Jorgen Farum Jensen

James:

Nice heads-up. Thanks.

 A quick troll through the extensionroom at mozdev this lazy sunday 
 afternoon showed up some interesting tools that may be of help when 
 developing/designing/tweaking your next masterpiece:
 
 ---
 SSR (http://disruptive-innovations.com/products/index.html#SSRXPI)
 
--- snip-snip --

 
 IE view allows you to launch a page into IE from a Mozilla browser, from 
 the context menu.
 http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/ieview

Whats is the context menu in Firebird?

-- snip-snip --


Jorgen Farum Jensen
www.webdesign101.dk

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



Re: [WSG] small screen rendering tools (plus other useful things)

2004-03-14 Thread Neerav
the context menu in Firebird is the mneu that appears when you click in 
an empty area of a webpage

--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
IE view allows you to launch a page into IE from a Mozilla browser, from 
the context menu.
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/ieview


Whats is the context menu in Firebird?

-- snip-snip --

Jorgen Farum Jensen
www.webdesign101.dk
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



Re: [WSG] loading links when loading a page.

2004-03-14 Thread Justin French
On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 10:10  AM, Kim Buttery wrote:

A number of my web pages insist that links I visited, when checking 
them remain in the 'visited' state in the future. I would like the 
links to revert to a none-visited state when a page loads. I believe 
there should be an 'on load' instruction but I have not been able to 
find the syntax in either my html references or the CSS references.  
Can someone assist with the correct syntax (? on load a:link ?) and 
tell me if it should be placed in the head content /head area. 
Thank you..
I'd really recommend against this, as it's changing the behaviour of 
the user's mail program -- generally a big no-no.

For example, in Firefox 0.8's preferences, I can 'remember visited 
pages for the last N days'.  It's a user preference, NOT a 
developer/site-owner preference.

Of course there **MAY** be occasions where this is okay, I'd avoid it 
all costs if possible.

Take the following example:

1. I visit a friends blog, and read the newest three posts... my 
browser remembers those last three posts as being visited, and offers a 
visual cue that this has happened.

2. I close the window, and leave the site.

3. I come back a few days later, and your script screws with the 
visited links, turning them all into fresh links.

4. Rather than glancing at each title/link and seeing that it is 
visited, I have to read the title/link, remember if I've read it, then 
decide what to do.

If you personally want a different scenario for your browser, mess with 
your preferences, and set the history/visited pages preference to 0 or 
1 days, and see how that goes, but please don't mess with my 
preferences :)

---
Justin French
http://indent.com.au
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*


Re: [WSG] New CSS site

2004-03-14 Thread Hugh Todd
Michael,

Peter Gifford's beautiful work makes me wonder if I should call myself 
a designer at all.

But what he didn't say was what I have long maintained.

The fact that everyone (more or less) can pick up a pencil does not 
mean that everyone can draw beautifully.

In the same way, the fact that everyone on this list either can, or is 
learning to, make web pages using CSS does not make them graphic 
designers.

I know this is an obvious point, but I would recommend that if you want 
to make beautiful sites you engage the services of a professional 
graphic designer to produce Photoshop images of what your site could 
look like. It will take some collaboration, but when your CSS makes the 
design come to life you will see how graphic design works, not simply 
to make things look beautiful but to add intelligence and simplicity 
(if simplicity can be added) to the conveying of information.

All the best! -Hugh Todd

Im sorry, Peter, but I hate your new site. I LOATHE it.

Oh, not because you did a rotten job in my opinion. On the contrary, 
its so good it reminds me of my own shortcomings in the 
artistic/design department.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*


Re: [WSG] small screen rendering tools (plus other useful things)

2004-03-14 Thread Paul Ross
Thanks for posting that James. Further info: you can do this if you are using
Opera 7. Just go View  Small Screen. You'll get a simulation of how the page
looks on a handheld PDA device.

Regards
PAUL ROSS
SkyRocket Design Co

\\Quoting James Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 quote:
 Disruptive Innovations is happy to offer you this extension to the 
 Mozilla Application Suite allowing to check if a web site renders well 
 on a cellphone's screen. This addon installs a new menu entry Small 
 Screen Rendering in the View menu. Selecting it toggles on/off the 
 Small Screen Rendering mode. This does not work with pages using framesets.




-
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



RE: [WSG] Purpose of this mailing list / web developers involvement in development of appropriate standards?

2004-03-14 Thread Morgan
Hi,

I am a firm believer in standards and mostly just keep an eye on the list
(very erratically) to see what is going on and find out about resources that
I might have missed out on otherwise.

I actively support standards but am beginning to get annoyed at some of the
latest standards coming out as they don't seem to meet the real life needs
of the web development community (take XHTML 2.0 for instance).  I don't
want to boycott standards - that'd be dumb - but I would like to see web
developers being able to provide more feedback regarding standards under
development.  The obvious consideration is to become a member of the W3C -
but unfortunately membership is restricted to those individuals and
companies who can afford to pay $57,000 per year in membership fees.  That
would be why there is only 400 member companies.  I find most of the active
supporters of standards tend to be smaller companies and individuals -
especially those who are willing to share information with others.  Does
anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?  I did write to the W3C
via email but have not yet received a reply.  

Anyway, I guess my question is, is this list an appropriate place to discuss
such issues and perhaps discuss ways that developers can have more of a say
about what should be considered for standards?  Just something that has been
beginning to bug me more and more over the last few years... I follow
standards, I take pains and efforts to use them, I tell other people to use
them and share details of tools that will help make following standards
easier... But do I get any say in what goes into those standards... Not
really.  Is it just me who feels this way?

On a totally different topic (one that is definitely suitable to this list -
well, I think so anyway):  If you are not already using it, a useful
tool/reference for people new to CSS is the devedge sidebar tabs
(http://devedge.netscape.com/toolbox/sidebars/) and checky
(http://checky.mozdev.org/) that are available for Mozilla/Netscape.  (I use
IE to work in because that is what a lot of our clients use, but I always
have mozilla open for testing and also for quick access to the devedge
sidebar  - it very neatly bookmarks the W3C standards so you can find what
you are after straight away).

M.

e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



RE: [WSG] A stylesheet which makes IE standards-compliant!

2004-03-14 Thread Matthew Magain

That IE7 hack looks interesting and I would like to have a play with
it, but the download link doesn't seem to be functional...

Has anyone else been able to get hold of it?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Phillips, Wendy
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 6:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] A stylesheet which makes IE standards-compliant!


as a matter of interest ...

http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/03/12/0454228.shtml



Wendy Phillips
Job Ready (Learning  Development) 
Customer Sales  Service
___

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph: 61 3 9203 2363
Building 1, Ground Floor, 301 Burwood Hwy
Burwood 3125

Our Intranet Site  http://www.in.telstra.com.au/ism/retail_learning_cs/

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



RE: [WSG] loading links when loading a page.

2004-03-14 Thread Kim Buttery
English is wonderful language to breed misunderstanding. I don't want to
change the visit count, just the appearance when a page is loaded. If the
appearance goes with the count, then you are correct, I do not want to
change it.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Thank you for your
recommendation.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Justin French
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 7:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] loading links when loading a page.

On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 10:10  AM, Kim Buttery wrote:

 A number of my web pages insist that links I visited, when checking 
 them remain in the 'visited' state in the future. I would like the 
 links to revert to a none-visited state when a page loads. I believe 
 there should be an 'on load' instruction but I have not been able to 
 find the syntax in either my html references or the CSS references.
 Can someone assist with the correct syntax (? on load a:link ?) and 
 tell me if it should be placed in the head content /head area.
 Thank you..

I'd really recommend against this, as it's changing the behaviour of the
user's mail program -- generally a big no-no.

For example, in Firefox 0.8's preferences, I can 'remember visited pages for
the last N days'.  It's a user preference, NOT a developer/site-owner
preference.

Of course there **MAY** be occasions where this is okay, I'd avoid it all
costs if possible.

Take the following example:

1. I visit a friends blog, and read the newest three posts... my browser
remembers those last three posts as being visited, and offers a visual cue
that this has happened.

2. I close the window, and leave the site.

3. I come back a few days later, and your script screws with the visited
links, turning them all into fresh links.

4. Rather than glancing at each title/link and seeing that it is visited, I
have to read the title/link, remember if I've read it, then decide what to
do.


If you personally want a different scenario for your browser, mess with your
preferences, and set the history/visited pages preference to 0 or
1 days, and see how that goes, but please don't mess with my preferences :)


---
Justin French
http://indent.com.au

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*



RE: [WSG] loading links when loading a page.

2004-03-14 Thread Kim Buttery



Thank you. I went to the Microsoft reference link you gave me . This 
appears to apply to versions of IE prior to version 5.x. What I really want to 
do is just prevent the web pages from continuing to show 'visited' color on 
repeated visits.. Maybe I will justuse link and hover 
states..


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darya  
TravisSent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:48 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [WSG] loading links when 
loading a page.


You probably thought of 
this: META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" 
CONTENT="no-cache"

TJ





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kim ButterySent: March 14, 
2004 7:11 
PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [WSG] loading links when loading a 
page.


A number of my web pages insist that links I visited, 
when checking them remain in the 'visited' state in the future. I would like the 
links to revert to a none-visited state when a page loads. I believe there 
should be an 'on load' instruction but I have not been able to find the syntax 
in either my html references or the CSS references. Can someone assist with the 
correctsyntax (? on load "a:link" ?)and tell me if it should be 
placed in the head content /head area. Thank 
you..


Kim Buttery
1096 Gayles 
Road
Urbanna, VA 23175
804.758.0707
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: [WSG] loading links when loading a page.

2004-03-14 Thread Kim Buttery
Yes, I think that is the best work around. Thanks. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Moser
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] loading links when loading a page.

Kim Buttery blurted out:
 A number of my web pages insist that links I visited, when checking 
 them remain in the 'visited' state in the future. I would like the 
 links to revert to a none-visited state when a page loads. I believe 
 there should be an 'on load' instruction but I have not been able to 
 find the syntax in either my html references or the CSS references.  
 Can someone assist with the correct syntax (? on load a:link ?) and 
 tell me if it should be placed in the head content /head area. Thank
you..

You could just style a:visited to look like a:link (or plain a) in your CSS.
Then it wouldn't matter whether or not the browser thought it was visited.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



RE: [WSG] New CSS site

2004-03-14 Thread Michael Kear
You are quite right, Hugh.  I'm a professional at what I do, and I tell my
clients that there's nothing stopping them getting out notepad or Frontpage
and doing their own sites.  There aren't any secret programming techniques
in web sites. But they don't because they're good at running an off-road car
parts business or being a professional athlete, and I'm good at developing
web code.   The exact same argument applies to graphic arts.  I own
Fireworks and Photoshop, and I can manipulate images well enough to
eliminate a background or put it out of focus to make the foreground object
stand out, I can colour correct and correct lighting, and I can make
buttons,  and I can crop pictures to improve composition.   

But all those things are mechanical.  Anyone, given the instructions, can do
that.  What takes talent, vision and skills that I don't have is taking a
white screen and envisioning something beautiful on it.  A blank canvas so
to speak  and producing a wonderful piece of art, that also works as a web
page. 

So you're right.  I ought to be working with a graphic artist, and if I did
my sites would look far better. 

But I work mostly with tiny businesses, for whom building even a
brochureware site is something of a stretch.  The site just wont pay for two
people to do the job.  And I'm too conscious of a mortgage debt and school
fees and the need to eat to allow someone else to take away some of the
money.   So I have to do it all by myself whether I like it or not.  And in
the process I'm learning quite a lot about artistic matters, although I'll
be the first to acknowledge I'm never going to make it as an artist.

One day perhaps.

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Hugh Todd
Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] New CSS site

Michael,

Peter Gifford's beautiful work makes me wonder if I should call myself 
a designer at all.

But what he didn't say was what I have long maintained.

The fact that everyone (more or less) can pick up a pencil does not 
mean that everyone can draw beautifully.

In the same way, the fact that everyone on this list either can, or is 
learning to, make web pages using CSS does not make them graphic 
designers.

I know this is an obvious point, but I would recommend that if you want 
to make beautiful sites you engage the services of a professional 
graphic designer to produce Photoshop images of what your site could 
look like. It will take some collaboration, but when your CSS makes the 
design come to life you will see how graphic design works, not simply 
to make things look beautiful but to add intelligence and simplicity 
(if simplicity can be added) to the conveying of information.

All the best! -Hugh Todd

 I’m sorry, Peter, but I hate your new site.   I LOATHE it.

 Oh, not because you did a rotten job in my opinion.  On the contrary, 
 it’s so good it reminds me of my own shortcomings in the 
 artistic/design department.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*



[WSG] Testing multiple versions of IE

2004-03-14 Thread Universal Head
I've installed IE 5.01, 5.5 and 6 on my Windows2000 box using this 
method:
http://www.quirksmode.org/browsers/multipleie.html

However, does anyone know a way of testing that these are acting as 
they should for each version number?

Peter

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



Re: [WSG] New CSS site

2004-03-14 Thread Jackie Reid
As Peter mentioned in an earlier post, For inspiration, look at traditional
design as well as other websites
I think this is the best advice that could be offered to anyone who doesn't
have a design background.

With the wonders of css we should be able to reproduce any design we like.
Magazines, Press Ads, TV ads, Billboards and even junk mail can be an
inspiration in layout and colours.

Another thing that is not always treated with the respect it deserves is the
content. Headings, subheader, content all have a job to do, ie: attract
attention, reinforce and sell. There are many books/sites out there on
advertising that works and why it works. Zeldman covers it a bit in Taking
your Talent to the Web I think. We should all  take into account rules
(for want of a better word) that have been established for a long long time
in the print media and adapt them to the web... most sites are still selling
something whether its a service or a product and the content should be
considered as important as the layout...

...so now we need professional copywriters as well... oh well thats just the
way the mop flops!!!

Jackie Reid
Mock Orange Web Site Development
1st Floor
92 Victoria Street
MACKAY Q 4740
Ph: 07 4953 4035

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:18 PM
Subject: RE: [WSG] New CSS site


You are quite right, Hugh.  I'm a professional at what I do, and I tell my
clients that there's nothing stopping them getting out notepad or Frontpage
and doing their own sites.  There aren't any secret programming techniques
in web sites. But they don't because they're good at running an off-road car
parts business or being a professional athlete, and I'm good at developing
web code.   The exact same argument applies to graphic arts.  I own
Fireworks and Photoshop, and I can manipulate images well enough to
eliminate a background or put it out of focus to make the foreground object
stand out, I can colour correct and correct lighting, and I can make
buttons,  and I can crop pictures to improve composition.

But all those things are mechanical.  Anyone, given the instructions, can do
that.  What takes talent, vision and skills that I don't have is taking a
white screen and envisioning something beautiful on it.  A blank canvas so
to speak  and producing a wonderful piece of art, that also works as a web
page.

So you're right.  I ought to be working with a graphic artist, and if I did
my sites would look far better.

But I work mostly with tiny businesses, for whom building even a
brochureware site is something of a stretch.  The site just wont pay for two
people to do the job.  And I'm too conscious of a mortgage debt and school
fees and the need to eat to allow someone else to take away some of the
money.   So I have to do it all by myself whether I like it or not.  And in
the process I'm learning quite a lot about artistic matters, although I'll
be the first to acknowledge I'm never going to make it as an artist.

One day perhaps.

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Hugh Todd
Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] New CSS site

Michael,

Peter Gifford's beautiful work makes me wonder if I should call myself
a designer at all.

But what he didn't say was what I have long maintained.

The fact that everyone (more or less) can pick up a pencil does not
mean that everyone can draw beautifully.

In the same way, the fact that everyone on this list either can, or is
learning to, make web pages using CSS does not make them graphic
designers.

I know this is an obvious point, but I would recommend that if you want
to make beautiful sites you engage the services of a professional
graphic designer to produce Photoshop images of what your site could
look like. It will take some collaboration, but when your CSS makes the
design come to life you will see how graphic design works, not simply
to make things look beautiful but to add intelligence and simplicity
(if simplicity can be added) to the conveying of information.

All the best! -Hugh Todd

 I'm sorry, Peter, but I hate your new site. I LOATHE it.

 Oh, not because you did a rotten job in my opinion. On the contrary,
 it's so good it reminds me of my own shortcomings in the
 artistic/design department.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



[WSG] Netscape versions

2004-03-14 Thread Universal Head
What's a good version of Netscape Navigator to check in? v 7.1 or v7? 
is there a big difference? Is it worth checking in older versions?
What's the Netscape skinny basically?

Thanks!
Peter (obviously setting up a PC testing machine ...)
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



Re: [WSG] Netscape versions

2004-03-14 Thread russ weakley
That is a loaded question... Depends on what level of browser you intend to
support. I'd install 7, 6 and 4.x, just so you can see how it operates, but
that is just me...

All browsers are available here:
http://browsers.evolt.org/

Russ


 What's a good version of Netscape Navigator to check in? v 7.1 or v7?
 is there a big difference? Is it worth checking in older versions?
 What's the Netscape skinny basically?
 
 Thanks!
 Peter (obviously setting up a PC testing machine ...)
 
 *
 The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 *


*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



[WSG]

2004-03-14 Thread David McDonald
D. Keith Robinson has started an interesting discussion, called 'Why
Not Web Standards?', at Asterisk. He's asking why people aren't using
web standards, and the reasons for it:

I’m very curious as to why people have shied away from Web
standards. I’m very interested in hearing from people who either
don’t support Web standards at all or are still struggling with it.

http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archives/why_not_web_standards.php

Regards,

David McDonald
Regards,

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

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*



Re: [WSG] Netscape versions

2004-03-14 Thread StBlanz
Hello Peter,

What's a good version of Netscape Navigator to check in? v 7.1 or v7? 

it's usefull to install v6.1 or v7.0 (around 2% of users), because you can check a bug 
with conform coded forms (labels). (AFAIK: Later Versions work like Mozi.)

Greetings
Stefan
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 



Re: [WSG] Netscape versions

2004-03-14 Thread SA



Hi all

Netscape 4.7 is the tricky one. You need to do a 
balancing act between 4.7 and 7.x compliance. However the latest google stats 
clearly puts ie 6.x ahead of the rest. Mozilla might catch up, though the 
current share is a below 1%

Cheers
Dippy

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Universal 
  Head 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:58 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] Netscape 
versions
  This is interesting - but lots of people still use Navigator 
  right?I guess I was asking the difference between build numbers too, 
  because the Netscape site has versions 7.1, 7.0, 6.2, 6.1, 4.7, 4.8 4.6, 4.5, 
  4.0, 3.0 and 2.0. Obviously I don't want have to check in them all 
  ...On 15/03/2004, at 5:14 PM, James Ellis wrote:
  Netscape 7 is built off stable Mozilla 1.x code (1.01 I think) 
and they both use Gecko (the rendering engine). It's basically Mozilla 
without the AOL crap mixed in.Both Firefox and Camino betas are based 
off this engine as well (Firefox is the browser part of Mozilla 
1.6a)This means that if you test in Mozilla it'll emulate NS7. 
Netscape 6 is based off an 0.9 release of Mozilla - it has some issues and 
has a smaller footprint than v4 :D.As Netscape no longer exists as a 
company you may be better off using the Mozilla base (mozilla.org) to 
test.Universal 
  HeadDesign 
  That Works.7/43 Bridge Rd StanmoreNSW 2048 AustraliaT (+612) 
  9517 1466F (+612) 9565 4747E [EMAIL PROTECTED]W 
  www.universalhead.com