date:20040321

You could incase it in a div and float the div then the image doesn't 
need a width

Leo

On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 01:46  AM, Hugh Todd wrote:

Maureen,

I don't know what the usual procedure is, but the float property does 
require a width to be specified, so I think you probably have two 
choices.

1) Put the border around the img itself (which leaves your caption 
outside it, changing your design). You could then enclose the left 
floating img and the caption in an invisible right floating box of 
fixed width, and make the caption float left, too, with a fixed width. 
The img could then float over the border of the enclosing div, and 
while the caption will not necessarily run the full length of the img, 
it will at least stay associated with the picture. (I'd not centre the 
caption, so that you don't have a problem with the caption centring at 
random points.)

2) Make all your pictures the same size :(

Anyone else got a better solution? Are there any problems with what 
I've suggested? (For eg, is it possible that the img might run off the 
rh side of the page if it's a lot wider than its enclosing, fixed 
width, right floating div?)

-Hugh

I wondered about that. The class "photoright" is used throughout the 
site
with different size images, therefore to specify a width is 
difficult. When
I placed the image I added the height and width with  img style and 
thought
that would cover it. What is the usual procedure in this case?
*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

2004-03-21 Thread Anne van Kesteren (fora)

I don't know what the usual procedure is, but the float property does 
require a width to be specified, so I think you probably have two choices.
Not anymore. CSS 2.1 changes this, because browsers didn't bother when 
'width' isn't specified.

--
 Anne van Kesteren
 
*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

Maureen,

I don't know what the usual procedure is, but the float property does 
require a width to be specified, so I think you probably have two 
choices.

1) Put the border around the img itself (which leaves your caption 
outside it, changing your design). You could then enclose the left 
floating img and the caption in an invisible right floating box of 
fixed width, and make the caption float left, too, with a fixed width. 
The img could then float over the border of the enclosing div, and 
while the caption will not necessarily run the full length of the img, 
it will at least stay associated with the picture. (I'd not centre the 
caption, so that you don't have a problem with the caption centring at 
random points.)

2) Make all your pictures the same size :(

Anyone else got a better solution? Are there any problems with what 
I've suggested? (For eg, is it possible that the img might run off the 
rh side of the page if it's a lot wider than its enclosing, fixed 
width, right floating div?)

-Hugh

I wondered about that. The class "photoright" is used throughout the 
site
with different size images, therefore to specify a width is difficult. 
When
I placed the image I added the height and width with  img style and 
thought
that would cover it. What is the usual procedure in this case?
*
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] slightly OT web page analyser service

I think the reason for that is that the structure of the page is built and
the images can d/l while the the content is in place and the reader can
begin seeing something atleast.

This tool (which I discovered last month as part of a plug-in for Mozilla
and Firefox) sold me the rest of the way on the advantages of CSS. 

I know as time allows I am going to rebuild my "newly rebuilt tables-based
site" UGH! But to my clients advantage, I have already begun implimenting
CSS into their sites full bore.

Brian

>>>The only problem I can see is images referenced in the CSS are not taken
into account 

>>>Jason

*
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] slightly OT web page analyser service

Nor is the fact that stylesheets (and images, for that matter) are 
cached. You're only comparing a first hit on one page. One of the 
beauties of CSS is that once you're past that first page, and into 
other pages on the site, you're not going to be downloading table code 
again and again and again, and the browser remembers the CSS.

-Hugh

Robert Moser wrote:
Something like this could be used to
demonstrate the advantages of using CSS vs table layout.
The only problem I can see is images referenced in the CSS are not 
taken
into account 
*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

Thank you Hugh for your reply.

you wrote .."I get a Microsoft  JScript error message: This error
message is triggered when rolling the cursor over the menu" 

Not too sure about that, I will have to look into it further. Also your
comments on the highlinks is noted. Not sure why I put a width in there but
I will change that as well.


..."IE Mac also treats your picture badly, ... left and the
caption centred. I think the fix would be to give the  "photoright" class a
width."...

I wondered about that. The class "photoright" is used throughout the site
with different size images, therefore to specify a width is difficult. When
I placed the image I added the height and width with  img style and thought
that would cover it. What is the usual procedure in this case?

Thanks again

Maureen Beattie



*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

Thanks for your reply Justin - I was a bit surprised when you said it was
slow loading as I hadn't noticed that. I checked it out with on
www.websiteoptimization.com and one of the things they cautioned on was the
size of the CSS file. I didn't realise that could be an issue so it is
something else I have to figure out. The script size, as you mentioned, and
the image.

Thanks again Justin
Maureen



Justin said .. I found the site was extremely slow to load in both
Safari and Firefox > on Mac, and still pretty slow on IE Win.
> The javascript is 15k, ...
> If the JS is the problem, I'd seriously consider trying different
> scripts that are more minimalist -- the speed of your first page is
> VERY IMPORTANT, and perhaps bloated JS is not the solution...

*
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] slightly OT web page analyser service

2004-03-21 Thread Jason Turnbull

> Robert Moser wrote:
> Something like this could be used to
> demonstrate the advantages of using CSS vs table layout.

The only problem I can see is images referenced in the CSS are not taken
into account 

Jason


*
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] Thanks messages

Or...how about drawing a clear conclusion to the problem. It's a bit 
frustrating going through list/forum archives when a thread covering a 
problem that seems to be like your own suddenly dries up.

If the thanks specifies the solution to the problem then I think it's 
very valuable. Perhaps we need a "Re: Blah Issue: problem solved" type 
subject line so when pouring through archives you can jump straight to 
that one.

Or perhaps the note should be simply to consider how well your message 
might be archived before you post.

Just a thought,

Nick

A general note to all.

Due to the increase in traffic, probably better to send "Thanks" 
emails that
contain nothing else directly to the sender rather than to the list.

Thanks,

Peter
*
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] slightly OT web page analyser service

2004-03-21 Thread Robert Moser

Neerav blurted out:
This maybe OT, but should be useful to all web developers on the list, 
because a site ight well be standards compliant but if it takes 30 
seconds to load than its still failing ...
I wouldn't say it was offtopic.  Something like this could be used to 
demonstrate the advantages of using CSS vs table layout.  After doing a 
redesign the new version can be tested head to head with the old.  Doing 
so might even reassure those designers on the fence that there is a 
reason beyond buzzword compliance to the whole CSS thing.
*
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] slightly OT web page analyser service

I use this tool a lot when I am optimizing my code to see how much I saved
(every byte adds time!).

Using this tool, you can see just how much fat there is in your code. I have
literally shaved off 50% off of some pages.

Unfortunately, while it is possible to build a web page that will get
congrat ratings all the way down the list (scripts that will fit inside a
single packet, and minimal http calls for example), they are less than
optimal for realistic everyday use (though I admit, I am currently toying
with a currently abandoned URL I own and using it to create a site that
looks good is valid XHTML and CSS and gets congrats in ALL the categories
covered by this tool.

Actually, it is kinda fun to work in the limits imposed by the tool and see
just "HOW SMALL and minimalist you can go and still have advanced features.


Brian

-Original Message-
From: Neerav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:50 PM
To: WSG
Subject: [WSG] slightly OT web page analyser service

This maybe OT, but should be useful to all web developers on the list,
because a site ight well be standards compliant but if it takes 30 seconds
to load than its still failing ...

http://www.webpageanalyzer.com/ - Web Page Analyzer - 0.82

"Test your web site speed with our free web-based analyzer. Enter a URL
below to calculate page size, composition, and page download time. The
script calculates the size of individual elements and finds the total for
each type of web page component. Based on these page characteristics the
script then offers advice on how to improve page display time and website
speed. The script incorporates best practices from HCI research into its
recommendations."

--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.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
* 



*
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] Thanks messages

2004-03-21 Thread Peter Firminger

A general note to all.

Due to the increase in traffic, probably better to send "Thanks" emails that
contain nothing else directly to the sender rather than to the list.

Thanks,

Peter


*
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] drop down menus




Hey I wasn't meaning anything by saying y'all are Aussie's! 

 
I was simply acknowledging the Aussie origination of the 
group and the Kiwi proximity with out resorting to "baa-aa-aad" jokes relating 
to sheep. Additionally, my typing faster than my eyes could catch the missed 
letters, led to only part of the message being sent and a blowing of the hoped 
to be humorous intro.
 
Oh well such is life :-/ we can only make fools of 
ourselves :-D
 
Mind you, I 
don't hold anything against the Kiwi's. Like us Oregonians, they (for the most 
part) tend to be a little more sensitive to issues regarding their 
environment than most and is why Kiwis and Oregonians are often 
seen as Treehuggers.
 
Anyway, this is completely off topic so let us end this 
side topic of a baa-aa-aad joke gone awry here...
 
Responses to the  original question are appreciated 
though! And thanks to those who have posted replies 
already...
 
The 760 px width seems a little narrow, but I have been 
burned on 790 and 784 so that is why I asked the 
question.
 
Brian


From: Leo J. O'Campo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:59 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] drop down 
menus
On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 08:08 PM, theGrafixGuy 
wrote:
and 
  even y'all are 
Aussie'sThis list might 
be based in AU but it is international. Like myself (New York) there are over 50 
members in the USA represented on this list.Leo

[WSG] slightly OT web page analyser service

2004-03-21 Thread Neerav

This maybe OT, but should be useful to all web developers on the list, 
because a site ight well be standards compliant but if it takes 30 
seconds to load than its still failing ...

http://www.webpageanalyzer.com/ - Web Page Analyzer - 0.82

"Test your web site speed with our free web-based analyzer. Enter a URL 
below to calculate page size, composition, and page download time. The 
script calculates the size of individual elements and finds the total 
for each type of web page component. Based on these page characteristics 
the script then offers advice on how to improve page display time and 
website speed. The script incorporates best practices from HCI research 
into its recommendations."

--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.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] mysterious space

2004-03-21 Thread Jason Turnbull

> Universal Head wrote:
> Can anyone enlighten me on this ... 
> my thumbnail pics have about 5 pixels space at the bottom in IE6 
> that I can't work out how to remove. In the CSS I have specified 
> height and width, and padding is 0,. 
> http://www.cinema4duser.com/tech_feature01.html

Try adding font-size:0; to your clearer style

You have also specified a 5px margin at the bottom of the images in both
pic and piclast classes

.pic {
margin: 0 5px 5px 0;
}

The order is: top right bottom then left

Regards
Jason Turnbull


*
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] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!

2004-03-21 Thread russ weakley

Justin, 
You make a lot of very good points.

However, a lot depends on the layout you are doing. For many layouts, I
don't think this should be necessary.

I generally do not run into major IE problems, or at least problems that are
not well documented (3 pixel jpg, box model, double margin, carriage returns
etc), so testing IE as I go is not a problem. I think there are two reasons
for this:

1. I have the luxury of designing my own layouts, so I am often keeping
layout issues in mind during the design phase. The downside is that my
layouts are probably not pushed as far as some.

2. Before I start building a layout in CSS, I think carefully about how the
browsers will handle the various positioning methods - and which methods
will run into the least problems. Examples of this include choosing to pad
the content inside container to avoid box model issues and floating both
columns to avoid the 3 pixel jog bug. This means you should not run into as
many IE specific problems during the build.

Of the two points, this is probably the most critical in avoiding IE issues.

Having said that, I can see that in specific cases (if experiencing major IE
issues) this would be a good alternative. And sharing a completely different
methodology is also great, as it provides everyone with a wider range of
alternatives. Viva la difference (or words to that effect)!
 :)
Russ


> I really don't agree with this.  I know you didn't specifically mention
> IE in your post, but testing across all browsers all the time slows
> down the speed at which you can build pages -- especially when dealing
> with IE as well.
> 
> Personally, I just work directly in Firefox and Safari, *occasionally*
> checking it out in Opera and others.  Only once I'm happy with all that
> do I bother with IE.
> 
> Why?
> 
> IE is not standards compliant, so any time you spend on it, and
> anything you use in your main style sheet to force IE to behave will
> bloat you style sheet.  This is NOT the point of standards -- we're
> supposed to be minimising code and keeping things clean and simple, so
> that everything is forwards compatible.
> 
> IE is not a forward-thinking browser.  Whilst it may have dominance
> right now, other browsers, or at least Microsoft's next 'browser' will
> take over from it, and we'll have thousands or millions of style sheets
> out there intricately targeting IE 5-6 in a mess of hacks, code and
> comments.
> 
> 
> Instead, I write my style sheets to work on standards compliant
> browsers, and worry about forwards compatibility, not backwards (or
> even sideways).
> 
> 
> But what about IE, the market leader
> 
> In some cases, the rendering bugs are OK with me, and the layout is
> still *passable*.  In other cases, I write (a) separate style sheet(s)
> to target IE specifically, cascading over the standards sheets, to
> bring IE into line.
> 
> How?
> 
> MS included a great proprietary (but still standards compliant) system
> of comments called conditional comments.  By using these, we can:
> 
> a) completely hide these IE-only style sheets from non-IE browsers
> 
> b) target the specific versions of IE (from 5 through to 6, including
> all minor builds)
> 
> 
> Sample:
> 
> @import(css/main.css)
> 
> 
> 
> My experience tells me that ignoring IE during the build, then looking
> at it SPECIFICALLY with it's own set of style sheets later saves me
> heaps of time and grief.
> 
> Your mileage may vary though :)

*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

Maureen

The site 's sidebar menus work find in Safari 1.0  However the 
horizontal rollover menu at the top right of the page has a flickering 
problem probably due to a CSS sizing error.

Leo

On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 09:29  PM, Maureen Beattie wrote:

 a problem on the Macs/Safari? I would appreciate it if someone on a 
Mac
*
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] mysterious space

James, I greatly appreciate you getting stuck into this. I'll let you know how it goes.
Thanks again
Peter

On 22/03/2004, at 3:09 PM, James Ellis wrote:

Peter

Sounds like a trip on the Magical Mystery Whitespace Tour (sponsored by Microsoft). I had this problem while back with a nested list, threw things at the screen in the end to try and fix it. Luckily calmness (counted to 32768 backwards) prevailed and I ended up rejigging the complete list (all was well). :D

You have this :

Feature Gallery
Click on thumbnail for larger images

Try this

Feature Gallery
Click on thumbnail for larger images

CSS:

.gallerygrid a img
{
float : left;
}

.break
{
clear : both;
}

---
You may also need to do this in IE:

Feature Gallery
Click on thumbnail for larger images

Russ has a thing on floats in his floatutorial - IE needs to have absolutely no whitespace between tags sometimes.

HTH
James

Universal Head wrote:

Damn - doesn't seem to work for me despite trying out several permutations! Any other ideas?
Peter

Can anyone enlighten me on this ... my thumbnail pics have
about 5 pixels space at the bottom in IE6 that I can't work
out how to remove. In the CSS I have specified height and
width, and padding is 0, so who knows where its coming from.

I ran into a similar problem last week... here's the solution that
worked for me - set the image display to "block"

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/
see "XHTML & BROWSERS" near the bottom of the page

Josh Parrish
http://keylime.nu

*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

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

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] mysterious space

Peter

I'd try neutralizing the default for the span tags that you're using in the html in place of list items.  Set a rule for those specific spans to margin 0 because IE screws the rendering in default. And to be safe 0 the padding as well.

Leo

On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 10:24  PM, Universal Head wrote:

Damn - doesn't seem to work for me despite trying out several permutations! Any other ideas?
Peter


Can anyone enlighten me on this ... my thumbnail pics have about 5 pixels space at the bottom in IE6 that I can't work out how to remove. In the CSS I have specified height and width, and padding is 0, so who knows where its coming from.

I ran into a similar problem last week... here's the solution that worked for me - set the image display to "block"

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/
see "XHTML & BROWSERS" near the bottom of the page

Josh Parrish
http://keylime.nu

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] mysterious space

2004-03-21 Thread James Ellis

Peter

Sounds like a trip on the Magical Mystery Whitespace Tour (sponsored by 
Microsoft). I had this problem while back with a nested list, threw 
things at the screen in the end to try and fix it. Luckily calmness 
(counted to 32768 backwards) prevailed and I ended up rejigging the 
complete list (all was well). :D

You have this :


Feature Gallery
Click on thumbnail for larger images




 

Try this


Feature Gallery
Click on thumbnail for larger images






CSS:

.gallerygrid a img
{
float : left;
}
.break
{
clear : both;
}
---
You may also need to do this in IE:

Feature Gallery
Click on thumbnail for larger images
  


Russ has a thing on floats in his floatutorial - IE needs to have 
absolutely no whitespace between tags sometimes.

HTH
James
Universal Head wrote:

Damn - doesn't seem to work for me despite trying out several 
permutations! Any other ideas?
Peter

Can anyone enlighten me on this ... my thumbnail pics have
about 5 pixels space at the bottom in IE6 that I can't work
out how to remove. In the CSS I have specified height and
width, and padding is 0, so who knows where its coming from.
I ran into a similar problem last week... here's the solution that
worked for me - set the image display to "block"
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/
see "XHTML & BROWSERS" near the bottom of the page
Josh Parrish
http://keylime.nu
*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

*
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] drop down menus


On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 08:08  PM, theGrafixGuy wrote:

 and even y'all are Aussie's

This list might be based in AU but it is international.  Like myself (New York) there are over 50 members in the USA represented on this list.

Leo

Re: [WSG] drop down menus

Peter

From an interface building POV it's a matter of audience function.  If 
your site has reference-based informational content and caters to a 
large percentage of users who need this information and time is 
important to them, then one-click popup menus are necessary.  However, 
as a artistic designer, I don't like them and prefer an alternative 
such as hierarchical rollover menus.  And they can be done using CSS 
only methods.

Leo

On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 05:29  PM, Universal Head wrote:

Personally think that in most cases they are unnecessary. I think a 
well designed site should present information in a hierarchical 
fashion, allowing the user to access more detailed info as they 
progress into the site (while still keeping all parts of the site 
quickly accessible in two or three clicks).

I think the opposite approach, of making every section and subsection 
available from the homepage via drop-down menus, has the opposite 
effect to what is intended by confusing the user with masses of 
choices upfront.
*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

Maureen,

I found the site was extremely slow to load in both Safari and Firefox 
on Mac, and still pretty slow on IE Win.  However, the problem only 
existed on the first page, which suggests that whatever the problem is, 
it's being cached so that future pages don't suffer from the same 
problem.

The javascript is 15k, which is pretty substantial, but I'm on DSL with 
heaps of bandwidth, so it's NOT a download issue, so my only guess is 
perhaps that my browsers are caching something *else* that's slowing 
down the first page -- perhaps it's the images (16k for one of them), 
or perhaps it's related to the JavaScript... the only way to test would 
be to turn off your cache and try different versions (with images, 
without, with JS, without, etc).

If the JS is the problem, I'd seriously consider trying different 
scripts that are more minimalist -- the speed of your first page is 
VERY IMPORTANT, and perhaps bloated JS is not the solution... anyway, 
onto your problems:

I recently put up my first two commercial sites. I just ran them 
through
iCapture and on one of them the menu is not showing. The clients 
wanted a
dropdown, flyout menu so it is a JavaScript menu and takes a tad 
longer to
download - would this be the reason it is not showing or do you think 
there
is a problem on the Macs/Safari? I would appreciate it if someone on a 
Mac
could do a quick site check for me please, the url is www.cwfs.org.au
The menu (and sub-menus) are working fine in Safari 1.0 on my Mac -- I 
can only assume Safari 1.1 and 1.2 are fine as well.

Not sure about your other issues.

---
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

Maureen,

The drop-down menu does have a problem on IE5.3 Mac. I get a Microsoft 
JScript error message:

Line: 196
Char: 2
Error: Invalid procedure call or argument.
This error message is triggered when rolling the cursor over the menu.

IE Mac also treats your picture badly, running its frame full width, 
with the pic ranged left and the caption centred. I think the fix would 
be to give the  "photoright" class a width. (Floated items, apart from 
those with their own inherent widths, like imgs, must be given widths 
to be properly compliant, I believe.)

-Hugh

I would appreciate it if someone on a Mac
could do a quick site check for me please, the url is www.cwfs.org.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] mysterious space

Damn - doesn't seem to work for me despite trying out several permutations! Any other ideas?
Peter


Can anyone enlighten me on this ... my thumbnail pics have about 5 pixels space at the bottom in IE6 that I can't work out how to remove. In the CSS I have specified height and width, and padding is 0, so who knows where its coming from.

I ran into a similar problem last week... here's the solution that worked for me - set the image display to "block"

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/
see "XHTML & BROWSERS" near the bottom of the page

Josh Parrish
http://keylime.nu

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] drop down menus

Hi Peter,

The problem with this method is that it confuses the user. I looked at 
this
site last night with your previous problem and was very surprised by 
the
action when I clicked on About AMCS.

Clicking on a navbar item should do what all other navbars do, take 
you to
the page.

Visually, you can see that the menu changed and nothing more but if 
you're
not looking at the screen you assume you have gone to the about page.

These things really should be done in a hover or onmouseover state so 
that a
click follows the link. Same with keyboard operation (tabbing through 
and
hitting enter).
I partly agree with you, I used this...

http://www.gazingus.org/html/Using_Lists_for_DHTML_Menus.html

...and decided I'd get in in place first before fiddling too much. 
Though I'm not sure the onmouseover reaction is necessarily a good 
idea, personally I find many of those menus a little off putting too 
especially if there is a lag. Certainly I need to look into it as I'm 
using it in an admin area and it's action is a little odd there. I 
think having the +/- or arrows found in outliners is one solution, i.e. 
splitting the folding and action of the link into separate elements.

How would a screen reader cope with this? You followed a link and
then you've gone nowhere.
In fact in my tests with Lynx the menu functions fine so I'm guessing 
(big ?) a screen reader would to. Note if you turn off javascript that 
in fact the activating link simply reverts to being a link to the 
overview page (In Opera Mac however this all fails!). All of the items 
in that navigation list are linked they just change their action 
depending on the support of javascript.

BTW I really love the swell banner on http://www.underwater.com.au/
Actually, I have to pass the credit for the initial idea of that to 
another design firm http://www.nextwave.com.au . I simply restyled and 
updated it recently.

Thanks for commenting,

Nick

*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

Maureen,

The clients wanted a
dropdown, flyout menu so it is a JavaScript menu and takes a tad 
longer to
download - would this be the reason it is not showing or do you think 
there
is a problem on the Macs/Safari? I would appreciate it if someone on a 
Mac
could do a quick site check for me please, the url is www.cwfs.org.au
Maureen, the flyout menu works on Safari. Very pretty animation.

Also on the screen shot the links in the top right-hand corner look to 
be
going off the page. If there is anything else you would like to point 
out,
be they mistakes or improvements, it would be appreciated.
Apart from a suggestion to turn the links into a list, and styling it 
horizontally, you may be better to change your #highlinks selector a 
little. At present you have given it a width of 100%, which seems to be 
the reason that the end of it disappears off the RH of the screen in 
Safari. (No idea why.) If instead you set its position to "right: 5px; 
(removing "width"), it may work better:

#highlinks {
background-color: transparent;
position: absolute;
top: -5px;
right: 5px;
height: 20px;
}
Hope this is of use.

-Hugh Todd

*
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] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!

Although I truly respect & trust Russ' methods, I have to agree with 
Justin on this one because IE on the mac is so notoriously uncompliant 
and quirky it makes the stylesheet too hard to manage.  Justin's 
comment usage is a better way, although I was unaware of it and will 
need to study up on it.

Thanks Justin for sharing.

And thanks Russ for all your wonderful advise too.

Leo

On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 05:45  PM, Justin French wrote:

My experience tells me that ignoring IE during the build, then looking 
at it SPECIFICALLY with it's own set of style sheets later saves me 
heaps of time and grief.
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 08:00  AM, russ weakley wrote:

Hi Martin,

1. Coding methodology
---
I would recommend coding to standards, but checking across as many 
browsers
as possible throughout the process of building layouts. The keys are 
(a) use
as many browsers as possible, (b) check often and (c ) deal with layout
issues as they arise:

A. Use as many browsers as possible
If you use one main browser for building, and only check at the end, 
you may
find part or an entire layout is broken in another browser. The more
browsers you test on, the less likely you are to come across problems 
later
in the process. Having said that, recent versions of Mozilla, Opera, 
Safari
and Firebird are all very standards compliant, so checking against 
these
browsers is generally a very simple process.
*
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] mysterious space

The space is *within* the border (ie padding), not outside it (ie margin). These margins allow the floated thumbnails to stay 5px from each other.
Thanks anyway!
Peter


On 22/03/2004, at 1:50 PM, Maureen Beattie wrote:

I am not sure Peter if this is what you mean but you have specified margin: 0; in .gallerygrid  but in .gallerygrid .pic and .gallerygrid .piclast you have specified the margins as - margin: 0 5px 5px 0; and margin: 0 0 5px 0; and as the margin shortcut goes top right bottom left these rules add a 5px space at the bottom. 

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] Actual page width (was: drop down menus)

2004-03-21 Thread Cameron Adams

640 x 480 seems a bit big, how am I meant to view it
on my 320 pixel phone?

--
Cameron Adams

W: www.themaninblue.com


--- Bernie Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Build you site flexable and not fixed, let it expand
> from 640x480  to 1024x768
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Cameron Adams 
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>   Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:29 PM
>   Subject: RE: [WSG] Actual page width (was: drop
> down menus)
> 
> 
>   I generally design to 760px width, that gives you
> a
>   fairly big margin of error. The actual Windows
>   scrollbar is 16px, but it varies across
> OS/browser,
>   and you also have to think of collapsed side bars,
>   etc.
> 
>   Better to err on the side of narrowness.
> 
>   --
>   Cameron Adams
> 
>   W: www.themaninblue.com
> 
> 
>   --- theGrafixGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   wrote:
> 
>   > When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is
> the
>   > Actual width of the
>   > browser viewing area (taking the window borders
> into
>   > account). If the page
>   > extends beyond the depth of the page and the
> browser
>   > adds a scroll-bar, what
>   > is the width of the browser's viewwing area
> now??
>   >  
>   > Thanks a bunch and forgive me if this is
> somewhere
>   > out there, I just have
>   > not been able to find the answers.
>   >  
>   > Brian
>   >  
>   >  
>   > 
> 
> 
>   __
>   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
>  
>
*
> 
> 


__
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] mysterious space




you said .. Can anyone enlighten me on this ... 
my thumbnail pics have about 5 pixels space at the bottom in IE6 that I can't 
work out how to remove. In the CSS I have specified height and width, and 
padding is 0, so who knows where its coming from. 
 
I am not sure Peter if this is what you mean but 
you have specified margin: 0; in .gallerygrid  but in .gallerygrid .pic and 
.gallerygrid .piclast you have specified the margins as - margin: 0 5px 5px 0; 
and margin: 0 0 5px 0; and as the margin shortcut goes top right bottom 
left these rules add a 5px space at the bottom. 
.gallerygrid .pic {
	float: left;
	width: 85px;
	height: 85px;
	margin: 0 5px 5px 0;
	border: 1px solid #c1c3ce;
	padding: 0;
}

.gallerygrid .piclast {
	float: left;
	width: 85px;
	height: 85px;
	margin: 0 0 5px 0;
	border: 1px solid #c1c3ce;
	padding: 0;
}HTH - Maureen

RE: [WSG] Actual page width (was: drop down menus)




Why is it some one always pipes up with that 
answer? One would almost be led to believe that "flexible" is the answer to 
everything. 
 
Flexible will not be inscribed on the Pearly Gates and it 
is not the Holy Grail of site design.
 
Flexible sites 
are nice in certain cases, but as I inferred above, they are NOT an optimal 
solution nor are they fitting for every design, style or appearance. And they 
are far from being the answer for everything.
 
No one building professional web sites would want to 
limit themselves to nothing but flexable width sites. 
 
Brian


From: Bernie Howe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:04 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] Actual page width (was: 
drop down menus)

Build you site flexable and not fixed, let it 
expand from 640x480  to 1024x768
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Cameron Adams 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:29 
PM
  Subject: RE: [WSG] Actual page width 
  (was: drop down menus)
  I generally design to 760px width, that gives you afairly 
  big margin of error. The actual Windowsscrollbar is 16px, but it varies 
  across OS/browser,and you also have to think of collapsed side 
  bars,etc.Better to err on the side of 
  narrowness.--Cameron AdamsW: www.themaninblue.com--- 
  theGrafixGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> 
  When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the> Actual width of 
  the> browser viewing area (taking the window borders into> 
  account). If the page> extends beyond the depth of the page and the 
  browser> adds a scroll-bar, what> is the width of the browser's 
  viewwing area now??>  > Thanks a bunch and forgive me if 
  this is somewhere> out there, I just have> not been able to find 
  the answers.>  > Brian>  >  
  > __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.cfmfor 
  some hints on posting to the list & getting 
  help*

Re: [WSG] mysterious space

2004-03-21 Thread Josh Parrish

On Mar 21, 2004, at 6:20 PM, Universal Head wrote:

Can anyone enlighten me on this ... my thumbnail pics have about 5 
pixels space at the bottom in IE6 that I can't work out how to remove. 
In the CSS I have specified height and width, and padding is 0, so who 
knows where its coming from.
I ran into a similar problem last week... here's the solution that 
worked for me - set the image display to "block"

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/
see "XHTML & BROWSERS" near the bottom of the page
Josh Parrish
http://keylime.nu
*
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] iCapture + Drop down menu

I recently put up my first two commercial sites. I just ran them through
iCapture and on one of them the menu is not showing. The clients wanted a
dropdown, flyout menu so it is a JavaScript menu and takes a tad longer to
download - would this be the reason it is not showing or do you think there
is a problem on the Macs/Safari? I would appreciate it if someone on a Mac
could do a quick site check for me please, the url is www.cwfs.org.au

Also on the screen shot the links in the top right-hand corner look to be
going off the page. If there is anything else you would like to point out,
be they mistakes or improvements, it would be appreciated.

Maureen Beattie



*
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] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread Nick Cowie

> Here is a site with accessible menus   http://www.udm4.com/

Some stunning javascript at work here, I am impressed.  Three different (depending on 
version of IE) ways to deal with the z-index and select tag problem that IE has.  
Downside in size, roughly 40 to 45k.

>I was going to recommend this drop down menu that I have used - www.brainjar.com 

My first impression is the user needs to click on the menu bar to get it to drop down, 
(not intutive), needs work (but most accessible menus do) to work with NS4.  First 
solution not using lists I have seen.  Still pretty heavy when compared too:

Suckerfish dropdowns: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dropdowns/ hardly any code at 
all.


My favourite is Ben Boyle's Menu Bar http://inspire.server101.com/js/mb/ a modified 
version is found on http://www.bhpbilliton.com

It is far lighter than udm4, only a couple of k of js, not as robust for handling 
everything thrown at it, eg IE6 and select tag.


Nick
*
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] mysterious space

Can anyone enlighten me on this ... my thumbnail pics have about 5 pixels space at the bottom in IE6 that I can't work out how to remove. In the CSS I have specified height and width, and padding is 0, so who knows where its coming from. 

Page:
http://www.cinema4duser.com/tech_feature01.html

CSS:
http://www.cinema4duser.com/css/main.css

The relevant class is ".gallerygrid .pic"

Many 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] Actual page width (was: drop down menus)

2004-03-21 Thread Bernie Howe




Build you site flexable and not fixed, let it 
expand from 640x480  to 1024x768
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Cameron Adams 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:29 
PM
  Subject: RE: [WSG] Actual page width 
  (was: drop down menus)
  I generally design to 760px width, that gives you afairly 
  big margin of error. The actual Windowsscrollbar is 16px, but it varies 
  across OS/browser,and you also have to think of collapsed side 
  bars,etc.Better to err on the side of 
  narrowness.--Cameron AdamsW: www.themaninblue.com--- 
  theGrafixGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> 
  When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the> Actual width of 
  the> browser viewing area (taking the window borders into> 
  account). If the page> extends beyond the depth of the page and the 
  browser> adds a scroll-bar, what> is the width of the browser's 
  viewwing area now??>  > Thanks a bunch and forgive me if 
  this is somewhere> out there, I just have> not been able to find 
  the answers.>  > Brian>  >  
  > __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.cfmfor 
  some hints on posting to the list & getting 
  help*

RE: [WSG] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread Peter Firminger

Hi Nick,

> I feel the same way however I'm working on tidying a variation of
> drop-down navigation at http://www.amcs.org.au right now and this one
> does have some benefits.

The problem with this method is that it confuses the user. I looked at this
site last night with your previous problem and was very surprised by the
action when I clicked on About AMCS.

Clicking on a navbar item should do what all other navbars do, take you to
the page. How would a screen reader cope with this? You followed a link and
then you've gone nowhere.

Visually, you can see that the menu changed and nothing more but if you're
not looking at the screen you assume you have gone to the about page.

These things really should be done in a hover or onmouseover state so that a
click follows the link. Same with keyboard operation (tabbing through and
hitting enter).

BTW I really love the swell banner on http://www.underwater.com.au/

P


*
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] drop down menus - OT

2004-03-21 Thread Clements, Sheree

Title: Message

It
pays not to make sweeping statements about nationalities. You can't guarantee
that everybody is Aussie.

-Original Message-From:
theGrafixGuy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 22
March 2004 12:09 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [WSG] drop down menus

Hello,
I have just joined the group and I must say I have
enjoyed the posts I have read through so far today (being the first day of
membership and all). I hail from across the sea in Portland, Oregon and even
y'all are Aussie's (one could say that is far better than being a Kiwi
but we won't go there) I have yet to find a similiar group here in the
States.
Anyway, thanks again for allowing me to come on
board.
If I may toss out a very elementary question that escapes
me and I have not been able to find an answer to.
When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the
Actual width of the browser viewing area (taking the window borders into
account). If the page extends beyond the depth of the page and the browser
adds a scroll-bar, what is the width of the browser's viewwing area
now??
Thanks a bunch and forgive me if this is somewhere out
there, I just have not been able to find the answers.
Brian

From: Matthew Magain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:36 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [WSG] drop down
menus

>
Here is a site with accessible menus http://www.udm4.com/
I was going to recommend this drop down menu that I have
used - www.brainjar.com - as it gives a real windows look and feel (if that is
what the client is after) except that one looks better as it works in IE 5.01, which the
brainjar one doesn't.

This e-mail is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential. You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] by e-mail immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy any copy of this message. Views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where specifically stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum Victoria does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free from errors, virus or interference.

[WSG] iCapture - see what your site looks like on a mac (safari 1.2)

2004-03-21 Thread Sennan Lagaluga

I just stumbled across this nifty website. not sure if it has been 
posted before.

http://www.danvine.com/icapture/

alternatively mac people can use iecapture to see what their site looks 
like on a windows system

http://www.danvine.com/iecapture/
*
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] Actual page width (was: drop down menus)

2004-03-21 Thread Cameron Adams

I generally design to 760px width, that gives you a
fairly big margin of error. The actual Windows
scrollbar is 16px, but it varies across OS/browser,
and you also have to think of collapsed side bars,
etc.

Better to err on the side of narrowness.

--
Cameron Adams

W: www.themaninblue.com

--- theGrafixGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the
> Actual width of the
> browser viewing area (taking the window borders into
> account). If the page
> extends beyond the depth of the page and the browser
> adds a scroll-bar, what
> is the width of the browser's viewwing area now??
>  
> Thanks a bunch and forgive me if this is somewhere
> out there, I just have
> not been able to find the answers.
>  
> Brian
>  
>  
> 

__
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] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread russ weakley

Hi Brian,

Welcome to the list!

How wide is each browser's viewport when set to 800x600? I know one way to
find out. Here is a link to screen shots of 20 different browsers:
http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=38651

You could (if you were incredibly keen) click on each thumbnail and see how
each browser operates in 800x600 mode. You could even measure the actual
viewport in each case. Would be hours of fun!  :)

BTW, the WSG list is international. While there is a strong Aussie
contingent, it is not the majority. Right now we have 435 members from 33
countries (still waiting for an Antarctic member!).

We are always keen to help set up WSG meeting in other cities (any country).
We recently got our second city up and running with meetings and we hope to
have a few more running this year. If any member wants to discuss setting up
WSG meetings in their city, email us offlist ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Thanks
Russ




> Hello,
> 
> I have just joined the group and I must say I have enjoyed the posts I have
> read through so far today (being the first day of membership and all). I hail
> from across the sea in Portland, Oregon and even y'all are Aussie's (one could
> say that is far better than being a Kiwi but we won't go there) I have yet to
> find a similiar group here in the States.
> 
> Anyway, thanks again for allowing me to come on board.
> 
> If I may toss out a very elementary question that escapes me and I have not
> been able to find an answer to.
> 
> When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the Actual width of the
> browser viewing area (taking the window borders into account). If the page
> extends beyond the depth of the page and the browser adds a scroll-bar, what
> is the width of the browser's viewwing area now??
> 
> Thanks a bunch and forgive me if this is somewhere out there, I just have not
> been able to find the answers.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Matthew Magain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [WSG] drop down menus
> 
>> Here is a site with accessible menus   http://www.udm4.com/
>> 
> 
> I was going to recommend this drop down menu that I have used -
> www.brainjar.com   - as it gives a real windows look
> and feel (if that is what the client is after) except that one looks better as
> it works in IE 5.01, which the brainjar one doesn't.
> 


Thanks
Russ

---
Russ Weakley
Max Design
Phone: (02) 9410 2521
Mobile: 0403 433 980
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.maxdesign.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] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread Cameron Adams

Although menus have obvious benefits in access to a
large number of items, I'm not sure that they
translate well to web navigation.

Outside of a web page, drop-down menus are used for
function points, not navigation: change text size,
cut, copy, view source, etc. They're one-off actions
that don't require you to reference them once you've
used them.

Navigation on a web site needs to be more persistent
-- you like to know where everything is, where you
are, where you've been; not have hidden surprises.
With a menu system you would have to duplicate
navigational elements in order to achieve this
information.

Additionally, drop-downs in applications work because
you use the program regularly and you know where
everything is -- it's essentially a shortcut
mechanism. If your site isn't aimed at getting
long-use, repeat traffic, and you don't have a whole
lot of areas on the site, then drop downs probably
hinder, as they take a while to explore and get used
to.

--
Cameron Adams

W: www.themaninblue.com

--- Universal Head <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently had a client who insisted I implement
> drop-down menus for 
> the navigation on their site, even though I gave
> them all the reasons 
> why I thought they were unnecessary in their case -
> and I was wondering 
> what the list's thoughts were on this method of
> navigation.
> 
> Personally think that in most cases they are
> unnecessary. I think a 
> well designed site should present information in a
> hierarchical 
> fashion, allowing the user to access more detailed
> info as they 
> progress into the site (while still keeping all
> parts of the site 
> quickly accessible in two or three clicks).
> 
> I think the opposite approach, of making every
> section and subsection 
> available from the homepage via drop-down menus, has
> the opposite 
> effect to what is intended by confusing the user
> with masses of choices 
> upfront.
> 
> What do y'all think?
> 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
> 

__
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] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread Josh Parrish

On Mar 21, 2004, at 5:08 PM, theGrafixGuy wrote:
When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the Actual width of 
the browser viewing area (taking the window borders into account). If 
the page extends beyond the depth of the page and the browser adds a 
scroll-bar, what is the width of the browser's viewwing area now??
According to Dreamweaver MX it's 760x420...

*
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] drop down menus

Title: Message



Hello,
 
I have just joined the group and I must say I have enjoyed 
the posts I have read through so far today (being the first day of membership 
and all). I hail from across the sea in Portland, Oregon and even y'all are 
Aussie's (one could say that is far better than being a Kiwi but we won't 
go there) I have yet to find a similiar group here in the 
States.
 
Anyway, thanks again for allowing me to come on 
board.
 
If I may toss out a very elementary question that escapes 
me and I have not been able to find an answer to.
 
When a screen resolution is 800 x 600 - what is the Actual 
width of the browser viewing area (taking the window borders into account). If 
the page extends beyond the depth of the page and the browser adds a scroll-bar, 
what is the width of the browser's viewwing area now??
 
Thanks a bunch and forgive me if this is somewhere out 
there, I just have not been able to find the answers.
 
Brian
 
 


From: Matthew Magain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:36 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [WSG] drop down 
menus

> 
Here is a site with accessible menus   http://www.udm4.com/
 
I was going to recommend this drop down menu that I have used 
- www.brainjar.com - as it gives a real windows look and feel (if that is 
what the client is after) except that one looks better as it works in IE 5.01, which the 
brainjar one 
doesn't.

Re: [WSG] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1

2004-03-21 Thread Ben Bishop

Chris Stratford wrote:

but as we all know - XHTML doesnt allow the TARGET attribute...

Let's not perpetuate misinformation here. You _can_ use the TARGET 
attribute in XHTML. Check the replies to your 8/2/04 post titled "XHTML 
(OT??)"

You'll find good information in the W3C's "XHTML Abstract Modules":
"When developing documents or defining a profile for a class of 
documents, content developers can determine which of these modules are 
essential for conveying their message."

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/abstract_modules.html

Cheers,

-Ben
http://www.daemon.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] Opera 7 problem with horizontal nav list

2004-03-21 Thread Luc

Hello Gyrus,
  
It was foretold that on 22-3-2004 @ 00:01:50 GMT+ (which was
1:01:50 where I live) Gyrus would mumble:
  


G> I'm floating the  elements left,
  
Do they have to be floated? Why not using display:inline? That way the
li are forced onto 1 line.

Maybe this helps you:

http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listutorial/index.htm

tutorial 4.

That's how i make my horizontal nav's. And they do work in Opera.

HTH
 
-- 
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.

"Do you know why God withheld the sense of humour from women? That we
may love you instead of laughing at you." - Mrs. Patrick Campbell
(1865-1940) - British actress

*
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] Opera 7 problem with horizontal nav list

Hi Gyrus!

I'm working on a new site for a friend, and I'm having trouble getting the horizontal nav list working in Opera (7/Win).
First of all, I couldn't see anything by viewing the HTML-Link in Opera. Was the CSS linked?

Anyone know Opera's quirks enough to help here?
As I'm a bit too tired to write my solution directly, try
http://kronn.de/design/eins/index.htm
and http://kronn.de/design/design.css
On the splash-screen, I have this horizontal navlist. And It works fine in everything understanding CSS and floats.

Please excuse this short answer, it's 01:46 AM at my place, and I gotta work tomorrow err... today.

Regards!
--
Matthias 
*
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] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread scott parsons

a drop down menu is like a site map on every page...
which could actually be quite helpful. I used to loathe them but I'm 
being turned around as I realise that like flash, my hate was caused by 
too many poor implementations rather than a flawed concept to begin with
*
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] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread Matthew Magain

Title: Message



> 
Here is a site with accessible menus   http://www.udm4.com/
 
I was going to recommend this drop down menu that I have used 
- www.brainjar.com - as it gives a real windows look and feel (if that is 
what the client is after) except that one looks better as it works in IE 5.01, which the 
brainjar one 
doesn't.

Re: [WSG] drop down menus

On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 09:29  AM, Universal Head wrote:

I recently had a client who insisted I implement drop-down menus for 
the navigation on their site, even though I gave them all the reasons 
why I thought they were unnecessary in their case - and I was 
wondering what the list's thoughts were on this method of navigation.

Personally think that in most cases they are unnecessary. I think a 
well designed site should present information in a hierarchical 
fashion, allowing the user to access more detailed info as they 
progress into the site (while still keeping all parts of the site 
quickly accessible in two or three clicks).

I think the opposite approach, of making every section and subsection 
available from the homepage via drop-down menus, has the opposite 
effect to what is intended by confusing the user with masses of 
choices upfront.

What do y'all think?
They're generally unnecessary, unless the client wants them, in which 
case they're necessary :)

On a more serious note, they do allow for navigation though a hierarchy 
of content MUCH faster than viewing 2-4 pages of sub menus before 
finding what you want.  MUCH FASTER.  It also allows for an overview of 
an entire section (like the contents page of a book) without making a 
single click.

And whether the UI model of hierarchical menus is sound or not, people 
are FAMILIAR WITH THEM, because of Apple and Microsoft's long standing 
use of them in MacOS and Windows.

As long as you make them behave like Windows & Mac menus and keep the 
terms short and clear, you should be fine.

I don't think they overwhelm the user at all, again, because the 
information is organised in small bite-size chunks.  To sound like a 
broken record, they work for MS and Apple and their billions of users 
everyday, so they'll probably work for your client too :)

---
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
*

[WSG] Opera 7 problem with horizontal nav list

2004-03-21 Thread Gyrus

Hi,

I'm working on a new site for a friend, and I'm having trouble getting the 
horizontal nav list working in Opera (7/Win).

HTML: http://headoverheels.org.uk/index.html
CSS: http://headoverheels.org.uk/css/screen.css
(the design's still being done, ignore scrappiness ;-)
I'm floating the  elements left, and they contain  tags set to 
display: block. It all works fine in Moz / IE5-6, but Opera 7 stack the 
s on top of each other. Also, there's a big gap between the footer and 
the content that doesn't appear with other browsers.

Anyone know Opera's quirks enough to help here?

Gyrus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://norlonto.net/gyrus/dev/
PGP key available 

*
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] drop down menus

Hi Peter,

I feel the same way however I'm working on tidying a variation of 
drop-down navigation at http://www.amcs.org.au right now and this one 
does have some benefits.

For one since it's just an HTML list it actually places what's almost a 
site map on every page which should be good for search engine indexing. 
(Also the fact that's it's a list means it's a lot more easily 
maintained by volunteers in the future).

In this case since it simply expands and closes it doesn't seem to 
stutter, provide poor mouse focus or obscure content like some do.

I do however feel it can be a let out for poorly structured content as 
it somewhat flattens out the information levels. On the other hand it 
obviously depends on the type of site and how content needs to be 
accessed, e.g. whether it's content is more narrative (like say a 
company brochure type site) or more reference based (like say 
sitepoint.com).

In other words, reading back through that, I'm not sure really! In this 
case the client did request one and was happy with this solution so...

Nick

I recently had a client who insisted I implement drop-down menus for 
the navigation on their site, even though I gave them all the reasons 
why I thought they were unnecessary in their case - and I was 
wondering what the list's thoughts were on this method of navigation.

Personally think that in most cases they are unnecessary. I think a 
well designed site should present information in a hierarchical 
fashion, allowing the user to access more detailed info as they 
progress into the site (while still keeping all parts of the site 
quickly accessible in two or three clicks).

I think the opposite approach, of making every section and subsection 
available from the homepage via drop-down menus, has the opposite 
effect to what is intended by confusing the user with masses of 
choices upfront.

What do y'all think?
Peter
*
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] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!

Hi Martin!

This may seen OT, but the underlying question is valid :~)
:-) Good one.

As I am an Opera fan, Opera is of course the best browser on earth (although I have to admit that Firefox 0.8 has some *very neat* features). I am a mathematical maniac, so I design my sites computing the widths, paddings and margins in my head, according to the CSS-boxmodel, that is. The result I get looks good (aside from my head) in Opera and Gecko-based Mozilla-browsers. I asume that KHTML-Browsers like Konqueror and Safari get it right, too. That's what standards are for.

1. [which way around?]
The internal preview of my editor uses IE as well, but I check in Opera very often. As the design is completed, I check again in IE and fix there (...).

2.Is Mozilla more standards-complaint than the rest, or should I rely on
Opera first?
Well, Mozilla and Opera are both great at standards. But which standard do you mean, exactly? In the case of CSS, I think that Opera is a bit more standards-compliant. This *opinion* is based upon the fact that the Opera guys are amongst the people who actually make the CSS-standard. In my spare-time in the office (I know, sounds funny), I use Opera 3.62 on a Win3.11 machine (I know, sounds sad) to check what I did. Almost all of CSS-1 is covered by this browser! And to say something about CSS-3: Opera is the only browser I know, which supports { box-sizing:[...] } as the standards say (Moz does too, but only via an inofficial property).

To sum this up: Opera is the best when it comes to CSS-compliance BUT: I don't think that a list is really helpful. Mozilla, Safari and my favourite are all as standard-compliant as needed. Why use a list? I could have also said: Russ is right, although workarounds should only be used if you know what you're doing...

Regards!
--
Matthias
*
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] drop down menus

2004-03-21 Thread Bernie Howe




Here is a site with accessible menus   
http://www.udm4.com/

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Universal 
  Head 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:29 
PM
  Subject: [WSG] drop down menus
  I recently had a client who insisted I implement drop-down 
  menus for the navigation on their site, even though I gave them all the 
  reasons why I thought they were unnecessary in their case - and I was 
  wondering what the list's thoughts were on this method of 
  navigation.Personally think that in most cases they are unnecessary. I 
  think a well designed site should present information in a hierarchical 
  fashion, allowing the user to access more detailed info as they progress into 
  the site (while still keeping all parts of the site quickly accessible in two 
  or three clicks).I think the opposite approach, of making every 
  section and subsection available from the homepage via drop-down menus, has 
  the opposite effect to what is intended by confusing the user with masses of 
  choices upfront.What do y'all think?PeterUniversal 
  Head Design 
  That Works.7/43 Bridge Rd StanmoreNSW 2048 AustraliaT (+612) 
  9517 1466F (+612) 9565 4747E [EMAIL PROTECTED]W 
  www.universalhead.com

Re: [WSG] [CSS] IE6 header issue.

Hi Nick!

What did you mean, saying Opera had an issue with the site? I tried and -okay- I admit ... It really (take this serious!) It really looks beautiful?

Sorry!

(By the way: Is it intended that the Search button goes beyond the fieldset-frame? I didn't view source or viewed it with all my browsers, I have  to admit. Nice effect, though. It looks different.)
--
Matthias 
*
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] Opera market share

Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:25:55 -0500, Leo J. O'Campo:

Matthias...  lol   I lvoe it!

On Saturday, March 20, 2004, at 07:01  AM, Matthias wrote:

 Besides, as IE keeps me away from the more sophisticated things, Opera is no problem at all.
It's the simple and sad truth... After all, the browser has been released in 2000. Personally, I prefer *modern* browsers, which have been released less than a year ago. In addition to that, I broke the validation of a clients CSS (shame on me) by realising max-width. I'm surely happy that CSS-Spec says: Ignore rules you don't know, interpret those you know. Opera (and Gecko- or KHTML-based browsers as well) get it right, IE, well, don't we love love him?

(Sorry for being ironic, my friends)

Regards!
--
Matthias 
*
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] Opera market share

Hi Justin!

Where can I get the Opera 7.5 Beta?  Couldn't see an obvious link on the site...
This site (not my own) has published links to all preview versions:

http://opera-fansite.de/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=134

Although it's german, I'm quite sure you can find the link you need. As a side note: I won't use or test the beta as I'm relying on Opera as my mail client. Experiments as using beta or even alpha version brought me into trouble once and will surely bring me there again. I'll be waiting for the final (which will be followed by a few fixes, if I know Opera right...).

Regards!
--
Matthias 
*
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] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!

On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 08:00  AM, russ weakley wrote:

Hi Martin,

1. Coding methodology
---
I would recommend coding to standards, but checking across as many 
browsers
as possible throughout the process of building layouts. The keys are 
(a) use
as many browsers as possible, (b) check often and (c ) deal with layout
issues as they arise:

A. Use as many browsers as possible
If you use one main browser for building, and only check at the end, 
you may
find part or an entire layout is broken in another browser. The more
browsers you test on, the less likely you are to come across problems 
later
in the process. Having said that, recent versions of Mozilla, Opera, 
Safari
and Firebird are all very standards compliant, so checking against 
these
browsers is generally a very simple process.
I really don't agree with this.  I know you didn't specifically mention 
IE in your post, but testing across all browsers all the time slows 
down the speed at which you can build pages -- especially when dealing 
with IE as well.

Personally, I just work directly in Firefox and Safari, *occasionally* 
checking it out in Opera and others.  Only once I'm happy with all that 
do I bother with IE.

Why?

IE is not standards compliant, so any time you spend on it, and 
anything you use in your main style sheet to force IE to behave will 
bloat you style sheet.  This is NOT the point of standards -- we're 
supposed to be minimising code and keeping things clean and simple, so 
that everything is forwards compatible.

IE is not a forward-thinking browser.  Whilst it may have dominance 
right now, other browsers, or at least Microsoft's next 'browser' will 
take over from it, and we'll have thousands or millions of style sheets 
out there intricately targeting IE 5-6 in a mess of hacks, code and 
comments.

Instead, I write my style sheets to work on standards compliant 
browsers, and worry about forwards compatibility, not backwards (or 
even sideways).

But what about IE, the market leader

In some cases, the rendering bugs are OK with me, and the layout is 
still *passable*.  In other cases, I write (a) separate style sheet(s) 
to target IE specifically, cascading over the standards sheets, to 
bring IE into line.

How?

MS included a great proprietary (but still standards compliant) system 
of comments called conditional comments.  By using these, we can:

a) completely hide these IE-only style sheets from non-IE browsers

b) target the specific versions of IE (from 5 through to 6, including 
all minor builds)

Sample:

@import(css/main.css)

My experience tells me that ignoring IE during the build, then looking 
at it SPECIFICALLY with it's own set of style sheets later saves me 
heaps of time and grief.

Your mileage may vary though :)

---
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] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!

On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 07:00  AM, Martin E wrote:

1.So, IYHOs,
Is it better to code, then check, code some more, then check 
again,
using a much more standards-
compliant browser like Mozilla, or go with ie, then tweak for 
the
rest?
Yes.  Start with something compliant (because it's the future), then go 
back to IE.  Personally, I patch-up IE's rendering with a IE-only 
conditional comment [1], after making sure all the "good" browsers are 
happy.


2.Is Mozilla more standards-complaint than the rest, or should I 
rely on
Opera first?
The latest version of all of them are pretty good, but keep in mind 
that users might still have the older versions.  Personally, Firefox 
0.8 is my default "perfect browser" to check.

A.Which browser (which version too), in order of 
compliance,
rate first in standards.
Is my list accurate:

a.Mozilla builds (1.5, 1.7b, etc)
b.Mozilla Firebird 0.7
c.Mozilla Firefox 0.8
d.Opera
e.Netscape
f.IE
For starters, I'd guess that Firefox 0.8 comes above Firebird 0.7, and 
NN6 and NN7 were built off early Mozilla builds.  You're also missing 
Safari 1, 1.1, 1.2, and OmniWeb for the Mac, a few different things for 
Linux, etc etc.

Secondly, I don't think it's worth establishing a list / order.  Pick a 
browser with pretty good support (for me, it's Firefox 0.8 and Safari 
1.0) to develop on, then test and adjust on everything else... last but 
least, I look at IE 5/5.5/6, and try to patch it's rendering engine 
with an additional stylesheet, linked inside an IE conditional comment.

---
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
*

[WSG] drop down menus

I recently had a client who insisted I implement drop-down menus for the navigation on their site, even though I gave them all the reasons why I thought they were unnecessary in their case - and I was wondering what the list's thoughts were on this method of navigation.

Personally think that in most cases they are unnecessary. I think a well designed site should present information in a hierarchical fashion, allowing the user to access more detailed info as they progress into the site (while still keeping all parts of the site quickly accessible in two or three clicks).

I think the opposite approach, of making every section and subsection available from the homepage via drop-down menus, has the opposite effect to what is intended by confusing the user with masses of choices upfront.

What do y'all think?
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] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!

2004-03-21 Thread russ weakley

Hi Martin,

1. Coding methodology
---
I would recommend coding to standards, but checking across as many browsers
as possible throughout the process of building layouts. The keys are (a) use
as many browsers as possible, (b) check often and (c ) deal with layout
issues as they arise:

A. Use as many browsers as possible
If you use one main browser for building, and only check at the end, you may
find part or an entire layout is broken in another browser. The more
browsers you test on, the less likely you are to come across problems later
in the process. Having said that, recent versions of Mozilla, Opera, Safari
and Firebird are all very standards compliant, so checking against these
browsers is generally a very simple process.

B. Check often
The key to avoiding frustration is to do a step, then test. This avoids
backtracking or detailed bug hunting further down the track. This article
explains the process:
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/process/

C. Layout issues
Layout issue can be dealt with in three main ways:
- if the problem is a minor discrepancy, you may decide that it is an
acceptable variation in a particular browser.
- if it is a major issue, you may have to decide between workarounds and
hacks. I would always go for workarounds if at all possible as they are less
likely to come back and haunt you in the future. Of course, sometimes this
is impossible.

Dealing with layout issues is a mindset thing. Small variations in the main
browsers are acceptable if your code is also more accessible for the other
devices (printers, screen readers, hand helds, text readers, browsers with
images off etc). John Allsopp has a great article on this:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/

2. Most compliant browser?
---
Recent versions of Opera, Mozilla, Firebird, Safari are all stable and
reliable. However, I wouldn't be able to tell you which browser is most
compliant. Does it really matter if one browser is fractionally more
compliant than another? If you move away from the theory of testing in one
browser, then the question becomes unimportant.

my 2 cents  :)
Russ


> Hello List,
> 
> This may seen OT, but the underlying question is valid :~)
> 
> I'm using Homesite+ to code, and want to configure the internal browser to
> Mozilla, from the default ie rendering engine, but not sure about it...
> 
> 1.So, IYHOs,
>   Is it better to code, then check, code some more, then check again,
> using a much more standards-
>   compliant browser like Mozilla, or go with ie, then tweak for the
> rest?
> 
> 2.Is Mozilla more standards-complaint than the rest, or should I rely on
> Opera first?
> 
>   A.Which browser (which version too), in order of compliance,
> rate first in standards.
>   Is my list accurate:
> 
>   a.Mozilla builds (1.5, 1.7b, etc)
>   b.Mozilla Firebird 0.7
>   c.Mozilla Firefox 0.8
>   d.Opera
>   e.Netscape
>   f.IE
> 



*
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] Standards-compliant browsers - in order!

2004-03-21 Thread Martin E

Hello List,

This may seen OT, but the underlying question is valid :~)

I'm using Homesite+ to code, and want to configure the internal browser to
Mozilla, from the default ie rendering engine, but not sure about it...

1.So, IYHOs,
Is it better to code, then check, code some more, then check again,
using a much more standards-
compliant browser like Mozilla, or go with ie, then tweak for the
rest?

2.Is Mozilla more standards-complaint than the rest, or should I rely on
Opera first?

A.Which browser (which version too), in order of compliance,
rate first in standards.
Is my list accurate:

a.Mozilla builds (1.5, 1.7b, etc)
b.Mozilla Firebird 0.7
c.Mozilla Firefox 0.8
d.Opera
e.Netscape
f.IE


Best Regards,

Martin E.
San Francisco Bay Area & Central Valley
(Email) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Web) http://fiercestreetnetworks.aboho.com/
(Lists) http://www.css-discuss.org/about.html
(Lists) http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/css-foundations

*
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] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1

2004-03-21 Thread Anne van Kesteren (fora)

Chris Stratford wrote:
but as we all know - XHTML doesnt allow the TARGET attribute...
Neither does HTML 4.01 Strict. However, there are many differences 
between XHTML and HTML [1].

[1] 

--
 Anne van Kesteren
 
*
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] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1

2004-03-21 Thread Chris Stratford





One thing i just noticed about W3Schools...

http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_a.asp

It states:
Differences Between HTML and XHTML
NONE

but as we all know - XHTML doesnt allow the TARGET attribute...



Chris Stratford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Http://www.neester.com


Peter Firminger wrote:

  The quick test is to simply change the doctype and hit a validator to see
what issues arise from your code and then work through them.

Remember though that if you're changing from XHTML 1.0 Transitional, then
you really need to change the way the document is sent to the browser, the
mime type really needs to be changed from text/html to
application/xhtml+xml. IE won't be able to use this though so you'll need to
do something on the server to present an alternative to this (the dominant)
browser.

See http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=16A6EBD1-9EEC-4611-98C8-C0F6234B9737 for
an explanation and solution (one of many).

There are tools that can help you retrofit. I believe HTMLTidy is one of
them though I've never used it myself.

P

  
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Neerav
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM
To: WSG
Subject: [WSG] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1

Ive found that coding a new site in XHTML 1.0 transitional is
easy after
some practice, but requires great effort when retrofitting an
old site.

So now im comfortable using XHTML 1.0 transitional how hard
would moving
to 1.0 strict and then onto 1.1 be?

I already know that moving to XHTML 1.0 strict leads to problems with
link targets for new pages etc, are there any other
documented problems?

--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.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
*


  
  

*
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] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1

2004-03-21 Thread Peter Firminger

The quick test is to simply change the doctype and hit a validator to see
what issues arise from your code and then work through them.

Remember though that if you're changing from XHTML 1.0 Transitional, then
you really need to change the way the document is sent to the browser, the
mime type really needs to be changed from text/html to
application/xhtml+xml. IE won't be able to use this though so you'll need to
do something on the server to present an alternative to this (the dominant)
browser.

See http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=16A6EBD1-9EEC-4611-98C8-C0F6234B9737 for
an explanation and solution (one of many).

There are tools that can help you retrofit. I believe HTMLTidy is one of
them though I've never used it myself.

P

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neerav
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM
> To: WSG
> Subject: [WSG] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1
>
> Ive found that coding a new site in XHTML 1.0 transitional is
> easy after
> some practice, but requires great effort when retrofitting an
> old site.
>
> So now im comfortable using XHTML 1.0 transitional how hard
> would moving
> to 1.0 strict and then onto 1.1 be?
>
> I already know that moving to XHTML 1.0 strict leads to problems with
> link targets for new pages etc, are there any other
> documented problems?
>
> --
> Neerav Bhatt
> http://www.bhatt.id.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
> *
>


*
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] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1

2004-03-21 Thread Jason Turnbull

> Neerav wrote:
> 
> So now im comfortable using XHTML 1.0 transitional how hard would
moving
> to 1.0 strict and then onto 1.1 be?

The move from transitional to strict you wont find hard.

This list of tags shows what is and isn't allowed in XHTML 1.0 strict, I
do not know of any browser quirks cause by the strict doctype.
http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_reference.asp

While XHTML 1.0 *may* be served as text/html, XHTML 1.1 *must* be served
as application/xhtml+xml. This creates major problems for IE as it only
accepts text/html mime.
http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php

Furthur Reference for XHTML 1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is any need to have your average
website using XHTML 1.1 doctype.

Regards
Jason Turnbul

*
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] XHTML: 1.0 transitional->1.0 strict->1.1

2004-03-21 Thread Neerav

Ive found that coding a new site in XHTML 1.0 transitional is easy after 
some practice, but requires great effort when retrofitting an old site.

So now im comfortable using XHTML 1.0 transitional how hard would moving 
to 1.0 strict and then onto 1.1 be?

I already know that moving to XHTML 1.0 strict leads to problems with 
link targets for new pages etc, are there any other documented problems?

--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.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] [CSS] IE6 header issue.