RE: [WSG] Centering one box in the center of the page with a footer attached
Tom If it is of any help during the last 2 months out of approximately 13,000 unique visitors, 97% used Internet Explorer, 1.1% used Netscape and 0.7% used mozilla. Unless your local community bucks the trend I guess you would limit your opportunities. Regards Cary Bush -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 06:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Centering one box in the center of the page with a footer attached Hi, My two sites that I am working on (designing websites is something that I struggle with terribly) are: www.tomscomputerservices.net www.tomwhalen.hopto.org If anyone wants to offer simple suggestions on what I could change to make the sites more appealing, I'm very open minded :-) Also, today I received my first browser-capabilities shock when I asked my wife to look at the sites on her WinXP machine. She is using Mozilla Firebird and IE6, and unfortunately she ALWAYS goes for the IE6 browser. She's been MS'fied, I tell ya :-) So, when she loaded up my sites I was horrified. What was unusual was that IE6 did a better job of rendering my site than did Firebird (if I remember correctly). Given that Firefox is an off-shoot of Firebird (correct?), you'd think those two browsers would render stuff identically, or close to it anyway. So, I don't know what to do now. Do I just poo-poo IE+ users and aim to please owners of Mozilla-family browsers? My sites are only to generate pc-servicing business from the local community, so most of my business (I think) will come from the business cards I leave laying around. Thanks, have a great night :-) Tom Whalen * 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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
Hi everybody...
I'm having a terrible time trying to figure out just why IE6 (Windows
XP) is throwing scrollbars at me when I view a page in a frame - I'm
really not sure what the trick is to this (if there is one). I hate to
ask dumb or redundant questions, but this one is really nagging.
Thanks for any advice on this...v
Once again, this is being view in a frame...here is the gist of the CSS:
body {
margin: 0px;
}
.container {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
}
.subhead1 {
margin: 0px;
padding: 6px 0px 0px 12px;
}
.subhead2 {
margin: 0px;
padding: 3px 12px 1px;
height: 30px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #99;
}
.content {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
}
.content-pad {
padding: 0px;
margin: 12px;
}
etc...
The makeup of the file...
div class='container'
div class='subhead1'Just some title text/div
div class='subhead2'
A table at width='100%'...
/div
div class='content'
div class='content-pad'
div class='column'
Lots of things go in here, it varies. Some times a table at
width='100%'
/div
/div
/div
/div
*
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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean... maybe this will help.
if content of a div is larger than the space provided (eg screen size
restriction, or width, height, settings) there is an overflow css
attribute to handle it. For example overflow: hidden; hides any thing
that doesn't fix, overflow: scroll; will give the div scroll bars, and
overflow: visible; will show it usually by stretching the height of the
div.
Maybe that was completely useless, hope it helps though.
Darian
Hi everybody...
I'm having a terrible time trying to figure out just why IE6 (Windows
XP) is throwing scrollbars at me when I view a page in a frame - I'm
really not sure what the trick is to this (if there is one). I hate to
ask dumb or redundant questions, but this one is really nagging.
Thanks for any advice on this...v
Once again, this is being view in a frame...here is the gist of the CSS:
body {
margin: 0px;
}
.container {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
}
.subhead1 {
margin: 0px;
padding: 6px 0px 0px 12px;
}
.subhead2 {
margin: 0px;
padding: 3px 12px 1px;
height: 30px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #99;
}
.content {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
}
.content-pad {
padding: 0px;
margin: 12px;
}
etc...
The makeup of the file...
div class='container'
div class='subhead1'Just some title text/div
div class='subhead2'
A table at width='100%'...
/div
div class='content'
div class='content-pad'
div class='column'
Lots of things go in here, it varies. Some times a table at
width='100%'
/div
/div
/div
/div
*
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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
Yes, but it's not the overflow of the div, it's the frame itself. The page is going larger than the frame window - meaning, the divs aren't respecting the size of the window. Sorry if my explanation was confusing on that point. ;) On 24 Mar 2004, at 09:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean... maybe this will help. if content of a div is larger than the space provided (eg screen size restriction, or width, height, settings) there is an overflow css attribute to handle it. For example overflow: hidden; hides any thing that doesn't fix, overflow: scroll; will give the div scroll bars, and overflow: visible; will show it usually by stretching the height of the div. Maybe that was completely useless, hope it helps though. Darian * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Image replacement
Taco Fleur wrote: I have been thinking about image replacement, and they all seem to have a downside to them, but what about using the z-index? I think I have not seen this used before. I guess the only downfall here would be that the size of the image would need to be the same size as the text it needs to cover. Yes, be aware that users can change their font-size and have different font-families. Doesn't work in Konqueror, don't know if this is important for you. Tonico -- Tonico Strasser ?:-) http://Tonico.FreeZope.org Contact_Tonico at Yahoo dot de Check out http://www.WebProducer.at * 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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
ahhh ok ok I got ya hmmm... I noticed you haven't included any height attributes in the CSS. Maybe if you put height: 100%; then that would restrict the div and stop it from going larger than the window. Anyways, you may have noticed I'm fairly new to this too :P I used to do all this stuff with tables apon tables, divs save a ton of code and time but they take time to get used to. Darian Yes, but it's not the overflow of the div, it's the frame itself. The page is going larger than the frame window - meaning, the divs aren't respecting the size of the window. Sorry if my explanation was confusing on that point. ;) On 24 Mar 2004, at 09:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean... maybe this will help. if content of a div is larger than the space provided (eg screen size restriction, or width, height, settings) there is an overflow css attribute to handle it. For example overflow: hidden; hides any thing that doesn't fix, overflow: scroll; will give the div scroll bars, and overflow: visible; will show it usually by stretching the height of the div. Maybe that was completely useless, hope it helps though. Darian * 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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
In the frameset you'll need to add this attribute: scrolling=no - although it would be preferable not to use frames at all. Cheers Jeff Lowder Accessibility 1st Website: www.accessibility1st.com.au Blog: www.accessibility1st.com.au/journal/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaska.WSG Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2004 7:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC) Yes, but it's not the overflow of the div, it's the frame itself. The page is going larger than the frame window - meaning, the divs aren't respecting the size of the window. Sorry if my explanation was confusing on that point. ;) On 24 Mar 2004, at 09:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean... maybe this will help. if content of a div is larger than the space provided (eg screen size restriction, or width, height, settings) there is an overflow css attribute to handle it. For example overflow: hidden; hides any thing that doesn't fix, overflow: scroll; will give the div scroll bars, and overflow: visible; will show it usually by stretching the height of the div. Maybe that was completely useless, hope it helps though. Darian * 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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
Hi Vaska, Posting a link to it will really help. Without seeing the rest of the HTML (doctype etc.) we have no idea about whether or not you are in standards compliant mode and what else is in there. Are you using a frameset doctype. Have you validated all your code (html and css)? Can I ask (in the absence of seeing it) why you are using frames at all? 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] Hiding styles message to certain browsers
I know... but I can't get around the Mac IE bugs and it makes things even harder as I do not have a Mac to check against those bugs. Rather Mac IE and NS users see a plain text page than a broken design page. So got to hide the styles till I am able to buy me a Mac but by that time maybe Mac IE will no longer be used :D With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/24/04 07:22:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding styles message to certain browsers I am thinking of hiding my stylesheets from Mac IE and Netscape Jamie Agrr... You'd be leaving most of us creative people out in the cold! Leo * 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] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Peter Firminger wrote: [verdana] It won't ever bother the users that hate the font so much they remove it from their system. That's their choice. On the contrary. Because authors using Verdana as primary size according to their own taste for the giant font, when people without it see the fallback, whatever that may be, it is a virtual certainty that whatever replaces it will be smaller. Have you not read http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html? -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * 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] Font size, and how large is large enough?
So you're saying we should all just use black default font on white pages then? Not going to happen! It's a pathetic argument Felix. Really not worth bothering with. Peter On the contrary. Because authors using Verdana as primary size according to their own taste for the giant font, when people without it see the fallback, whatever that may be, it is a virtual certainty that whatever replaces it will be smaller. Have you not read http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.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] Font size, and how large is large enough?
When you make both height and width 76.1% of the default, the result is
less than 58% of the original.
But in the end, it seems to me the user gets the same font size as if 'body
{font-size: 100%;}, given that all the other font-sizes are set above 1em
for regular paragraphs and above 0.9em for footnotes, for instance.
Can you see the test at:
http://cb2web.com/tests/testing.shtml ?
I have tested it in Opera 7.23, IE6 and Firebird and, IMO, the fonts within
the div76 (blue box) and div100 (red box) containers look the same at text
size medium (or 100%) and in fact, for the div76 container, the normal
paragraph is more readable at the largest setting in IE6 and the p.note is
still readable at smallest.
What do you think?
The stylesheet is something like:
#div76 {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 76.1%;
...
}
#div76 p{
font-size: 1.1em;
}
#div76 p.note{
font-size: 0.94em;
}
#div100 {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;
...
}
#div100 p{
font-size: 0.8em;
}
#div100 p.note{
font-size: 0.7em;
}
#div76 p.smaller , #div100 p.smaller{
font-size: smaller;
}
Carlos
- Original Message -
From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Cb2 Web Design wrote:
I tend to agree with such suggestion: applying a percentage in the body
and
then work with the remaining sizes in ems.
I have done that in here:
http://www.excellentsite.org/
Do you think font size is to small?
It certainly starts out that way. With 'body {font-size: 76.1%;}' what
you are saying is this:
I don't have any way to know what size your default is, or whether it
bears any relationship to what you like or need, so whatever that size
happens to be, 12px or 18px or 28px or anything else, I'm making it more
than 42% smaller than your browser preference.
In case you're wondering where the 42% comes from, it's because your
rule on its face is a height, but implicitly also applies to the width.
When you make both height and width 76.1% of the default, the result is
less than 58% of the original.
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
$0 Bannerless Web Hosting, 10 POP and Web Email Accounts, more
Get It Now At www.doteasy.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] Hiding styles message to certain browsers
Used macs running IE 5 are dirt cheap, I just bought two 6500s for $35, each with 160MB RAM and a 2GB HDD - at that price, ya just can't go wrong as far as having one to check stuff on. Brian -Original Message- From: Jaime Wong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding styles message to certain browsers I know... but I can't get around the Mac IE bugs and it makes things even harder as I do not have a Mac to check against those bugs. Rather Mac IE and NS users see a plain text page than a broken design page. So got to hide the styles till I am able to buy me a Mac but by that time maybe Mac IE will no longer be used :D With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/24/04 07:22:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding styles message to certain browsers I am thinking of hiding my stylesheets from Mac IE and Netscape Jamie Agrr... You'd be leaving most of us creative people out in the cold! Leo * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] CSS Form Layout Examples
Report from the Mac side: IE 5.2 is NO on all (can't deal with !DOCTYPE XHTML 1.0 Strict) Safari Un-styled Form OK? Mozilla FirebirdOK Safari Vertical Form OK Mozilla FirebirdOK Safari Columnar Form NO Mozilla FirebirdOK Safari Horizontal Form NO Mozilla FirebirdOK Safari Margin Form NO Mozilla FirebirdOK Safari Fieldset Layout OK Mozilla FirebirdOK I will (later today) look over the NO's, re-format and send you the URL. -chuck = On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10:51 PM, Cameron Adams wrote: Hi, You might be interested in some accessible, semantic form layouts I've made: http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/03/24 Regards, -- Cameron Adams W: www.themaninblue.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 * * 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] Wanted: Safari 1.2 / Firefox tester
And I send it to the list! Sorry about that, everyone! Andrew * 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 Leo! Can anyone here point me towards a good resource article on using IE's conditional comments? http://www.quirksmode.org/css/condcom.html This URL gives a little background, too, and is the most complete resource on this I know. Personally, I include them in every browser that can be IE, which I try to find out via server-side scripting. So, Opera might get it as well but no harm is done as only IE parses it. On the other hand, I save a little bandwidth (I know, very little...) Hav fun with it! -- Matthias http://www.kronn.de * 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] Suggestions about what to do here ...
What do you guys think I should do about this . A user has logged into my bluegrass Australia web site as a member (http://bluegrass.org.au ) and says when he logs in, he cant read the site any more, because the text is too small and the menus don't work properly. The menus don't work properly because I have a _javascript_ error, thats under control, I can fix that. But the font size thing is a bit of a worry. I asked him about his environment and heres what he said he has: Intel Celeron 650 meg processor, ATI graphics card, 256 meg RAM, Mitsubishi monitor. I run windows 98, IE 5. Heres how I see it. I can: [A] say hes got IE5, tell him to take a jump because he needs to upgrade. (Ive done that, but if theres another answer thats easy Id like to do that too hes not alone) [B] just let him lump it and use the CTRL-Wheel to increase the font size [C] change the style sheets to accommodate IE5 users. So whats your suggestions about how I can handle this? Im not against telling him tough upgrade your browser! but if theres a fix thats fairly easy Id like to consider that. The site is at http://bluegrass.org.au and Ive set up a membership for you to try .. user: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pass: member The style sheets are : Main pages: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/Bluegrass_Australia.css Menus: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/cssjsmenu.css Menus hover: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/cssjsmenuhover.css Yes, I know its not valid html, but I don't think thats why this problem has come about. To get the html to validate is a big job here, so Im working towards that as fast as I can. Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com
Re: [WSG] Digest mode
I actually set up a filter to put all messages from wsg into a separate mailbox labeled wsg instead of digest mode, so I don't have to read it with my other email but can still use the feature of looking for advise when I submit a problem. Just a suggestion... --Teresa At 12:58 AM 3/24/2004, you wrote: To set your membership to digest mode simply email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and in the body of the email (subject irrelevant) put the following words: Set mode digest wsg Be aware that our digest mode is not great! We are still working around problems with our vendor - an ongoing battle. Any questions or comments about the running of the list such as digest mode, standard mode, and such should be sent off-list to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Otherwise they will simply add to traffic :) Thanks Russ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] Suggestions about what to do here ...
Personally I find the different sizes most browsers will use for fonts mean that I always do fonts in pixel sizes. I think that WinIE4/5 implements small as the initial value so when you use smaller in the body it get's very small. However, I tried it in IE5 and 5.5 and the font size seemed ok to me. The menu however is definitely broken in IE5 and 5.5 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Kear Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2004 12:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Suggestions about what to do here ... What do you guys think I should do about this . A user has logged into my bluegrass Australia web site as a member (http://bluegrass.org.au ) and says when he logs in, he cant read the site any more, because the text is too small and the menus don't work properly. The menus don't work properly because I have a javascript error, thats under control, I can fix that. But the font size thing is a bit of a worry. I asked him about his environment and heres what he said he has: Intel Celeron 650 meg processor, ATI graphics card, 256 meg RAM, Mitsubishi monitor. I run windows 98, IE 5. Heres how I see it. I can: [A] say hes got IE5, tell him to take a jump because he needs to upgrade. (Ive done that, but if theres another answer thats easy Id like to do that too hes not alone) [B] just let him lump it and use the CTRL-Wheel to increase the font size [C] change the style sheets to accommodate IE5 users. So whats your suggestions about how I can handle this? Im not against telling him tough upgrade your browser! but if theres a fix thats fairly easy Id like to consider that. The site is at http://bluegrass.org.au and Ive set up a membership for you to try .. user: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pass: member The style sheets are : Main pages: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/Bluegrass_Australia.css Menus: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/cssjsmenu.css Menus hover: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/cssjsmenuhover.css Yes, I know its not valid html, but I don't think thats why this problem has come about. To get the html to validate is a big job here, so Im working towards that as fast as I can. Cheers Mike Kear AFP Webworks Windsor, NSW, Australia http://afpwebworks.com --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 / Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004 * 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] Color Blindnesss
Somewhere out there, I lost my link to it in an old HDD crash, there is a site that allows you to test your site using the various perceptions people with various types of color blindness suffer from - it was actually quite handy. But there is other sites out there now that atleast let you choose or test the color schemes - though not as useful as the site reader. These might be helpful: http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/tools#color http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/color Laura ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
When you make both height and width 76.1% of the default, the result is
less than 58% of the original.
But in the end, it seems to me the user gets the same font size as if
'body
{font-size: 100%;}, given that all the other font-sizes are set above 1em
for regular paragraphs and above 0.9em for footnotes, for instance.
Can you see the test at:
http://cb2web.com/tests/testing.shtml ?
The blue box's fonts size correctly (using IE 6 here at work). The red
box, the small font is larger than the middle font.
*
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] Hiding styles message to certain browsers
I know... but I can't get around the Mac IE bugs and it makes things even harder as I do not have a Mac to check against those bugs. Rather Mac IE and NS users see a plain text page than a broken design page. So got to hide the styles till I am able to buy me a Mac but by that time maybe Mac IE will no longer be used :D As a Mac user, I would much rather see a buggy style sheet than no style sheet at all. If you were to leave a way to contact you and I came across your site with that in place, you would get an email complaining about it. With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/24/04 07:22:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding styles message to certain browsers I am thinking of hiding my stylesheets from Mac IE and Netscape Jamie Agrr... You'd be leaving most of us creative people out in the cold! Leo * 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] Standards-compliant browsers
(Sorry if this is a repeated post - I was having major email software problems) 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 is Opera first on that list? 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 Espericueta Information Technology Administrator/Web Designer 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 Web Design! * 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] Hiding styles message to certain browsers
Hmm your comment is interesting. Interesting as in it makes me want to rethink the need to hide stylesheets or not to. There are many sites out there (be it professional or personal sites) hiding stylesheets from older browsers for e.g. the most common is Netscape 4x. Wouldn't Netscape 4x users feel the same way as you then? I do understand that some people prefer to stick to whatever browser they are using even if it is way outdated. But the problem here is trying to please everyonewhich is impossible isn t it? For Mac IE5 users who visited my site if they enter through the domain there is no way that they can find the navigation to enter the site because the layout is broken to them. I am only stating from the pictures I have seen sent by Mac IE5 users so I do not know if there is a way to find the navigation to enter the site for sure. So the question is to hide stylesheets or not to? I chose to hide it till I find a way to work around those bugs. These are just my personal opinions. Maybe the experts can help shed some lights in whether to hide stylesheets or not :) With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/25/04 01:27:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding styles message to certain browsers I know... but I can't get around the Mac IE bugs and it makes things even harder as I do not have a Mac to check against those bugs. Rather Mac IE and NS users see a plain text page than a broken design page. So got to hide the styles till I am able to buy me a Mac but by that time maybe Mac IE will no longer be used :D As a Mac user, I would much rather see a buggy style sheet than no style sheet at all. If you were to leave a way to contact you and I came across your site with that in place, you would get an email complaining about it. With Regards Jaime Wong ~~ SODesires Design Team http://www.sodesires.com ~~ ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/24/04 07:22:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding styles message to certain browsers I am thinking of hiding my stylesheets from Mac IE and Netscape Jamie Agrr... You'd be leaving most of us creative people out in the cold! Leo * 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 *
Netscape 4.7x Re: [WSG] Hiding styles message to certain browsers
Hmm your comment is interesting. Interesting as in it makes me want to rethink the need to hide stylesheets or not to. There are many sites out there (be it professional or personal sites) hiding stylesheets from older browsers for e.g. the most common is Netscape 4x. Wouldn't Netscape 4x users feel the same way as you then? Older Netscape users may very well feel the same way. I know from first hand experience that many large corporations still only support Netscape 4.7x varieties for security reasons, either real or percieved, meaning that Netscape is the mandatory email reader, news reader and browser. These very same companies use style sheets in their web design and expect them to work (at least gracefully, if not perfectly) with Netscape. * 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] Font size, and how large is large enough?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've decided to stick with Verdana (_) The world shall have Verdana. Heaven forbid any mere mortal user gets to see the default he selected. If you visit www.cabotconsultants.com.au It'd be nice if people would provided a URL, something *everyone* could click on to reach your page. www.blablabla.com is NOT a URL. URLs begin ftp:// or http:// or irc:// or any of a few other prefixes ending in ://. If you select the contents of the urlbar and copy its contents into your email, you are pretty well guaranteed against typos as well. ;-) I've also been sure not to use any pt or px font sizes so if need be, the viewer can change the font size with the browser setting. Anyways, please give me feedback if you find my font/size/css to cause you any problems. This thread has caused me to do some updates and additions to my site that at least in part amount to additional feedback: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * 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] Font size, and how large is large enough?
This is my list of cross platform fonts (Mac PC). It may not be in line with most, ...but what to he!! -chuck Arial 'Arial Black' 'Comic Sans MS' 'Courier New' Georgia Helvetica Hobo Impact Stencil Symbol 'Times New Roman' 'Trebuchet MS' Verdana Webdings = On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow I wasn't aware of this! thanks for the link. Just out of curiosity... would you know the percentage of pcs without verdana? I mean, is it on mac etc? I like the font so much(_) would it be worth converting to arial? for the sake of i dunno 5%??? and even if they don;t have verdana, although the backup font will be arial, all they'll need to do is change their browser font size the next setting up. What are your thoughts? Darian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tested the webpage on 3 differnet monitor on anything from 800X600 up. I've also tested it in Netscape, IE, Opera and FireFox. I noticed the Gecko browsers did display the font fairly small. If you are on windoze and seeing Gecko at default 16px rendering these sizes smaller than IE, then you are using either IE5 or IE4, or you are using IE6 in quirks mode, which renders the same as IE4 IE5 (these only have quirks mode regardless of doctype). In standards mode, IE6 matches Gecko, as long as you are using the standard 96 DPI windoze small fonts system setting. Gecko is not impacted by changing the windoze system font size/DPI, while IE is, which makes everything in relative sizes larger, as that's why one chooses something other than small fonts as the system setting. I chose Verdana as it is very clean for both print and display. More about Verdana: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * 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] articledates and bylines
If your thinking about using a byline tag a lot or a articledate tag, shouldn't you be thinking about doing this in XML? You could then use a byline Author C Writer/byline and use XSTL to control the appearance of all the by-lines. Martin Stender wrote: The address element sort of makes sense for bylines, although the spec says: The ADDRESS element may be used by authors to supply contact information for a document or a major part of a document such as a form. This element often appears at the beginning or end of a document. But I guess I just have to choose H5 or H6 for article-dates, right? Perhaps its just me, but I kind of wonder why there isn't a dedicated element for that, since publishing dates appear on tens of thousands of websites throughout the world. * 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 Caps
Anyone have ideas on how to do a drop cap in CSS? * 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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
IE6 has a bug with frames and scrollbars when the page contains an XHTML doctype
declaration. If the content causes vertical scrollbars, IE thinks that the width of
the scrollbar must be included in the overall width of the page and produces
horizontal scrollbars when they are not necessary. The only way around this is to set
scrolling=yes in the frameset, and not auto. You end up with ghost vertical scrollbars
but there is no solution to this that I have found.
If you have an XML prologue inserted, this doesn't happen - Unfortunately, another bug
in Internet Explorer is affected by anything that appears before the DOCTYPE and the
browser is then sent into Quirks Mode. The ?xml prolog causes IE to miss the DOCTYPE
declaration and therefore renders the page in a non-standards compliant way. Luckily,
the prolog is not mandatory and can be removed and you are stuck with the first
solution.
I'm not interested in an anti frame discussion however I also use frames for internal
online modules - they really don't pose as many accessibility problems as you might
think once you institute a few things:
- correct titling and naming of frames
- correct titling of each page
- skip links to main content
- no frames content that goes to the content pages which have navigation to go from
page to page and no need of the frames
- next and back buttons go straight to named anchors to the main content
- print button to print only the frame content and a print stylesheet to format this
for print
- logical tabbing order
- I did have access keys but I weighed up the arguments for and against and removed
them
(Assistive technologies determine the content in each frame and present the user with
a list of the frames, enabling them to select the content they wish to access,
supplementing the use of a skip link.
It is therefore important to use meaningful frame names in the frameset page and
titles as the individual page titles - different technologies use either of these. It
is easy to neglect page titles in framesets, as the page title normally displayed in
the browser is that of the frameset page itself.)
WP
-Original Message-
From: Vaska.WSG [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2004 7:06 pm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
Hi everybody...
I'm having a terrible time trying to figure out just why IE6 (Windows
XP) is throwing scrollbars at me when I view a page in a frame - I'm
really not sure what the trick is to this (if there is one). I hate to
ask dumb or redundant questions, but this one is really nagging.
Thanks for any advice on this...v
Once again, this is being view in a frame...here is the gist of the CSS:
body {
margin: 0px;
}
.container {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
}
.subhead1 {
margin: 0px;
padding: 6px 0px 0px 12px;
}
.subhead2 {
margin: 0px;
padding: 3px 12px 1px;
height: 30px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #99;
}
.content {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
}
.content-pad {
padding: 0px;
margin: 12px;
}
etc...
The makeup of the file...
div class='container'
div class='subhead1'Just some title text/div
div class='subhead2'
A table at width='100%'...
/div
div class='content'
div class='content-pad'
div class='column'
Lots of things go in here, it varies. Some times a table at
width='100%'
/div
/div
/div
/div
*
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] Drop Caps
Make a class that will position and size according to line height and then use a span element. That's one way, but I'm sure there is a more standard way this is done. Anyone? Leo On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 04:22 PM, theGrafixGuy wrote: Anyone have ideas on how to do a drop cap in CSS? * 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] RE: Display issues
Hello, I am working on a build for a client and am having a devil of a time figuring out why the follwing is happening. In the footer section, I have various links set up and two W3C buttons made from CSS (pretty nice completely customizable buttons I might add that were shared with me from another chat forum). Anyway, the issue I am having is they display PERFECTLY in IE (go figure), acceptanle, but off just a tidge in Mozilla and Firefox, and they complete screw the pooch in Opera and the tops line up with the mid-point of the text line For an example, see http://www.purplecart.com (it is one of my old URLs that I am using to build the clients site so the content will NOT match the name ;-) * 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 Caps
Hi Use the :first-letter pseudo thingo to do this, but I doubt it works in Winternet Explorer (please prove me wrong). CSS2 Recommendation section 5.12.2 Cheers James Leo J. O'Campo wrote: Make a class that will position and size according to line height and then use a span element. That's one way, but I'm sure there is a more standard way this is done. Anyone? Leo On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 04:22 PM, theGrafixGuy wrote: Anyone have ideas on how to do a drop cap in CSS? * 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] Suggestions about what to do here ...
Hi Michael
With that OS someone could log into his computer and upgrade for him... :D
Seriously, though, you do have three paths here :
1. Push IE6
2. Make it work in IE5. It may be simple, I have a feeling it is this :
font-size : smaller;
Try small as a starter. I've been tooling with body { font-size : small}
and then font-size : 90% on some sites and it works ok.
IE5 on Win is the 2nd ranked browser so we can't ignore it unfortunately
even if it is a dud.
3. Get him to check his default font-sizes. If this is the only IE5 user
with a problem he may have his default font-size set to very small.
As most sites specify a px then this would override his default choice.
Cheers
James
Michael Kear wrote:
What do you guys think I should do about this ..
A user has logged into my bluegrass Australia web site as a member
(http://bluegrass.org.au ) and says when he logs in, he can't read the site
any more, because the text is too small and the menus don't work properly.
The menus don't work properly because I have a javascript error, that's
under control, I can fix that. But the font size thing is a bit of a worry.
I asked him about his environment and here's what he said he has:
Intel Celeron 650 meg processor, ATI graphics card, 256 meg RAM, Mitsubishi
monitor. I run windows 98, IE 5.
Here's how I see it. I can:
[A] say he's got IE5, tell him to take a jump because he needs to upgrade.
(I've done that, but if there's another answer that's easy I'd like to do
that too - he's not alone)
[B] just let him lump it and use the CTRL-Wheel to increase the font size
[C] change the style sheets to accommodate IE5 users.
So what's your suggestions about how I can handle this? I'm not against
telling him 'tough - upgrade your browser!' but if there's a fix that's
fairly easy I'd like to consider that.
The site is at http://bluegrass.org.au http://bluegrass.org.au/and
I've set up a membership for you to try .. user: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pass: member
The style sheets are :
Main pages: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/Bluegrass_Australia.css
Menus: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/cssjsmenu.css
Menus hover: http://bluegrass.org.au/styles/cssjsmenuhover.css
Yes, I know it's not valid html, but I don't think that's why this problem
has come about. To get the html to validate is a big job here, so I'm
working towards that as fast as I can.
Cheers
Mike Kear
AFP Webworks
Windsor, NSW, Australia
http://afpwebworks.com
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
[WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock!
I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content. For example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your content in XHTML. Sorry to be a pedant, but this statement is misleading and in my opinion, not very good advice. Using XSLT to transform a document is not limited to XHTML, and using XHTML as the source for XSLT is taking one step forward so you can take 2 steps backwards. One of the main benefits of using XSLT is that it seperates the presentation [the HTML] and the content, which wont happen if you use XHTML. My advice for keeping presentation and content seperate, which is what vlad is promoting here, though he doesnt know that, is to author in XML and then use XSLT to create the HTML for you. For example, write the faq in Xml: FAQ Q=Place question here The answer goes in here. /FAQ Then apply a XSLT script to transform this into a valid Html document. woric PS: I do this on every website I make. See http://xsltfilter.tigris.org * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock!
Wow what the hell happened to NS??!! Going by those figures I should be focassing my attention to Mozilla compatability. Thanks for the stats. Darian I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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] URLs - CSS Validator
www.google.com is just as valid in e-mail as http://www.google.com or even http://google.com. In fact I'd be surprised to find a web browser or e-mail program that does not support it. I guess it is like the word ain't. Remember ain't ain't a word cause it ain't in the dictionary. Well sorry to say, but it is and it is recognized and accepted slang by all but the purists. Darian, BTW, (and I am updating all of my pages to reflect this as well) your W3C CSS button would be better served if it pointed to the following URL - http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer - as it shows the validation results rather than having to figure out where to go after you get to the default page as your current link http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ does. Granted us pros know what to do, but that computer-ignorant user out there that may actually be impressed and won over as a client with such validation may get lost on the page. Remember keep it simple because there is always a better idiot out there to break the idiot proof system! Brian * 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] Browser Stats - What a shock!
I just downloaded the latest NS 7.01 and it is nothing more than Mozilla with NS's skin on it, even my installed Mozilla plug-ins are present in NS. But that doesn't explain the complete loss of market share! Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! Wow what the hell happened to NS??!! Going by those figures I should be focassing my attention to Mozilla compatability. Thanks for the stats. Darian I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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] RE: Display issues
Try this: htmlbody .cssbtn{vertical-align:0px;}
I'm pretty sure this will fix it.
Cheers
Jeff Lowder
Accessibility
Website: www.accessibility1st.com.au
Blog: www.accessibility1st.com.au/journal/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of theGrafixGuy
Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2004 8:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] RE: Display issues
Hello,
I am working on a build for a client and am having a devil of a time
figuring out why the follwing is happening.
In the footer section, I have various links set up and two W3C buttons
made
from CSS (pretty nice completely customizable buttons I might add that
were
shared with me from another chat forum).
Anyway, the issue I am having is they display PERFECTLY in IE (go
figure),
acceptanle, but off just a tidge in Mozilla and Firefox, and they
complete
screw the pooch in Opera and the tops line up with the mid-point of the
text
line
For an example, see http://www.purplecart.com (it is one of my old URLs
that
I am using to build the clients site so the content will NOT match the
name
;-)
*
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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
Oh dear... I didn't want to get into this argument again. Did you know that your statement XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years promotes the use of IE? It certainly doesn't promote the use of standards-compliant XHTML browsers like Mozilla/Firefox/Opera. For the first time, these browsers have a technological advantage over IE and you are missing it. Do you happen to work in Redmond by any chance? Rubbish. I use Firefox as my primary browser actively encourage the use of it and other standards compliant browsers where ever I can. My mention of IE was a specific answer to a specific question about IE. My comment XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years has almost nothing to do with IE. Please read http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml. Anyway, too many people focus on browsers and their ability to consume XHTML. Today, the real benefit of XHTML is on the content production side. Sorry - I thought that thread was about which mime types to use in serving XHTML to browsers? Content production is not relevant on this list. Please use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if you which to discuss content production and the like. Without XHTML, the average Web developer could not parse content for re-purposing because HTML makes parsing difficult. Here is an example of how some of our customers build Web sites (it would be impossible for them to do this if the content was in HTML): they have a single script (PHP, ASP, etc) that provides the layout of the page and sucks-up content from a data store. Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content. For example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your content in XHTML. We're off topic here, but HTML 4.1 is only ever one step away from XHTML (HTML Tidy jTidy) so your argument about things being impossible if you're using HTML is incorrect. People have been taking this approach (markup - transform - publish) to content management for years (see DocBook, SGML, etc...), it nothing new. Some alternative approaches: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199905/threads.html#00229 http://www.google.com/search?q=wordML+XSL http://www.google.com/search?q=docbook+XSL XSLT is very useful, but it relies on XML not XHTML. So maybe You can only transform content with XSLT if you author your content in XML. might be more accurate? I do understand your point and in the situation that you have mentioned XHTML is useful. But this is only one specific scenario and its not relevant to the original post. Mark, you made a bold statement, so I will counter with a statement just as bold - Authoring content in HTML immediately devalues that content, because as soon as you capture content in HTML it become legacy data, difficult to parse and difficult to re-purpose. Ok, maybe I should have said HTML 4.1 is the right choice for *delivering web documents to web browsers* at the moment. I don't care what format or systems people use to author and manage their content - I am simply talking about what should be reaching browsers. Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team The first standards-based XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor I like your product very much (I downloaded a copy the other day), but I find it a little ironic that you point the finger at me saying I work for Redmond when your product based entirely on Microsoft's ActiveX technology. I don't want to argue about any of this, its been done 100 times before I certainly don't want to get personal. The only reason I am writing this email is that I expressed an opinion and I don't particularly enjoy having it misrepresented. I am not anti XHTML in any way - I've followed its development closely for a couple of years am very excited about the possibilities that has opened up. I don't feel the web is ready for it yet. Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.cabotconsultants.com.au is fine as a web addy I think. If there is
not 'http://', 'ftp://', or whatever one usually assumes http but you
don't need to type it.
The small attachment should show the difference. You come here asking
for help. Don't make it harder than necessary for those who wish to help
you. Most of the time, when someone posting here can't be bothered to
make the link clickable, I can't be bothered to cut and paste in order
to visit that URL.
If for some reason you don't get the attachment, here is the U R L :
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/URLorNOT.png
Now I get to the point. VERDANA is my preferred font for the website!!!
Ok shoot me, flame me, or suggest a million other sites to dissagree but
I've tested my site fairly well and even *without* verdana supported.
Everything was fine, so I'm using it. I understand that you've obviously
visited one too many font offending sites Felix, but as far as I can tell,
I'm not an offender.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html
The U R L s above were intended in part to show that
body {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
falls short of getting you the you the imposing results you're after.
Assuming you are compelled to impose on any visitor some font other than
the default the visitor has selected for himself, you might as well do a
good job of it and make the fallback font one the CLOSELY RESEMBLES your
primary font. Arial and Helvetica AIN'T that font. There's a font in
those URL's that is practically a twin to Verdana that is popular on
systems that don't have Verdana. Can you see which one that is?
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
inline: URLorNOT.png
RE: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock!
James, Breaking the Netscape down to versions we have the following: NS 7.1 1.1% NS 7.02 0.2% NS 7.01 0.01% NS 7.0 0.1% NS 6.23 0.05% NS 5 0.0003% NS 4.8 0.0002% NS 4.78 0.08% NS 4.77 0.01% NS 4.76 0.018% NS 4.74 0.0007% NS 4.7 0.05% NS 4.51 0% NS 4.5 0.0001 NS 4.04 0% NS 4.0 0% NS ? 0% Just for giggles Anything below MSIE 5 is a combined total of 0.0025% Brian -Original Message- From: James Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! Hi Do the Netscape stats include 6 7? Or are they included in Moz stats? If you target Mozilla you will also be targeting Netscape 6 and 7 (they are the same browsers). There's a thread about this somewhere from last week - about what NS 6 and 7 are. http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.5/faq/general.html#ns7 Cheers James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow what the hell happened to NS??!! Going by those figures I should be focassing my attention to Mozilla compatability. Thanks for the stats. Darian I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
Hi woric, My advice for keeping presentation and content seperate, which is what vlad is promoting here, though he doesnt know that, is to author in XML and then use XSLT to create the HTML for you. I think we're saying the same thing. XHTML is XML and the latest XHTML spec (with the exception of maybe 4 tags) cleanly separates formatting from data. One of the main benefits of using XSLT is that it seperates the presentation [the HTML] and the content XSLT is a wonderful language but it has nothing to do with separating presentation from content. XSLT does one thing and one thing only - it transforms in input document into an output document based on rules. For example, write the faq in Xml: FAQ Q=Place question here The answer goes in here. /FAQ There is nothing wrong with this. But when you write semantically rich content, you end up using a dialect of XML like DocBook or XHTML. Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com XStandard XHTML WYSIWYG editor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content. For example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your content in XHTML. Sorry to be a pedant, but this statement is misleading and in my opinion, not very good advice. Using XSLT to transform a document is not limited to XHTML, and using XHTML as the source for XSLT is taking one step forward so you can take 2 steps backwards. One of the main benefits of using XSLT is that it seperates the presentation [the HTML] and the content, which wont happen if you use XHTML. My advice for keeping presentation and content seperate, which is what vlad is promoting here, though he doesnt know that, is to author in XML and then use XSLT to create the HTML for you. For example, write the faq in Xml: FAQ Q=Place question here The answer goes in here. /FAQ Then apply a XSLT script to transform this into a valid Html document. woric PS: I do this on every website I make. See http://xsltfilter.tigris.org * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] Browser Stats - What a shock!
I posted a link to some fresh web statistics from the W3C on my blog earlier today, which turn out to be very similar to what you are getting: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp There, IE versions account for more than 80% of the whole browser share, followed by Mozilla with 9.6%. Oscar Oscar Trelles http://www.oscartrelles.com/blog/ - Original Message - From: theGrafixGuy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! I just downloaded the latest NS 7.01 and it is nothing more than Mozilla with NS's skin on it, even my installed Mozilla plug-ins are present in NS. But that doesn't explain the complete loss of market share! Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! Wow what the hell happened to NS??!! Going by those figures I should be focassing my attention to Mozilla compatability. Thanks for the stats. Darian I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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 * * 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] Font Styles:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html
This link brings up an interesting question - what fonts are supported by
what platforms and OS's?
Now I should clarify this with the duh part, any font is supported so long
as the viewer has it installed on their system. I guess a better way fo
asking the question is for example Comic Sans MS pretty universal? Are these
fonts as safe to use as the core sans-serif and serif?
On the same note, I can see one can shave some bytes of of their CSS
stylesheet if they simply use sans-serif or serif rather than a long drawn
out list {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif} (something I was
wondering about actually).
Brian
*
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] Font size, and how large is large enough?
I've looked at these links earlier and my point was *phew* here we go
AGAIN...
Verdana is POPULAR! Most people have that. Arial is probably more popular,
so that is next in line as a backup. I understand that they are different
fonts, and I also understand that there are fonts that closer resemble
verdana, but are they as popular as verdana? I dare to say that if the
viewer doesn't have verdana, they won't have these other similar fonts
either... Maybe they do? But I'm gonna live life on the 'typography' edge,
so don't try this at home kids :P
Afterall they are only fonts. I know that comment may offend you but I
have been careful to selelct legible and clear fonts.
Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite happy how the wesite functions.
Regards,
Darian Cabot
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Software Engineer - Website Design
http://www.cabotconsultants.com.au
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PS: Ok that was the last post on that thread. I promise! (_)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.cabotconsultants.com.au is fine as a web addy I think. If there is
not 'http://', 'ftp://', or whatever one usually assumes http but you
don't need to type it.
The small attachment should show the difference. You come here asking
for help. Don't make it harder than necessary for those who wish to help
you. Most of the time, when someone posting here can't be bothered to
make the link clickable, I can't be bothered to cut and paste in order
to visit that URL.
If for some reason you don't get the attachment, here is the U R L :
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/URLorNOT.png
Now I get to the point. VERDANA is my preferred font for the website!!!
Ok shoot me, flame me, or suggest a million other sites to dissagree but
I've tested my site fairly well and even *without* verdana supported.
Everything was fine, so I'm using it. I understand that you've
obviously
visited one too many font offending sites Felix, but as far as I can
tell,
I'm not an offender.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html
The U R L s above were intended in part to show that
body {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
falls short of getting you the you the imposing results you're after.
Assuming you are compelled to impose on any visitor some font other than
the default the visitor has selected for himself, you might as well do a
good job of it and make the fallback font one the CLOSELY RESEMBLES your
primary font. Arial and Helvetica AIN'T that font. There's a font in
those URL's that is practically a twin to Verdana that is popular on
systems that don't have Verdana. Can you see which one that is?
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
Hi Mark, I am new to the group and if this topic has been discussed ad nauseam - I do apologize for raising it again. See my response to ActiveX here: http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1021 Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com - Original Message - From: Mark Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:17 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml Oh dear... I didn't want to get into this argument again. Did you know that your statement XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years promotes the use of IE? It certainly doesn't promote the use of standards-compliant XHTML browsers like Mozilla/Firefox/Opera. For the first time, these browsers have a technological advantage over IE and you are missing it. Do you happen to work in Redmond by any chance? Rubbish. I use Firefox as my primary browser actively encourage the use of it and other standards compliant browsers where ever I can. My mention of IE was a specific answer to a specific question about IE. My comment XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years has almost nothing to do with IE. Please read http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml. Anyway, too many people focus on browsers and their ability to consume XHTML. Today, the real benefit of XHTML is on the content production side. Sorry - I thought that thread was about which mime types to use in serving XHTML to browsers? Content production is not relevant on this list. Please use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if you which to discuss content production and the like. Without XHTML, the average Web developer could not parse content for re-purposing because HTML makes parsing difficult. Here is an example of how some of our customers build Web sites (it would be impossible for them to do this if the content was in HTML): they have a single script (PHP, ASP, etc) that provides the layout of the page and sucks-up content from a data store. Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content. For example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your content in XHTML. We're off topic here, but HTML 4.1 is only ever one step away from XHTML (HTML Tidy jTidy) so your argument about things being impossible if you're using HTML is incorrect. People have been taking this approach (markup - transform - publish) to content management for years (see DocBook, SGML, etc...), it nothing new. Some alternative approaches: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199905/threads.html#00229 http://www.google.com/search?q=wordML+XSL http://www.google.com/search?q=docbook+XSL XSLT is very useful, but it relies on XML not XHTML. So maybe You can only transform content with XSLT if you author your content in XML. might be more accurate? I do understand your point and in the situation that you have mentioned XHTML is useful. But this is only one specific scenario and its not relevant to the original post. Mark, you made a bold statement, so I will counter with a statement just as bold - Authoring content in HTML immediately devalues that content, because as soon as you capture content in HTML it become legacy data, difficult to parse and difficult to re-purpose. Ok, maybe I should have said HTML 4.1 is the right choice for *delivering web documents to web browsers* at the moment. I don't care what format or systems people use to author and manage their content - I am simply talking about what should be reaching browsers. Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team The first standards-based XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor I like your product very much (I downloaded a copy the other day), but I find it a little ironic that you point the finger at me saying I work for Redmond when your product based entirely on Microsoft's ActiveX technology. I don't want to argue about any of this, its been done 100 times before I certainly don't want to get personal. The only reason I am writing this email is that I expressed an opinion and I don't particularly enjoy having it misrepresented. I am not anti XHTML in any way - I've followed its development closely for a couple of years am very excited about the possibilities that has opened up. I don't feel the web is ready for it yet. Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help
RE: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock!
Good post - if you scroll down a little, you can see the OS and platofrms and while XP is leading the way - notice Macintosh and Linux have both maintained a small steady increase over the past year! Mind you, I am an XP user - converted from OS 9 due to costs and sheer availability of software, but I still run a couple of Macs in house. As for Linux. Other than a web server, there is little use for it in a graphic design shop - more use for an Amiga or SGI! Simply due to a lack of any professional level software like Photoshop or Illustrator for Linux - Yes, I know there is some GNU version of something like Photoshop, but it is not ADOBE PHOTOSHOP and that is a standard just like CSS or HTML is in the industry - it isn't me ya have to convince, it is Adobe and the like - get them to support Linux like they do for the Mac and you have some serious MS competition!!! Anyway this is way off topic so I am shutting up! Brian -Original Message- From: Oscar Trelles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! I posted a link to some fresh web statistics from the W3C on my blog earlier today, which turn out to be very similar to what you are getting: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp There, IE versions account for more than 80% of the whole browser share, followed by Mozilla with 9.6%. Oscar Oscar Trelles http://www.oscartrelles.com/blog/ - Original Message - From: theGrafixGuy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! I just downloaded the latest NS 7.01 and it is nothing more than Mozilla with NS's skin on it, even my installed Mozilla plug-ins are present in NS. But that doesn't explain the complete loss of market share! Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! Wow what the hell happened to NS??!! Going by those figures I should be focassing my attention to Mozilla compatability. Thanks for the stats. Darian I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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 * * 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] Font size, and how large is large enough?
I thought this thread was closed by Russ??
Guys, if you do want to keep fighting a never ending argument, please
take it off the list.
Thanks
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:48:37 +1000 (EST)
I've looked at these links earlier and my point was *phew* here we go
AGAIN...
Verdana is POPULAR! Most people have that. Arial is probably more
popular,
so that is next in line as a backup. I understand that they are
different
fonts, and I also understand that there are fonts that closer
resemble
verdana, but are they as popular as verdana? I dare to say that if
the
viewer doesn't have verdana, they won't have these other similar
fonts
either... Maybe they do? But I'm gonna live life on the 'typography'
edge,
so don't try this at home kids :P
Afterall they are only fonts. I know that comment may offend you but
I
have been careful to selelct legible and clear fonts.
Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite happy how the wesite
functions.
Regards,
Darian Cabot
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Software Engineer - Website Design
http://www.cabotconsultants.com.au
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PS: Ok that was the last post on that thread. I promise! (_)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.cabotconsultants.com.au is fine as a web addy I think. If
there is
not 'http://', 'ftp://', or whatever one usually assumes http but
you
don't need to type it.
The small attachment should show the difference. You come here
asking
for help. Don't make it harder than necessary for those who wish to
help
you. Most of the time, when someone posting here can't be bothered
to
make the link clickable, I can't be bothered to cut and paste in
order
to visit that URL.
If for some reason you don't get the attachment, here is the U R L
:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/URLorNOT.png
Now I get to the point. VERDANA is my preferred font for the
website!!!
Ok shoot me, flame me, or suggest a million other sites to
dissagree but
I've tested my site fairly well and even *without* verdana
supported.
Everything was fine, so I'm using it. I understand that you've
obviously
visited one too many font offending sites Felix, but as far as I
can
tell,
I'm not an offender.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html
The U R L s above were intended in part to show that
body {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
falls short of getting you the you the imposing results you're
after.
Assuming you are compelled to impose on any visitor some font other
than
the default the visitor has selected for himself, you might as well
do a
good job of it and make the fallback font one the CLOSELY RESEMBLES
your
primary font. Arial and Helvetica AIN'T that font. There's a font
in
those URL's that is practically a twin to Verdana that is popular
on
systems that don't have Verdana. Can you see which one that is?
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist
only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Regards,
David McDonald
Web Designer
http://www.davidmcdonald.org
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
[WSG] Firefox 0.8 bug?
Hi all, I'm playing around with some web pages which have a wrapper div centering the entire web page contents via margin: auto;. My experience and testing with this method has led me to believe that's it's virtually flawless -- until I looked at my current page (and others) in Firefox 0.8 on Win XP. The bug: While viewing http://www.simplebits.com/ , http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/ , or any other site which uses this method on Firefox 0.8 under Windows XP, there's something definitely wrong. - At 1280 x 1024, the layouts are perfectly centred with no problems. - At 1024 x 768, the layouts are a *little* off-centre to the right. - At 800 x 600, the layouts are a *lot* off-centre to the right, with content disappearing off the right side -- and worse still, no scroll bars are enabled to allow me to view the missing content. The bug is not present in Mozilla 1.6 or Mac Firebird, but given the amount of fixed-width, centred sites using this method, I'm thinking this is a big problem :) Is there a work-around, or do we just wait for the next release, and hope that people don't stick with 0.8 for ever? PS: had a quick look in Bugzilla, but couldn't find anything related. --- 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] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml
I think we're saying the same thing. XHTML is XML and the latest XHTML spec (with the exception of maybe 4 tags) cleanly separates formatting from data. I think we are too, and maybe I need to look into XHTML again. XSLT is a wonderful language but it has nothing to do with separating presentation from content. XSLT does one thing and one thing only - it transforms in input document into an output document based on rules. You are 100% right about this. With hindsight I should said... One of the benefits in using XSLT for making web sites is that you can keep the content and the presentation totally seperate. * 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] Browser Stats - What a shock!
Brian I can tell you what accounts for the low market share stats. It's confounding variables. If you look for apples in a peach tree you'd get low market share. Now survey major corporations and NN's market share will rise up the bell curve. No offense to Darian, but his website isn't representative of browser market share. Leo On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 07:32 PM, theGrafixGuy wrote: I just downloaded the latest NS 7.01 and it is nothing more than Mozilla with NS's skin on it, even my installed Mozilla plug-ins are present in NS. But that doesn't explain the complete loss of market share! Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! Wow what the hell happened to NS??!! Going by those figures I should be focassing my attention to Mozilla compatability. Thanks for the stats. Darian I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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 * * 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] Firefox 0.8 bug?
Title: RE: [WSG] Firefox 0.8 bug? Hi Justin I'm running XP with Firefox 0.8 and I'm not getting any of the problems you are, so I'm stumped. Cheers Jeff Lowder Accessibility 1st Website: www.accessibility1st.com.au Blog: www.accessibility1st.com.au/journal/ Hi all, I'm playing around with some web pages which have a wrapper div centering the entire web page contents via margin: auto;. My experience and testing with this method has led me to believe that's it's virtually flawless -- until I looked at my current page (and others) in Firefox 0.8 on Win XP. The bug: While viewing http://www.simplebits.com/ , http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/ , or any other site which uses this method on Firefox 0.8 under Windows XP, there's something definitely wrong. - At 1280 x 1024, the layouts are perfectly centred with no problems. - At 1024 x 768, the layouts are a *little* off-centre to the right. - At 800 x 600, the layouts are a *lot* off-centre to the right, with content disappearing off the right side -- and worse still, no scroll bars are enabled to allow me to view the missing content. The bug is not present in Mozilla 1.6 or Mac Firebird, but given the amount of fixed-width, centred sites using this method, I'm thinking this is a big problem :) Is there a work-around, or do we just wait for the next release, and hope that people don't stick with 0.8 for ever? PS: had a quick look in Bugzilla, but couldn't find anything related. --- 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] Firefox 0.8 bug?
Justin, Looks fine on OS X. Don't know why there should be a difference, because afaik it's the same rendering engine. -Hugh Is there a work-around, or do we just wait for the next release, and hope that people don't stick with 0.8 for ever? * 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] Firefox 0.8 bug?
G'day Justin (again) I don't get that error with either of the sites you gave links for (and given I read both, I'm sure I would have noticed at some point). I'm using Firebird 0.8 on Win XP as well. Unfortunately I'm only on my laptop at present, so I only have access to 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768. However, both sites appeared perfectly centered on my screen when I tested them just now, and have (as far as I can recall) appeared perfectly centered on all previous occasions Unfortunately, this is not a problem that I've encountered before, so I have no solution for you. Other than I would suggest it is not solely a browser-specific problem... Cheers, Lachlan Hardy - At 1280 x 1024, the layouts are perfectly centred with no problems. - At 1024 x 768, the layouts are a *little* off-centre to the right. - At 800 x 600, the layouts are a *lot* off-centre to the right, with content disappearing off the right side -- and worse still, no scroll bars are enabled to allow me to view the missing content. * 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] Firefox 0.8 bug?
Well, I'm stumped! I did a restart, and everything is fine again -- I can't repeat the problem AT ALL. Since I had recently installed Firefox 0.8 Mozilla 1.6, as well as Opera 6 7, all without a restart, something must have gone temporarily wrong. Who knows -- I spend 99% of my day on OS X :) The important thing is that it's not a widespread problem. Thanks all for their feedback! --- 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] Trimming the fat
Trimming excess fat off of the code does add up over time - both in storage and in transfer/bandwidth - granted, I'll admit whether your CSS stylesheet can be transferred in a single packet or if it is 4kb in size is not going to make much of a difference; but sitewide - getting rid of the extra comments (if you know your code), removing extra spaces and getting rid of redundant code can save a lot of bandwidth and make for an overall faster running site. With a site file getting 2500 hits a day and trimming off even 100bytes in excess size, that is a savings of 250k for the day, add that up over the course of a month and you saved 7.5MB! Now think sitewide and if you could apply the same average across the site (very easy to do) if you have 100 files on the site total the savings in bandwidth add up and so does the decvrease in the amount of space needed. As a broadband user, I'll be the first to admit I forgot what it is like for 56k and less until I visited a client who dialed up my site (I've been spoiled by the Broadband and the fact the site is cached nicely in my system) it took almost a minute for the site to completely download!) Well that ws the big incentive there to get rid of some Java that was clogging the pipe. Now, my site is better, but still not where I want it, CSS will definitely bring it more inline but alas, I need to find a good lightweight, customizable and powerful shopping cart program to replace the VERY VERY tables heavy OSCommerce. Alas the troubles we put ourselves into! Brian -Original Message- From: Leo J. O'Campo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Styles: I can see one can shave some bytes of of their CSS stylesheet Brian Bytes??? This type of savings aren't even noticeable on any system. Even if you defined that rule in every handler, you'll never notice the difference in bytes or page-loading speed. I can't notice the speed difference between a nanosecond and 100 nanoseconds. ;-) Leo * 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] Suggestions about what to do here ...
On Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 12:46 AM, Michael Kear wrote: [A] say hes got IE5, tell him to take a jump because he needs to upgrade. (Ive done that, but if theres another answer thats easy Id like to do that too hes not alone) That seems a little arrogant. [B] just let him lump it and use the CTRL-Wheel to increase the font size That's an option, but why not attempt to fix the problem? [C] change the style sheets to accommodate IE5 users. Bingo. I'd just include a separate style sheet specifically for IE5 users using an IE conditional comment (search google), which fixes the problem -- however you first need to determine what the problem is... So whats your suggestions about how I can handle this? Im not against telling him tough upgrade your browser! but if theres a fix thats fairly easy Id like to consider that. I just logged in with IE 5, and whilst the font is *small*, it's not *tiny* FOR ME. So, I've got no real idea why the fonts are small for him: 1. he may have his font size set to small 2. he may have poor eye sight, or a bizarre resolution, or a bad screen, or left his glasses on the top of his head 3. he may have some other exclusive problem that is making the text hard to read (browser setting, OS setting, beta version, etc) I'd start by checking out his browser's font size (eg View Text Size Medium), pointing out that he can increase/decrease it there to customise the browser to suit his needs. Try and find out why text is so small in his situation, and perhaps even ask for a screen grab. If that doesn't work out, offer some alternate style sheet tests with different font settings, seeing what he prefers. If it's something that could work for all users, or all IE5 users (using a conditional comment again), then implement it and you're done. If that doesn't work out, *then* consider telling him where to go -- the key is to make sure it's just him, not a whole bunch of IE5 users, before dismissing it as an anomaly. Obviously getting the HTML and CSS valid might fix the problem all by itself. --- 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] Browser Stats - What a shock!
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:34:55 +1000 (EST), Darian Cabot wrote: Those weren't my website stats (_) My aim is to support all major browsers be it ie, nn, moz, or anything. I just stated that if moz is more popular than nn then I'm better off prioritizing that first :) I think the point is that if you are going to worry about NN (ie *your* stats show visitors using it) then you need to be able to distinguish between NN3/4 and NN6/7 usage in those stats. Completely different animals; NN6/7 will mostly be covered by Mozilla testing (ie it is worth checking, but most times it'll pass if Moz did), whereas your CSS most likely *wont* work as expected in NN3/4, and hopefully your visitor numbers are low enough that you dont need to care. The two browsers have completely different code bases. HIH Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia * 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] Trimming the fat
Quoting theGrafixGuy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Now, my site is better, but still not where I want it, CSS will definitely bring it more inline but alas, I need to find a good lightweight, customizable and powerful shopping cart program to replace the VERY VERY tables heavy OSCommerce. Might want to check out Zen Cart: http://www.zen-cart.com -- tim www.toolmantim.com - Web, Email and Domain hosting - www.fasthit.net * 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] Trimming the fat
Great point Brian. There are a lot of web viewer still using dial-up (like me *sob sob*). Broadband STILL isn't available in my area! Simply getting my pages to validate cut down a hell of a lot of needless code, as did converting to CSS. Also valid code processes a lot faster than choked up falty code. I'm all for streamlining websites Regards, Darian Cabot -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Software Engineer - Website Design http://www.cabotconsultants.com.au -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Trimming excess fat off of the code does add up over time - both in storage and in transfer/bandwidth - granted, I'll admit whether your CSS stylesheet can be transferred in a single packet or if it is 4kb in size is not going to make much of a difference; but sitewide - getting rid of the extra comments (if you know your code), removing extra spaces and getting rid of redundant code can save a lot of bandwidth and make for an overall faster running site. With a site file getting 2500 hits a day and trimming off even 100bytes in excess size, that is a savings of 250k for the day, add that up over the course of a month and you saved 7.5MB! Now think sitewide and if you could apply the same average across the site (very easy to do) if you have 100 files on the site total the savings in bandwidth add up and so does the decvrease in the amount of space needed. As a broadband user, I'll be the first to admit I forgot what it is like for 56k and less until I visited a client who dialed up my site (I've been spoiled by the Broadband and the fact the site is cached nicely in my system) it took almost a minute for the site to completely download!) Well that ws the big incentive there to get rid of some Java that was clogging the pipe. Now, my site is better, but still not where I want it, CSS will definitely bring it more inline but alas, I need to find a good lightweight, customizable and powerful shopping cart program to replace the VERY VERY tables heavy OSCommerce. Alas the troubles we put ourselves into! Brian -Original Message- From: Leo J. O'Campo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Styles: I can see one can shave some bytes of of their CSS stylesheet Brian Bytes??? This type of savings aren't even noticeable on any system. Even if you defined that rule in every handler, you'll never notice the difference in bytes or page-loading speed. I can't notice the speed difference between a nanosecond and 100 nanoseconds. ;-) Leo * 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] Trimming the fat
Ooh, that might be just what the doctor ordered!!! Thanks. Brian -Original Message- From: Tim Lucas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 10:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Trimming the fat Quoting theGrafixGuy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Now, my site is better, but still not where I want it, CSS will definitely bring it more inline but alas, I need to find a good lightweight, customizable and powerful shopping cart program to replace the VERY VERY tables heavy OSCommerce. Might want to check out Zen Cart: http://www.zen-cart.com -- tim www.toolmantim.com - Web, Email and Domain hosting - www.fasthit.net * 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] Navigation menu working in all but IE
Working on a navigation menu and it works great in everything BUT IE. http://www.purplecart.com/main.php - any help would be appreciated! I know it is likely staring me in the face but I am blind to it. Thanks Brian * 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] Navigation menu working in all but IE
offhand (without seeing the CSS) I'd say try display: block on your a style B theGrafixGuy wrote: Working on a navigation menu and it works great in everything BUT IE. http://www.purplecart.com/main.php - any help would be appreciated! I know it is likely staring me in the face but I am blind to it. Thanks Brian * 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] Scrollbars in IE6 (PC)
Just from the top of my head (@ home with my Mac now); can't you just:
body {
margin: 0px;
overflow:hidden;
}
?
Martin
On 24/3-2004, at 9.06, Vaska.WSG wrote:
Hi everybody...
I'm having a terrible time trying to figure out just why IE6 (Windows
XP) is throwing scrollbars at me when I view a page in a frame - I'm
really not sure what the trick is to this (if there is one). I hate
to ask dumb or redundant questions, but this one is really nagging.
Thanks for any advice on this...v
Once again, this is being view in a frame...here is the gist of the
CSS:
body {
margin: 0px;
}
.container {
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
}
*
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] Browser Stats - What a shock!
Hi Kym I made the mistake thinking the numbers came from just Darian's site or was i Brian's. But I see now, that you got the numbers from a much larger sample pool. I stand corrected, My point was that sample size and where it came from makes all the difference in the world of statistics. Leo On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 11:33 PM, Kym Kovan wrote: Hi Leo, You said: I can tell you what accounts for the low market share stats. It's confounding variables. If you look for apples in a peach tree you'd get low market share. Now survey major corporations and NN's market share will rise up the bell curve. No offense to Darian, but his website isn't representative of browser market share. I just did a test on 3 sites here, one very local, one national and one global. (very rounded numbers) local nat global/USA biased IE6 83% 67% 73% IE5+10% 15% 10% Moz 7% 11% 9% NS 0% 7% 8% Very different sites and differing numbers, but the IE6 numbers are a tad overwhelming :-/ The sites are just hosted by us, we did not have anything to do with their design but are involved in code maintenance. They are:- local, typical user - anyone local, good mixture of types: http://www.communityguide.com.au/ National, typical user - a car buff: http://www.bianteauctions.com/ Global, typical user - middle class family man in the USA: http://www.finametrica.com/ All these sites are _very_ busy so they give good averages. -- Yours, Kym * 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] Browser Stats - What a shock!
Darian Sorry guys... I blew that one. mea cupa Leo On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 11:34 PM, Darian Cabot wrote: Those weren't my website stats (_) My aim is to support all major browsers be it ie, nn, moz, or anything. I just stated that if moz is more popular than nn then I'm better off prioritizing that first :) Regards, Darian Cabot -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Software Engineer - Website Design http://www.cabotconsultants.com.au -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Brian I can tell you what accounts for the low market share stats. It's confounding variables. If you look for apples in a peach tree you'd get low market share. Now survey major corporations and NN's market share will rise up the bell curve. No offense to Darian, but his website isn't representative of browser market share. Leo On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 07:32 PM, theGrafixGuy wrote: I just downloaded the latest NS 7.01 and it is nothing more than Mozilla with NS's skin on it, even my installed Mozilla plug-ins are present in NS. But that doesn't explain the complete loss of market share! Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Stats - What a shock! Wow what the hell happened to NS??!! Going by those figures I should be focassing my attention to Mozilla compatability. Thanks for the stats. Darian I actually decided to look in detail at my logs over the past month after people brought up the Browser compatibility issues: This is what I have for my site www.thegrafixguy.com and I get an average of 1 unique visitors a month. MSIE all versions 74.9% Netscape 1.8% (Man they Seriously lost the Browser War) Mozilla 11.7% Safari 4.4% Opera 0.4% FireBird 0.2% Konqueror 0.1% Multizilla (1 visit) Lynx (1 Visit) Two things here surprised me here - the death of Netscape in regards to popularity - last year, atleast Netscape was in the double digits, and also a few hits with MSIE 7.01 which I have not been able to find myself Though I must say for the heck of it, I downloaded Lynx and Installed it and took a look at my own site - It was suprising to see what was not there despite the lack of images and on the same hand surprising as to what is there. I can see that I have some work to do in that regard! Anyway, cheers, hope someone find the figures above interesting as I did. Brian * 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 * * 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 *
