Re: [WSG] Making accessible a one-text field form with an image submit button?
On 20 mar 2005, at 03.29, Sigurd Magnusson wrote: Cheers - had wondered about using display:none, but always feel a little annoyed there aren't better ways; it surprises me that an alt tag on the input type=text / is insufficient. That's because the alt attribute is only relevant for input elements with type=image. /Roger -- http://www.456bereastreet.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] Change to application/xhtml+xml breaks background colour.
On 20 mar 2005, at 02.10, Michael Dale wrote: See the blue behind the header? That should be the background colour for the whole site. Now this only happens when I output application/xhtml+xml. Go have a look in IE (which gets text/html), its fine. Since you've started using application/xhtml+xml, you may be interested in something I wrote a while ago: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200501/ the_perils_of_using_xhtml_properly/ /Roger ** 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] Website Review (prose.code215)
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:39:15 +1100, Johnno Shadbolt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, ... And I must say, I like the results (www.prose.code215.com). ... What do you think? Safari 1.2 seems happy(static), but IE5.2 does not http://www.dlaakso.com/2524410.jpg. In XP_SP2 IE6.0/FF1.0.1/Opera7.54u2 I get a little page shift on pages not deep enough to draw a scroll bar. The font-size toggle seems to work: however I had no luck with the background toggle. IE and FF render blue, underlined, links-- Opera renders neither. A little difficult bringing it up in FF-- got a 403/404 error first couple of times (inline styles?). Would some lead make the prose easier to read? Best, ~david -- de gustibus non est disputandum http://www.dlaakso.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] Dilemma: Useful, additional attributes in elements, invalidating HTML
You could also offer a choice of implementations:
1)
input type=text name=EmailAddress required=true validation=email/
This would be the super-easy implementation which works but won't validate.
2)
input type=text id=EmailAddress name=EmailAddress/
script type=text/javascript
document.getElementById('EmailAddress').setAttribute(required,true);
document.getElementById('EmailAddress').setAttribute(validation,email);
/script
This would be the slightly more difficult implementation that would
validate. I would guess that those people worried about validation
would be willing to add this extra bit of code. The major drawback is
that you have to be certain that this code executes before your script
(something you don't have to worry about with method 1).
Hope that helps!
Steve Bryant.
Bryant Web Consulting LLC
http://www.BryantWebConsulting.com/
http://steve.coldfusionjournal.com/
For example, we built some javascript which could be used by including a
single external javascript file, and when the page loaded, it would
efficiently look through the the DOM (document object model) for fields like
this:
input type=text name=EmailAddress required=true validation=email
/
It would then automatically add javascript events to ensure when the form
was clicked, that this text field contained a value, and that this value
followed the [EMAIL PROTECTED] format.
Of course, we strike a major problem when we attempt to validate such HTML;
these attributes are not known, and show as failures. Doh!
**
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] Dilemma: Useful, additional attributes in elements, invalidating HTML
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:55:26 -0600, Steve Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
script type=text/javascript
document.getElementById('EmailAddress').setAttribute(required,true);
document.getElementById('EmailAddress').setAttribute(validation,email);
/script
This would be the slightly more difficult implementation that would
validate. I would guess that those people worried about validation
would be willing to add this extra bit of code.
It would depend on whether they truly believed in web standards, or
just wanted to trick a validator for a badge. They're invalid
attributes regardless of how they end up in the DOM.
Best regards,
Gez
_
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.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] Dilemma: Useful, additional attributes in elements, invalidating HTML
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 03:04:23 -, Sigurd Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your problem is described in detail in: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customdtd/ Before creating your own tags/attributes, check http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/ -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] Bullets not showing up in Firefox/Opera
Aha! That would be it. I thought that the ID would carry over, but I
guess not.
Thanks a bunch Juergen!
--Zachary
Juergen Auer wrote:
I see the foollowing two lines:
#navbox ul, li{display:block;margin:0;padding:0 0 0 0;}
and
#buttons ul, li{display:block;margin:0;padding:0 0 0 0;}
Both do not declare (#navbox ul) And (#navbox li),
instead (#navbox ul) And (li)
If I kill both 'li' or change them to the undefined 'lis', the error
is away.
Use instead:
#navbox ul, #navbox li{display:block;margin:0;padding:0 0 0 0;}
and
#buttons ul {display:block;margin:0;padding:0 0 0 0;}
#buttons li {display:block; margin-left:1em;padding:0;}
On my own domain, the margin:0;padding:0 also didn't work.
Best Regards
Juergen Auer
**
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 best way to predict the future is to invent it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hopkinsprogramming.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
**
[WSG] Website Review
Can you please review http://www.uniformserver.com and tell me what you think? I would love to hear from you all... Thanks -- Best Regards, Olajide Olaolorun @ www.olajideolaolorun.com ...ain't nothing impossible unless you make it... ** 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] Website Review
Olajide Olaolorun wrote: Can you please review http://www.uniformserver.com and tell me what you think? I would love to hear from you all... Thanks On my Mac OS 9.2.2, in NN7, everything looks good except the sponsored links, which are not liquid - if the browser window is narrowed, they spill out the right side, while everything else adjusts. On IE5.2, I'm afraid everything below the sponsored links scoots south, as though the sponsored links had a huge margin-bottom. The Ads by Google is cut off vertically. Hope this is of some help. I'll check it in OS 10.3 when I reboot. Wendy ** 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] Dilemma: Useful, additional attributes in elements, invalidating HTML
Thanks for all your feedback;
Steve Bryant: Cheers. The second approach is pretty code-heavy, so I would
probably make the verbose style
onblur=checkvalidation('required=true,validation=numeric') and possibly run
the onblur event on all forms at the submission, or something like that.
Gez; So you're under the opinion, if you're setting attributes, only for
later retrieval (i.e. that the user agent is specifically being asked to
ignore the attributes), that this is poor design?
(I'd not come across this idea before). Additionally, would you be of the
opinion, even if we used a custom DTD, that we were not operating in the
spirits of webstandards? (i.e. we were tricking the validator for
approval?). This angle interests me.
Kornel: The alistapart article, we have seen--it however causes a raft of
problems in the interim. One is that I do want to be able to produce xhtml
1.1 sites because some people need this (and one thing that I was asking,
was if the fact it longer was the XHTML 1.1 doctype, would I run into
people's apprehension-- see Bert Doorn's comment, for example)
. I use validation both as a means for marketing the quality of a website,
and expect to have it so I can quickly check websites for mistakes (the
htmlhelp one that can spider whole websites is great - i.e.
www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http://webstandardsgroup.org/index.cfmwarnings=yesspider=yes).
I didn't get any feedback on extending XML via more namespaces? I have seen
this on other sides, and my understanding was that this is an alternative
way of adding attributes to elements?
html xmlns:niftyform=http://somewhere/niftyform
...
form ...
...
input niftyform:required=1 /
...
/form
...
/html
It seems one Vignette website I know (http://tvnz.co.nz/) uses this.
(Beware, that site is horrid in FireFox for some reason. I'm sure the
missing doctype and the hundreds of errors probably don't help?)
If I validate that document as XHTML 1.1, it tells me that there are
additional namespaces, however it seems the manner in which they are
included is not permitted, as you see from the top few errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftvnz.co.nz%2Fview%2Ftvnz_index_skin%2Ftvnz_index_groupcharset=%28detect+automatically%29doctype=XHTML+1.1verbose=1
Or am I supposed to do something like this? Has anyone played with this sort
of thing, or should I devote an afternoon to playing around and letting you
all know how I get on?
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
...
form xmlns=http://some.custom/one/thatsomehow/adds/niftyform/namespace
...
input niftyform:required=required /
...
/form
...
/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] Website Review
Hi, Just a comment on layout; When I went to the website, I immediately took an interest in the package and wanted to go to a download page, but I actually had difficulty locating it, which then raised my suspicions that it was still under development, especially when I went to 'Status' menu item, which has Uniform Server Development Status as the main heading in the content area. I would suggest bumping in a new heading like Current version x.x available for download, with a sentance or two, including its release date (always promote your release date!) and the link over to sourceforge. Put this both on the homepage, and in the status page. Using some more graphics like Download version x.x now would also aid this. Perhaps it was due to the fact there are three menus, and on the homepage they're all shouting I am the most important menu. Anyway, now that I did find the download link, I am keen on trialing it :P Siggy - Original Message - From: Olajide Olaolorun [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WSG wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 7:07 AM Subject: [WSG] Website Review Can you please review http://www.uniformserver.com and tell me what you think? I would love to hear from you all... Thanks -- Best Regards, Olajide Olaolorun @ www.olajideolaolorun.com ...ain't nothing impossible unless you make it... ** 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] side by side scrolling layers
Hi All I'm doing a bit of research and looking for information on the issues surrounding an interface based on three independently scrolling, side by side, panes (divs, with overflow: auto probably). Its part of a directory type search interface, where you choose (click a link) a category from the left pane, which displays relevant content in the centre pane which, when clicked, displays the required info in the right hand pane. The main issue is that the graphic designer also working on the project wants to have each of these panes a fixed height and for them to scroll vertically. My feeling is that this simply hides information (the second and third pane are likely to include quite a bit of content) and it would be better off using the inbuilt page scrolling to display more information. What I'd really appreciate is anything! Thoughts, references (especially references :-), experiences and examples. Also examples of implementing this sort of layout in CSS would be great. My first thought was leaning towards the overflow property, but iframes spring to mind as well. If you need any more info please let me know. And any help much appreciated. Gareth ** 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] review
Hi all, can you please review http://www.gizax.it ? Thanks in advance Daniel
Re: [WSG] Dilemma: Useful, additional attributes in elements, invalidating HTML
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:17:50 +1200, Sigurd Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gez; So you're under the opinion, if you're setting attributes, only for later retrieval (i.e. that the user agent is specifically being asked to ignore the attributes), that this is poor design? I don't necessarily think it's poor design; I think it's invalid if you intend to adhere to a particular DOCTYPE. Why are you concerned about the document not validating? Validation doesn't mean much, other than the elements you've used adhere to the rules of a DTD. It doesn't imply the document is structurally correct, so validation means very little. Why worry that the extra attributes would fail using a tool that can only provide a superficial overview of the structural design? If validators worked on the final rendering of the DOM, then we're back to square one; a document that doesn't validate. What's the difference? One technique hides it, the other doesn't. Ultimately, it's the same result. The only difference is that adding them with scripting means that those with scripting disabled or unavailable get the correct version (as do validators). If standards and validation are important, then there's a perfectly valid way of achieving the same result without breaking the rules of the DTD. If they're not important, why change what you're already doing? Additionally, would you be of the opinion, even if we used a custom DTD, that we were not operating in the spirits of webstandards? No, as there would be a method for anyone creating tools to discover what elements and attributes you intend to use. Best regards, Gez _ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.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] Website Review
Thanks Wendy and Sigurd. Wendy - Yes, it is true. The Google Ads spoild everything but i have no choice in it because my host requires it. I hate ads! I think they bring down the quality of websites but what can i do when i get full free hosing and the whole 9 yards for just the Google Ads on the website :D Sigurd - True, I also noticed that and will fix it. I will add an image, a Download image on the main page for people to easily see it :) -- Best Regards, Olajide Olaolorun @ www.olajideolaolorun.com ...ain't nothing impossible unless you make it... ** 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] review
Nice website. First thing, the hover under the links. It is bad under the images. I am using Firefox on Win XP. It does not work well and i don't know if that is how you want it... You might want to set it for the images also on your CSS file. Everything else seems alright. But are you sure that you want the dash border for the main broder and also use it for everything else like the navigation, images and so on..? On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:01:23 +0100, Gizax Studios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, can you please review http://www.gizax.it ? Thanks in advance Daniel -- Best Regards, Olajide Olaolorun @ www.olajideolaolorun.com ...ain't nothing impossible unless you make it... ** 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] Draggable Items
Hi Does anyone know the best way to create draggable container elements? I know its possible with the IE-DOM, what with being designed from the get-go for rich internet apps, such as Outlook Web Access and My MSN, where, I must admit, is employed quite effectively. But is there any way to do this with the W3C-DOM in such a way that works in all the main engines (Gecko, Trident, Presto, KHTML/WebCore) Regards -- -David R
Re: [WSG] Draggable Items
Javascritps can do that.. :) I know i had a tutorial on that before but i forgot where i got it from :) probably Ades Design i think ;d On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:20:55 -, David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Does anyone know the best way to create draggable container elements? I know its possible with the IE-DOM, what with being designed from the get-go for rich internet apps, such as Outlook Web Access and My MSN, where, I must admit, is employed quite effectively. But is there any way to do this with the W3C-DOM in such a way that works in all the main engines (Gecko, Trident, Presto, KHTML/WebCore) Regards -- -David R -- Best Regards, Olajide Olaolorun @ www.olajideolaolorun.com ...ain't nothing impossible unless you make it... ** 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] Horizontal scrollbar issue
Hi All, The page at the following url is giving me a horizontal scrollbar, I've no clue why, would someone assist? (http://working.ckimedia.com/spring_2005/index.php) CK __ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** 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] Draggable Items
I've also seen this done nicely at http://panic.com I'm no javascript expert, so I couldn't explain what they did. Just check their source.. They've got an example on the main page, but it all really shines in the apparel department: https://www.panic.com/goods/ HTH -- Andrew Sutherland http://jalenack.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] Draggable Items
Wow, the Panic one looks good. But when I changed the UA string to IE, it didn't execute at all in Firefox. So I'm guessing it didn't employ the W3C-DOM then :/ I guess I could compromise, but I'll have to look into it further. Anyhoo *bookmarks* Danke :) -- -David R -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jalenack Sent: 20 March 2005 23:23 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Draggable Items I've also seen this done nicely at http://panic.com I'm no javascript expert, so I couldn't explain what they did. Just check their source.. They've got an example on the main page, but it all really shines in the apparel department: https://www.panic.com/goods/ HTH ** 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] Horizontal scrollbar issue
Hi,
My issue was with safari 1.0.3 on MAC OS 10.2.8. even full on it has a
horizontal scroll. Pardon the vagary.
On Sunday, March 20, 2005, at 04:50 PM, Bert Doorn wrote:
G'day
The page at the following url is giving me a horizontal scrollbar,
I've no clue why, would someone assist?
(http://working.ckimedia.com/spring_2005/index.php)
At what resolution in which browser on which platform?
I had a look at it with Firefox 1.01 on Windows 2000 Pro. It has a
horizontal scrollbar at 800x600 but not at 1024x768 and higher. The
reason for horizontal scrollbars at 800x600:
div#wrapper{
margin: 0 0 0 2em;
padding: 1em 0 0 .5em;
width: 800px;
}
Total width: 2em + .5em + 800px. That's is more than any browser can
fit at 800x600. Bear in mind that the 2.5em is ADDED to the 800px so
if 1em is 16px (it will vary), you have a total width of 840 pixels
PLUS browser chrome (vertical scrollbar, window borders, sidebars).
Try 700px instead of 800px. You could also use max-width:95% (or
less) and specify your left margin and padding as 4% and 1%, but MSIE
PC does not recognise max-width.
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
**
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 true measure of ignorance
is thinking intelligence is the
solution to everything.
-ck
Chris Kennon
Principal
ckimedia (www.ckimedia.com)
e-mail: ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
blog: (http://thebardwire.blogspot.com/)
ph: (619)429-3258
fax: (619)429-3258
**
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 site, clients wants to make updates themselves
I design sites to be standards compliant (usually XHTML1.0 Strict). This is ~supposed~ to make maintenance easier, and it is for me since I know what I'm doing (or at least, I think I do) However, I get many prospects who want to update sites themselves. In many cases, these are very small businesses with just one or two people, none of which have any idea about (x)HTML. Most of them have very small budgets, so they can't afford a complete CMS type setup (and it's not the kind of thing I can supply) and they tend to only want a small site (a few pages) for next to nothing. Is it just me, or is this a common dilemma? Apart from abandoning standards compliance (not an option as far as I'm concerned), setting the site up in HTML4.01 Transitional and letting amateurs wreak havoc with Micro$oft FONTPlague, what options are there to design standards compliant sites, letting clients maintain them and still stay within web standards? Yes, I know there's things like XStandard, and the confusingly named FCKEditor. However, these (as far as I know) require server side scripting and the client would have to have write-access to the files on the server (or a database driven site), all of which increases the cost. What other options are there, apart from complex, expensive CMS setups (or forgetting about standards)? Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
Bert Doorn wrote: Is it just me, or is this a common dilemma? Apart from abandoning standards compliance (not an option as far as I'm concerned), setting the site up in HTML4.01 Transitional and letting amateurs wreak havoc with Micro$oft FONTPlague, what options are there to design standards compliant sites, letting clients maintain them and still stay within web standards? Idealistic, but I'd suggest client education. Offer to take them through the absolute basics, emphasising the advantages of *not* doing things like setting fonts etc. Create a simple cheat sheet for them, outlining the process of updating pages (in their specific application), dos and don'ts, etc. As a good customer relations exercise, follow up after a month or so to see how they're doing, if they need any tuition or help, etc. Maybe you'll even get some repeat business, or a small trickle of we made an update, but something went wrong...can you have a look? Again...idealistic. But I've managed to get this through on a variety of projects, and seems to work quite nicely in most cases. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.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] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:22:29 +0800, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What other options are there, apart from complex, expensive CMS setups (or forgetting about standards)? Why not use a simple, free CMS like Wordpress or Textpattern? Both are free (as in speech and as in beer), fairly simple to configure and work with, and built to support standards. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
Bert Doorn wrote: However, I get many prospects who want to update sites themselves. In many cases, these are very small businesses with just one or two people, none of which have any idea about (x)HTML. Most of them have very small budgets, so they can't afford a complete CMS type setup (and it's not the kind of thing I can supply) and they tend to only want a small site (a few pages) for next to nothing. Is it just me, or is this a common dilemma? Apart from abandoning standards compliance (not an option as far as I'm concerned), setting the site up in HTML4.01 Transitional and letting amateurs wreak havoc with Micro$oft FONTPlague, what options are there to design standards compliant sites, letting clients maintain them and still stay within web standards? What is the issue with HTML 4.01 Transitional? A site that validates to that is standards-compliant. Regarding updating, from what I've heard Macromedia Contribute is good for these sorts of jobs. It allows clients access to specified content areas of the site and produces pretty good markup. Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
What other options are there, apart from complex, expensive CMS setups (or forgetting about standards)? I've had a lot of success with Macromedia Contribute. You can pick up a copy for around AUD $220 from Harvey Norman or Harris Technology, it totally respects server-side code and standards, and if you use Dreamweaver templates you can specify which parts of the page the client is allowed to edit. It's very squarely targeted at *maintenance* rather than you can use this to build your own web site. Highly recommended! -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
G'day What is the issue with HTML 4.01 Transitional? A site that validates to that is standards-compliant. To the letter, yes. However, why give the client the power to insert deprecated (even in HTML4.0, April 1998) elements and attributes (font, center, bgcolor, background, to mention a few), creating bloated spaghetti code? Besides, if the client uses M$ FontPlague, it's very easy to add invalid markup, even with a Transitional DTD. Give the customer the power to turn the site into valid spaghetti code? I don't think that's in the spirit of web standards. Regarding updating, from what I've heard Macromedia Contribute is good for these sorts of jobs. It allows clients access to specified content areas of the site and produces pretty good markup. I guess Contribute is an option - just hope I don't need to then use Dreamweaver to develop the sites (I've got it, but don't use it much - prefer hand-coding). And if they can't figure out how to use it, they can come back and pay for updates... Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
Bert Doorn wrote: However, I get many prospects who want to update sites themselves. In many cases, these are very small businesses with just one or two people, none of which have any idea about (x)HTML. Most of them have very small budgets, so they can't afford a complete CMS type setup (and it's not the kind of thing I can supply) and they tend to only want a small site (a few pages) for next to nothing. What other options are there, apart from complex, expensive CMS setups (or forgetting about standards)? Regards I've found using Textpattern to be fairly successful in keeping client updated sites valid. -- Ben Hamilton http://wallishamilton.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] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
Macromedia Contribute using dreamweaver templates? Scott Thornton, Programmer Application Development Information Services and Telecommunications Hunter-New England Area Health Service Phone RNH +61 2 49236078 Fax +61 2 49236076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 21/03/2005 2:22:29 pm I design sites to be standards compliant (usually XHTML1.0 Strict). This is ~supposed~ to make maintenance easier, and it is for me since I know what I'm doing (or at least, I think I do) However, I get many prospects who want to update sites themselves. In many cases, these are very small businesses with just one or two people, none of which have any idea about (x)HTML. Most of them have very small budgets, so they can't afford a complete CMS type setup (and it's not the kind of thing I can supply) and they tend to only want a small site (a few pages) for next to nothing. Is it just me, or is this a common dilemma? Apart from abandoning standards compliance (not an option as far as I'm concerned), setting the site up in HTML4.01 Transitional and letting amateurs wreak havoc with Micro$oft FONTPlague, what options are there to design standards compliant sites, letting clients maintain them and still stay within web standards? Yes, I know there's things like XStandard, and the confusingly named FCKEditor. However, these (as far as I know) require server side scripting and the client would have to have write-access to the files on the server (or a database driven site), all of which increases the cost. What other options are there, apart from complex, expensive CMS setups (or forgetting about standards)? Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** 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] Standards compliant site, clients wants to make updates themselves
Kay Smoljak wrote: What other options are there, apart from complex, expensive CMS setups (or forgetting about standards)? I've had a lot of success with Macromedia Contribute. You can pick up a copy for around AUD $220 from Harvey Norman or Harris Technology, it totally respects server-side code and standards, and if you use Dreamweaver templates you can specify which parts of the page the client is allowed to edit. It's very squarely targeted at *maintenance* rather than "you can use this to build your own web site". Highly recommended! A good way to limit what clients can edit within Contribute is to employ server side includes for the parts that you want to lock down. http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_16675 ** 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] Website Review
Can I get some opinions on the practice of hiding link targets? When I hover near the sponsored links in http://www.uniformserver.com/ the target of the link doesn't appear in the status bar. I'm not really complaining about this particular site, but I tried something similar a while ago, with a bit of Javascript, and then realised it might be construed as concealing something from the surfer. I found it irritating that a link could take me to somewhere I don't want to go. Is it a good practice? -- John. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
