Re: [WSG] IE MAC just won't play ball!

[Rob Mientjes]

On 9/28/05, Reeka Jean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But doesn't that depend on what you're using the bold tag for? There are
> times, for instance - when you might want something to appear bold
> visually, but it wouldn't need to be spoken louder/emphasized for a
> screen reader, which - if I'm not mistaken, reads  differently
> than it would normal text.
> 
> Same thing for  and  If you're just making it itallic
> for no other reason than visual, and you don't want it to be emphasized
> in a screen reader - there's no reason to use .

The problem lies in the fact that HTML should not deal with how it
looks. HTML can only convey meaning and structure (and content,
obviously), not looks or visuals.

Anyway. Depends on the situation how much you can play around with it.

It _always_ depends ;)

-Rob.
N���.�Ȩ�X���+��i��n�Z�֫v�+��h��y�m�쵩�j�l��.f���.�ץ�w�q(��b��(��,�)උazX����)��

Re: [WSG] IE MAC just won't play ball!

[Reeka Jean]

I've read in several places that yes, screen readers ignore < b > and < 
i >. However, as I don't have a screen reader, nor do I know any 
facilities with one that I could use for testing purposes - I really 
have absolutely no idea. lol.


Christian Montoya wrote:


Oh, it *is* valid. I was mistaken... I'll have to remember that.

How do screen readers handle < b > and < i > ? Do they really ignore 
those tags? Just wondering because I know screen readers tend not to 
follow the rules.



**
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] IE MAC just won't play ball!

[Christian Montoya]

Oh, it *is* valid. I was mistaken... I'll have to remember that. How do screen readers handle < b > and < i > ? Do they really ignore those tags? Just wondering because I know screen readers tend not to follow the rules. 

Re: [WSG] IE MAC just won't play ball!

[Reeka Jean]

But doesn't that depend on what you're using the bold tag for? There are 
times, for instance - when you might want something to appear bold 
visually, but it wouldn't need to be spoken louder/emphasized for a 
screen reader, which - if I'm not mistaken, reads  differently 
than it would normal text.


Again, I'm a girl, and as such, I like to make things look somewhat 
pretty... Like, If I'm typing up something about me, I would put 
Name: Erica Jean... instead of Name: Erica Jean 
because there's no reason for the "Name" to be emphasised in any way. 
The bold tag is there only to make it LOOK a bit different. And if I'm 
writing up a profile, or filling out a silly LJ questionarre thing I'm 
not going to write out Name: for every line. 
lol. That's just a waste of time and character space. ^^


Same thing for  and  If you're just making it itallic 
for no other reason than visual, and you don't want it to be emphasized 
in a screen reader - there's no reason to use .


Just my point of view on the whole matter :)

Brian Cummiskey wrote:


Christian Montoya wrote:

I don't think  is valid. Just do another span, with { 
font-weight:bold; }



 tags are still valid in xhtml1.0 strict, but they don't posess any 
semantic value, which is why moving to  is the preferred mark-up.

**
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] Hiding Headings

[Webmaster]

 
Oh, great. So my skip links shouldn't be inside such a div then? :*

So I have now changed the top of my page code to read:



  This site will look much better in a browser that supports http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/"; 
  title="Download a browser that complies with Web standards.">web
standards, but it is accessible to any 
  browser or Internet device.

  

.
  Skip navigation


Is this the most commonly used and accessible approach?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Lance Willett

The reason display:none is unadvisable is due to screen readers ignoring the
content (which since it's an h1 element we are assuming it's important).

The full reasons are fleshed out here:
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ScreenreaderVisibility

**
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 Headings

[Duncan Heal]

Actually... if I think about it... I am not a big fan of messing  
with search
engine rankings either. Dumping headings all over the place just to  
get a

better ranking is banned from search engines for a good reason.


That and having more headers - I would imagine - essentially dilute  
how effective those keywords are. Much how keywords META tags work -  
the more keywords you have, the less they mean. I would also expect  
the structure of information on your page might need work.


**
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] IE MAC just won't play ball!

[Brian Cummiskey]

Christian Montoya wrote:
I don't think  is valid. Just do another span, with { 
font-weight:bold; }


 tags are still valid in xhtml1.0 strict, but they don't posess any 
semantic value, which is why moving to  is the preferred mark-up.

**
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 Headings

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: Duncan Heal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 1:02 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding Headings
> 
> > Search Engines don't care which part of your layout the H1 is in.
> 
> They will care how close to the top of the source code it is though.

What about writing the code so that the content area is close to the top of
the source? 

Personally I am not a big fan of messing around with position of content to
hide it from visibility. 

Actually... if I think about it... I am not a big fan of messing with search
engine rankings either. Dumping headings all over the place just to get a
better ranking is banned from search engines for a good reason. 


**
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 Headings

[Lance Willett]

On 9/27/05, Webmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Don't both these solutions still have the same issue with Firefox's ability
> to drag content areas?
>
> Has display:none become un-PC of late?
>
>  
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Christian Montoya
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:53 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Hiding Headings
>
>
> Psh, left? Do top:
>
> h1 {
> position: absolute;
> top: -1px;
> }
>
> No need to risk the embarrasment of having the h1 element seen on a 12,000
> pixel resolution screen.
>
>
> On 9/27/05, Lance Willett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/27/05, Nick Gleitzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >   Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Put the H1 in there, but set it's display to "none" on the style
> > > > sheet.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Set the header overflow to hidden, then set the top padding on the
> > > > H1 to be a pixel more than the header's height - thereby hiding the
> > > > heading text.
> > > >
> > > > One problem I discovered with the second method - you can drag the
> > > > content in Firefox, revealing the heading...
> > > >
> > > > Which approach is better?  Do search engine spiders know the heading
> > > > is hidden in scenario one and skip that text?  Is there a known
> > > > workaround for the issue caused by scenario two?
> > >
> > > Instead of {display: none}, use {margin-left: 999px}. Visitors won't
> > > see the H1 text, but Search Engines will; and nothing to see if content
> > > dragged...
> > >
> > > N
> > > ___
> > > Omnivision. Websight.
> > > http://www.omnivision.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
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Joseph,
> > I agree with Nick, except I would do px.  I made the mistake of
> > doing 999px one time, and on a large monitor the h1 snuck in from the
> > side and it was embarassing!
> >
> > So your CSS would look like this:
> >
> > h1 {
> > position: absolute;
> > left: -px;
> > }
> >
> > Search engines will still see it that way and there is no chance that
> > it will show on your layout.
> >
> > --
> > Lance Willett
> > simpledream web studio
> > Phone: 520.954.5607
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Web: http://www.simpledream.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 reason display:none is unadvisable is due to screen readers
ignoring the content (which since it's an h1 element we are assuming
it's important).

The full reasons are fleshed out here:
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ScreenreaderVisibility.

--
Lance Willett
simpledream web studio
Phone: 520.954.5607
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.simpledream.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] IE MAC just won't play ball!

[Christian Montoya]

I don't think  is valid. Just do another span, with { font-weight:bold; }And yes, the DL is much better. 
On 9/27/05, Drake, Ted C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:















Hi Adam

 

I just sent a message about your linking
colors and then looked at your source code. Here's another suggestion I
would make for you.

 

The Energetics of Charismastrong><
br> Delegates are introduced to <
span class="orange">Charismaspan>labspan>'s system of transformation through unique principles, methods and techniques for the management of personal energy (Charisma).li>

 

 

Becomes 

 



 The Energetics of
Charisma 

 Delegates are
introduced to Charismaspan>labstrong>'s system of transformation through unique
principles, methods and techniques for the management of personal energy
(Charisma).



 

CSS

Dt {background: (your orange square)
no-repeat 0 0; padding-left:10px; font-weight:bold;}

Dd{padding-left:10px; margin:5px 0;}

Dl span {color:orange;}

 

 

It could be further argued that your using
strong may be wrong for the icon since you don't really want to scream
lab at people. Since it is purely decorative, you could wrap it in a
 set.

 

Part of the journey through
standards-based development is realizing where things could be written cleaner
and more semantic markup used.

 

I still think the orange charisma looks
too much like a link.

 

Good luck

 

Ted

 














On 9/24/05, Adam
Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote: 

HELP! I've just done a
site for http://www.charismalab.com.
Everything is great for Windows PC, Firefox, Safari BUT the client is looking
at the site on her Mac OS 9 IE 5 and it's not right. I've use the import to use
a separate style sheet which helped massively but there are some things that I
just can't seem to make work! I've downloaded the classic mac IE and can't see
what she sees .eg. apparently, the nav line on the bottom of each page breaks
off and starts a new line (!) and I've given up on trying to make the wrapper
stretch 100% so I'm going to simply give each page a separate wrapper and give
it a fixed length, but things still aren't right... can ANYone see where I'm
going wrong??? 
the mac ie css is http://www.charismalab.com/ie51.css

Thanks... 
Adam




 












-- 
ADAM x 






-- 
ADAM x