Re: [WSG] Compatibility and IE8

[Terrence Wood]

crikey, that's some list. thanks Russ.

On 24/01/2008, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Have you been following the discussions on the IE8 and compatibility for the
> last couple of days? For those that haven't been following it (or have
> deliberately run away to hide), here are a few articles to read  :)

-- 
kind regards,
Terrence Wood


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

[Jixor - Stephen I]

Nick Fitzsimons wrote:

On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:29, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
[quote]
Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. If
you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and then
use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that solution,
if they don't have Javascript, normal check boxes appear (which are easy
for screen readers and the like), and if you do have Javascript, you get
your cute image check boxes. And, I'd say use normal images for those as
well and use alt text like "checked, unchecked, disabled", however, that
wouldn't work well with a screen reader.
[/quote]

Even the JS approach would potentially be an issue for screen reader
users. When a screen reader is used for filling in a form, it switches
from its usual reading mode into "forms mode", which allows the user to
interact with the form. If, however, your JavaScript has removed the form
elements, there is then nothing to interact with - it can't tell that the
images are supposed to be like the clicky widgets it understands.

So you would definitely need to look into using some kind of offscreen
positioning technique, rather than just replacing the checkboxes with
images, so that users of such assistive technologies would be able to use
the page.

HTH,

Nick.
  
It would be quite simple to simply place the images visually over the 
checkboxes. Not sure how you would deal with tabbing however I'm sure 
that you could make something decent. Maybe ad an on focus event to the 
checkbox that would change the image to indicate focus.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Typo3 and Meta Tags

[IceKat]

Ben

I realise that was off topic so thank you for helping me out. That is a HUGE 
help! I was starting to lose my mind with all the stuff out there which I 
couldn't read so thank you for that link. It is seriously appreciated. I 
didn't realise there was mailing list to use so I promise next time I'll 
find and use that. :)


IceKat

- Original Message - 
From: "ben van 't ende [netcreators]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Typo3 and Meta Tags



IceKat wrote:

Hey,

I've never written to this group before but I've seen the emails for a
while and am hoping someone can help me out. I've got some work which
involves the webware Typo3 (a REALLY messy CMS). I've been asked to add
meta keywords and description to a site managed by this but can't find
any tutorials which aren't in english. They are all in german. I suspect
that there is a download of a plugin or extension but I can't understand
anything which comes up so I'm hoping someone knows this webware or can
read german and can help. The main website for Typo3 is: 
http://typo3.com/.


Thanks in advance for any replies.


Hi Icekat,

This is REALLY off topic for this list. Next time please use the TYPO3
mailinglists for any questions regarding this CMS.

., but you would have to use the extension extended metatags.

http://typo3.org/extensions/repository/view/metatags/1.0.4/

It adds options in the constant editor.

gRTz

ben
--
netcreators :: creation and innovation
www.netcreators.com -  www.TYPO3.nl

Interesse in werken bij Netcreators?
http://www.netcreators.com/bedrijf/vacatures/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:29, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
[quote]
Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. If
you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and then
use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that solution,
if they don't have Javascript, normal check boxes appear (which are easy
for screen readers and the like), and if you do have Javascript, you get
your cute image check boxes. And, I'd say use normal images for those as
well and use alt text like "checked, unchecked, disabled", however, that
wouldn't work well with a screen reader.
[/quote]

Even the JS approach would potentially be an issue for screen reader
users. When a screen reader is used for filling in a form, it switches
from its usual reading mode into "forms mode", which allows the user to
interact with the form. If, however, your JavaScript has removed the form
elements, there is then nothing to interact with - it can't tell that the
images are supposed to be like the clicky widgets it understands.

So you would definitely need to look into using some kind of offscreen
positioning technique, rather than just replacing the checkboxes with
images, so that users of such assistive technologies would be able to use
the page.

HTH,

Nick.
-- 
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

[Christian Snodgrass]

Basically, here is the simplest way to answer this question. "Is there 
meaningful and important alt text you can give the image, or is their 
something they'd miss out on without the image or alt text?". If the 
answer is yes, use images. If not, then use background images. 
Basically, background images are supposed to be purely -decoration-. If 
they are in any way, shape, or form content, use images.


Although, in your specific case, I would go with what Dave Woods said. 
If you really want those image check boxes, use normal check boxes, and 
then use Javascript to swap those out for your image ones. With that 
solution, if they don't have Javascript, normal check boxes appear 
(which are easy for screen readers and the like), and if you do have 
Javascript, you get your cute image check boxes. And, I'd say use normal 
images for those as well and use alt text like "checked, unchecked, 
disabled", however, that wouldn't work well with a screen reader.


Likely, James A. wrote:


Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a 
problem that I have.


I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a 
checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work 
best. Using background images or adding images to the code.


The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the 
images have. This would help with screen readers and people with 
disabilities.


2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text 
and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the 
site. Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images?


You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html_
Using background images: _http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html_

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love 
the background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any 
testing to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have 
suggestions on how to make it more accessible?


Thanks for the help.

James


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



--

Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design
http://www.arwebdesign.net/ 
Phone: 859.816.7955



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Compatibility and IE8

[russ - maxdesign]

Hi all,

Have you been following the discussions on the IE8 and compatibility for the
last couple of days? For those that haven't been following it (or have
deliberately run away to hide), here are a few articles to read  :)

Here is how it all began...


Then there were these two:




And responses/discussions came thick and fast...











































And two final entries discovered just now  :)





Phew...enjoy the reading...
Thanks
Russ




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Background images versus image

[Dave Woods]

The first question I'd ask is why not just use check boxes instead of trying
to replicate them? If you mark them up correctly then there's really no
better accessible method than using the correct element as it was meant.

If you go down this route then you're likely to create all kinds of problems
for yourself... what happens when users don't have css available (mobile
devices), images disabled (dialup users) or are using screenreaders.

If you want to change the appearance then I'd use JavaScript to enhance the
existing check boxes but for those user agents that don't support JavaScript
or have it disabled you should have the fall back of regular forms.

Hope that helps.

- - - - -
http://www.dave-woods.co.uk


On 23/01/2008, Likely, James A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Hello,
>
> I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a
> problem that I have.
>
> I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a
> checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work best.
> Using background images or adding images to the code.
>
> The reason I ask is
>
> 1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the
> images have. This would help with screen readers and people with
> disabilities.
>
> 2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text and
> how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site. Is
> there a way to imitate the alt for background images?
>
> You can see an example of both ways at:
>
> Using images: 
> *http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html*
> Using background images: 
> *http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html*
>
> Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the
> background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing to
> see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions on how
> to make it more accessible?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> James
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Background images versus image

[Likely, James A.]

Hello,

I am working on a new site for a client and need some thoughts on a
problem that I have.

I am making a list with clickable boxes (like input boxes) that have a
checked, disabled and clickable state. My question is, what would work
best. Using background images or adding images to the code. 

The reason I ask is

1) If I use images, we can add alt text to describe what function the
images have. This would help with screen readers and people with
disabilities.

2) Background images keep the code clean but wonder about the alt text
and how screen readers and people with disabilities would read the site.
Is there a way to imitate the alt for background images?

You can see an example of both ways at:

Using images: http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list.html
Using background images: http://wisconsin.joekiosk.com/list/list2.html

Let me know your thoughts and what you think would work best. I love the
background images as the code is clean, but has any one done any testing
to see how this would work for screen readers or do you have suggestions
on how to make it more accessible?

Thanks for the help.

James


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Typo3 and Meta Tags

[ben van 't ende [netcreators]]

IceKat wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I've never written to this group before but I've seen the emails for a
> while and am hoping someone can help me out. I've got some work which
> involves the webware Typo3 (a REALLY messy CMS). I've been asked to add
> meta keywords and description to a site managed by this but can't find
> any tutorials which aren't in english. They are all in german. I suspect
> that there is a download of a plugin or extension but I can't understand
> anything which comes up so I'm hoping someone knows this webware or can
> read german and can help. The main website for Typo3 is: http://typo3.com/.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any replies.

Hi Icekat,

This is REALLY off topic for this list. Next time please use the TYPO3
mailinglists for any questions regarding this CMS.

., but you would have to use the extension extended metatags.

http://typo3.org/extensions/repository/view/metatags/1.0.4/

It adds options in the constant editor.

gRTz

ben
-- 
netcreators :: creation and innovation
www.netcreators.com -  www.TYPO3.nl

Interesse in werken bij Netcreators?
http://www.netcreators.com/bedrijf/vacatures/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***