Re: [WSG] Best way to clear a float
Why not just use clearfix?
On Nov 12, 2007 12:15 PM, David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:58:37 -0600, Likely, James A. wrote:
Hello,
I am curious to see how others clear floats.
*Sometimes* I find this works:
#parent {overflow: auto;}
This does require thorough testing, however.
Another simple method is the one Mohamed described - floats
always contain floats.
Others suggested here are also good. It depends on your design
as to which one works best. As always, design is largely a matter of
compromise.
Cordially,
David
--
***
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] Re: worst site I've seen lately
I have to agree. Not everything has to be so damn usable that it has no visual flair, something that, sadly, tends to be the norm on this list. This is neat if only because it's quite unique. On 10/29/07, Olly Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/29/07, Rob Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My eyes, my beautiful eyes...it burns. whisperI actually quite like it./whisper It's nice to see someone trying something slightly away from the norm. OK, so they don't quite pull it off -- the mad scrolling stuff could do with being toned down a little (perhaps a bit of motion blurring?) and some of the UI design is just plain silly, but generally, not a bad effort. I've certainly seen a lot worse. Besides, what's not to like about a site that employs lines like Value-added red noses maximize a plan to vigorously deliver multilevel hairdryers. in place of lipsum? ;) -- Olly http://thinkdrastic.net/ *** 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: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] How to make DHML cover flash
Come off it. Under no circumstance has it ever cost us more to do it right than to do it poorly; shoddy workmanship always results in higher costs. If it is costing you too much to do it right, you are doing more than just your coding wrong. On 10/25/07, Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your information, Rogier. Doesn't change my thinking though. Firefox with the Firefox logo works how it's supposed to, so there is a difference between the debian thing and the 'real' Firefox. And this difference isn't one we care about. First of all, if there are any users in that category, there isn't more than a handful. Secondly, they don't have to go to this page to use the site. This is separate 'help' information. Thirdly anyone who experiences the problem we were trying to solve can still navigate the site. So yes, it would be good to fix it. But there are far more pressing issues for us to work on and if any user finds they are experiencing the problem this was about, we don't care now, since all the users reflected in our site stats are not experiencing the problem. Cost/benefit once again. Ideally, we'd like the site to have no issues at all. But out of 100,000 users, 1 or 2 (at most!) might not be able to use the drop down menu to navigate out of the self-running demonstration and have to use the back button instead.If debian ever gets to the point in Australia where our users start using it, the cost/benefit ratio might change, at which time we might revisit the decision to move on to other issues. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogier Schoenmaker Sent: Friday, 26 October 2007 5:03 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] How to make DHML cover flash Mike, Just for your information Iceweasel IS firefox, just with another name (build from the firefox source by the debian team). Because of those stupid American patent laws you can't use a name of software without a logo and because the logo is copyrighted, debian doesn't wants it in their O.S. fyi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel I understand that you have to prioritize how your site works with O.S.' es and browsers, but if you decide to use a plugin like flash you should go for it completely or don't. It's out of the question that users can't navigate your site, just because of some fancy flash. But that's my 2 cents. Rogier. On 25/10/2007, Michael Kear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think its wonderful how, every time I post something to this list, people will rush to tell me how we ought to be spending our scarce development dollars. Christian Montoya, why do you assume that we're so dumb we don't know anything about our customers? We have quite a large number of Firefox customers, but if they're using Firefox, the site works fine. I know because I've tested it in Firefox. I develop with Firefox. My client's testing regime includes Firefox. There were several people on this list who tested it in Firefox and didn't report any problems. The issue was raised by Roger who said there was a small problem with Firefox (IceWeasel) for debian whatever that is, not Firefox.You accuse us of making poor assumptions when that's indeed what you did in your patronising way. It might be true in big shops that there are unlimited development dollars sufficient to allocate teams of people to iron out every last little issue, but in small shops like mine (and they don't come smaller than my business!!) there isn't unlimited time available. Here's a lesson in business for some of you. There is a limited supply of time and dollars, and most jobs have a deadline. If you're running a development shop for profit, there often comes a time when you have to accept there will be issues with your output, and as lon gas it doesn't impact unduly on your customers sometimes you have to just let the issues remain in order to run the business. I can't afford to be spending time tracking down every last problem. And my client wont pay me to either. We make some compromise decisions along the way.We will not even be testing our site in the browsers mentioned by Roger: Firefox (IceWeasel) for debian, or Epiphany (whatever the hell they are). I've never heard of those browsers and I surely doubt many of my client's customers have either.The site works how we want it to in the major environments, and in the others it's still usable, if a little quirky. That's where it's gonna stop while we move on to more important issues like rebuilding the shopping cart that is showing signs of stress with the volumes
Re: [WSG] CSS Help
Contrary to everything else put forth about the 'issue', this actually
works...
change
#sidebar a:hover,.blogfoot a:hover{
border:1px solid #FFF !important;
}
to
#sidebar li a:hover,.blogfoot a:hover{
border:1px solid #FFF !important;
}
add the li so it only applies to links inside the list. simple pie. The
other attempts here try to fix a problem with an extra rule, when if done
correctly you don't need it.
On 10/23/07, David Niemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try this...
a img { margin-bottom: -2px; vertical-align: sub; border: none;}
Worked for me in a similar situation.
David
On 24/10/2007, at 9:03 AM, Olajide Olaolorun wrote:
Can someone please help me with this small problem i'm having I
seem to have a problem with the link hover style i set for the whole
sidebar with the images I am trying to take it out for images that
are links... like the image showing to the right in the sidebar... but
i have no success. Can someone please help me out.
http://www.rockondude.net/pre
If you see the thumbnail to the right... am trying to take out the
hover style for that.
Thanks a lot.
***
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] CSS Help
Lex parsimoniae.
Cheers.
On 10/23/07, Chris Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Wilson wrote:
Contrary to everything else put forth about the 'issue', this actually
works...
that statement isn't correct because this also works:
#sidebar .one-image a:hover {
border: 1px solid #000 !important;
}
The other attempts here try to fix a problem with an extra rule, when if
done correctly you don't need it.
I don't think there is a correct way, there are just different ways, as
all solutions have their implications - e.g. your solution assumes only
links in lists require this style which is not necessarily the case - so
if other links are added outside of a list an extra rule may be required
for them
the solution I have given above may add an extra rule but it solves the
problem without tampering with the existing css - so it's not
necessarily clear which solution is better
--
Chris Knowles
***
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] Cost of Accessibility
McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. The response ranges from What is accessibility? to we'll worry about that later to No! So you build poor sites unless specifically told to build them to standards? Ouch. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness... Why should a different standard be applied to the web? On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can only assume this is an attempt at trolling... Either that or phrases like the web is for everyone has fallen on deaf ears. Luckily, there are laws in many countries to stop companies and agencies doing whatever the hell the like when it comes to website and accessibility. Russ A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** 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: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability, but not at this cost. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Yours? Mine? Certainly not a judge who likely has no concept of the situation or technology. Cases like this lead to red blooded legislation that takes far too long to fix, and even longer to repeal. On 10/3/07, Cat Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here, but Mount Everest was not man-made. The Target site on the other hand ... Cat On 10/3/07, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** 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: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
bigeasyweb.co.uk ? There is no reason why an accessible site should cause blindness. On 10/3/07, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:18 pm, Chris Wilson wrote: I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability... This is patently untrue. You have no concept of accessibility and the standards and why they exist. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just administering the legislation which has been enacted by national government to help bring about a fully democratic society. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out financial transactions through it. *** 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: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
No, not madness. Instead, it would be a good way to bring art to audiences that might not otherwise know it. Yes, but once you start applying that logic inside legislated rules of presentation and usage (which is the issue here, or will be), a site can no longer be the art the artist desires. However, if it _is_ different, then we should apply it because we can, because it's the right thing to do and because a commercial site open to more users will generate more sales, just by the law of averages. Yes, we should, laws shouldn't mandate it. When you take away the ability to choose the right path and instead force it on a person, that person looses the ability to be good as they never choose to do good, it's forced on them - yes? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille. How many web users are disabled to the point of using screen readers (anyone using it by choice not by necessity doesn't count, that's their own issue)? Probably not much more than that. But you don't advocate publishers being required to aid them do you? Doesn't sound like it. Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is relatively easy and the incremental cost is small. As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille. However, many have a scanner that allows them to read printed material using OCR and a text-to-speech converter. The most useful alternatives are large-print versions and audio recordings, and many organisations will make their publications available in these formats on request. Have you actually looked at the coding on the Target website? I have, many times. The accessibility (and standards-compliance) could be improved dramatically at virtually no cost. One of the biggest problems is that nearly all the links are graphical but no 'alt' attributes have been provided. You try to navigate when JAWS reads link graphic six hundred twenty five million three hundred forty two thousand seven hundred ninety one. Where does that link point to? Damned if I know. And each page contains several hundred links like it. The secondary navigation might look like text but it isn't - it's a honking great image map. Want to resize the text? Sorry, can't do that. Semantic structure? Ha ha ha... You could understand if they just came out and said screw disabled people - we don't care, but instead they give us this garbage about how it's as accessible as possible and it meets all the guidelines and they really do care ever so much. They are not claiming the right to 'do whatever the hell they want' - they are trying to kid people that this is as good as it gets and that it can't be any better. And that is just so far from the truth. Steve //* And here we have the overly emotional response that is exactly why we get such useless red blooded legislation. I know about being handicapped, but it doesn't color my logic as I can put the two aside, try it sometime. On 10/3/07, Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy Copyrighted publications in the US are copied to Braille for the most part (with copyright holder's permission) by the Library of Congress. I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Mount Everest?! Please, get serious. If you're going to provide a comparison, use something logical. Your comparison is akin to comparing an apple to a hippopotamus. Not even close. Let's instead compare the brick-n-mortar Target stores with the web site. Are you against the law that requires access to their stores, ramps, parking spots, wider doors, restroom aids, etc. Where is the line drawn? Why did that law come to be? It is the result of the courts because businesses didn't do it on their own and had to be pushed. The ADA spoke for a minority. Businesses are notorious for doing the very least that they can until the law tells them otherwise. Notorious! It's all about numbers, money, and risk management. I despise lawsuits, but this one is for the greater good, and as has been proven in the past, necessary. It's hard enough living with a disability without the ignorant, the selfish, or the greedy making life harder. Target spent millions making their stores accessible. To make the site accessible is so much less. So much easier for them. And yet, left to command themselves, they did nothing. In fact, once asked to correct the issues the first time all they did was complain, try to justify their crappy site, and took little to no action. Choice? Cut off your legs and see how limited choice gets. The web is easy access for lots of people who have certain difficulties, even with full ADA compliance in a physical location. My cousin was a quadriplegic and she hardly went anywhere because it was a huge hassle doing anything. Give her a pointed stick, put it in her mouth, and place a computer in front of her, though, and she was free to roam and happy as a lark. She literally drooled over the experience! I can't see how any business or site can justify the failure to remove the barriers that would have blocked her access. I better stop now. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Oh, this mailing list has been stagnant for quite some time, needs a good argument if you ask me. :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Those are all well and good, but utterly useless in a global marketplace. Should I be under your countries guidelines? Mine? What if I'm international? All of them? What if country As guidelines are incompatible with country Bs... Or should legislation hinge on guidelines proposed, created, and managed by a non government body (WSG)? You are all so quick to support legislation, but do you have any concept of how that would change the web, a concept not just of the accesability impact but the real impact? On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Yours? Mine? There are clearly defined ideas of accessibility for most countries - such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Or Section 508 in the case of America: http://www.section508.gov/ In Australia, for example, web accessibility hinges on the Disability Act of 1992 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/ And is backed up by HEREOC's World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html#s3_3 In June 2000, the Online Council, representing the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments, agreed that the Worldwide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 will be the common best practice standard for all Australian government websites. All this will change soon when WCAG2 hits the stands :) Thanks Russ *** 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: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Speaking of ' logical fallacy' On 10/3/07, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are some of the worst analogies I've ever seen. The target website is not a work of art, it's not a mountain, it's not a car, it's not a drive up ATM, it's not a building. Not to mention the slippery slopes, like Well if they force Target to fix their website, next they'll be forcing it on ALL websites everywhere! and Well if they force target to make their site accessable to blind people, what's next? People who can't speak english? It's amazing how much these things sound like arguments, and seem to make sense, but every one of them is a logical fallacy of some kind. What we are talking about here, is a Catalog of products, using a technology which is inherently easy to make accessable. It does not require a huge investment of material. The catalog in this case, is used for online purchasing, or making purchasing decisions before entering a physical store. We're not talking about a grand visual experience, or a masterpeice of literature here, or any other such thing which would allow arguments about freedom of speach, or expression. Target is a business, and they ain't in the business of making art. We are talking about a business that, despite one of the comments on that blog, HAS made a concious decision to exclude a portion of the populace from using their website. I know this because I've seen the reasoning before. Who cares about blind people? they're a small part of the population anyway. Let's just make the whole thing flash. So we're talking about target conciously discriminating against a portion of the populace from purchasing goods from their store, or finding information about their products, so they could have the perception of saving money, by not having to hire competant web developers. This is not a freedom of choice issue. It's an issue of choosing the illusion of money, over people. And as we can see now, it was a bad choice, not only because the money they could have spent on accessiblity will now be spent on lawyers, but they also lost the potential money from those lost customers. The money they choose truly was illusory. *** 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] will Eric Meyer�s C SS SCULPTOR put me out of job?
That's the same short sighted question asked when WYSIWYG editors were introduced. If something like this is making you fear for your career, you really need to reevaluate if you are even in the right feild let alone career. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
