Re: [WSG] Dreamweaver8
Please, please, please everyone. Discuss web standards on the web standards group mailing list, and "my text/WYSIWY editor is better than yours" on the HTML Editors mailing list... If there isn't one, feel free to set it up. thanks, Grumpy John. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Why is deprecated?
Hi Kepler, In many ways, has been deprecated in favour of and in favour of (emphasis). (underline) has been deprecated because it shouldn't be part of structural markup, but instead part of styling, so it would be replaced by or similar. The reason (bold) and italic haven't actually been deprecated is that the HTML working group were worried it would lead to the misuse of other presentational tags, indeed such as and , which should be considered whenever you use these 'newer' tags! cheers, John Kepler Gelotte wrote: Hi, I am just curious if anyone can explain why the tag has been deprecated while and are still allowed. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** 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] IE 8 and grey
CSS is a US-spec language. If we suddenly start seeing 'colour: #123456;' then I'll be delighted - but I don't think the CSS authors are so interested in global standards ;) On 18/03/2008, at 1:04 PM, Chris Broadfoot wrote: Keryx Web wrote: Quick question. I have not got IE 8 beta 1 myself... Does it understand "grey", spelled with an e - as it should be ;-) Lars Gunther Probably not. "grey" isn't a css colour. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******* best wishes, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 2967 f: +61 2 9799 6135 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] SEO, fact or fiction
I'd use flash. http://www.gothamsounddesign.com/ is a fairly good example of an 'unobtrusive' flash player. On 18/03/2008, at 3:10 AM, kevin mcmonagle wrote: hi, Im doing a site for a nightclub. So im doing a hybrid. The owner has demanded a music track playing continuously. What would you lot do if you had to put in a continually playing music track? I mean the only solution that is a frameset right but i just want some feedback of the dangers of this. -thanks in advance kev *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** best wishes, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 2967 f: +61 2 9799 6135 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] SEO, fact or fiction and myths
Hi Michael, That seems incredibly arbitrary when a robots.txt is purely optional - especially as the default spider behavior is to index all unless told otherwise. So you're penalizing people by having your robot behave in the opposite manner? And regarding PICS labels, most people don't know how to set them or don't have the requisite server access. How do you justify these? Cheers, John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike at Green-Beast.com Sent: Monday, 10 March 2008 12:52 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO, fact or fiction and myths >> I didn't know robots text >> was important for accessibility, however I learned from the >> accessites team that it is. Tee, The reasons we (Accessites) look for a robots.txt file is because it keeps honest bots from wasting their time and your bandwidth indexing directories/files you don't want indexed. We don't look at this as part of a web accessibility requirement. Our focus is on quality sites for which accessibility must be an integral part. Thus, we like to see things like a robots.txt file, PICS label, semantics, good looks, and more, of course. Regarding a site map, that we like to see for accessibility and not for bots at all. A site map is important to accessibility as some user will seek out a site map right away to grasp a site's overview and offerings. For some users, this is the best way to begin the exploration of a site. In my opinion, html site maps don't have anything to do with indexing other than just being another indexable page. It is my understanding, though, that an XML site map can help indexing but being that I've never used one or looked into it much, I can neither confirm or deny this. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Respectfully, Mike Cherim *** 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] IE8 news - stats
Consider that a fairly significant proportion of IE6 users cannot upgrade as they're using illegal copies of Windows XP. One of my clients did a fairly large study (anonymous) where 18% of 10,000 users were using cracked copies of Windows - I'm just wondering how much that'd sway the stats. For myself, I'd be unwilling to support people who steal rather than go to linux-based operating systems. Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell the difference! John Hancock Identity -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lea de Groot Sent: Sunday, 9 March 2008 7:01 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] IE8 news - stats Well, if you'd like some stats from a .au site with very much non-technical, typically Australian-sourced traffic: 1. Internet Explorer / Windows 44,549 80.32% 1. 7.0 23,965 53.77% 2. 6.0 20,507 46.01% 3. 5.5 47 0.11% 4. 5.0117 0.04% 5. 5.0 16 0.04% 6. 5.2311 0.02% 7. 4.5 3 0.01% 8. 4.012 > 0.00% 9. 5.222 > 0.00% 10. 4.0 1 > 0.00% 2. Firefox / Windows 6,581 11.86% 3. Safari / Macintosh 2,352 4.24% 4. Firefox / Macintosh 828 1.49% 5. Mozilla / Linux 623 1.12% 6. Opera / Windows 150 0.27% 7. Firefox / Linux 121 0.22% 8. Mozilla / Windows 48 0.09% 9. Konqueror / Linux 37 0.07% 10. Internet Explorer / Macintosh 24 0.04% So, 80% Windows IE, split between 7 & 6 - I too expect to see most of the IE7 users migrate to an IE8 Gold release quite quickly, but that IE6 will hang around for much longer. warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia *** 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] SEO, fact or fiction
Hi Michael, I take the perspective that a site built to web standards provides a framework for content which doesn't have any 'points' deducted from it. SEO in my experience is divided up into the main sections 1) inbound links and references 2) linking structure 3) page build quality 4) content 1 and 4 are unfortunately, 'King' (we've all heard that content is king, but inbound links certainly count for as much on Google). If you imaging a point scale where the search engine gives points based on content, and then takes them away based on the problems or inadequacies with a website build (i.e. home page not linked to as "/", no lang="en/fr/etc" tag, links in tables instead of ul's or a separate div), you have the manner in which web standards affect SEO issues. As such, there should be no SEO issues in a standards- compliant website - think of google as a plain text reader where the content:code ratio should be as high as possible. Other issues include not using ?id as a query string as this is how google did it, so a lot fail to rank if you don't use ?pid/?cid etc, and suchlike, but I'd say these are more language-based or protocol based and that's a pretty small niche in web standards. I feel that more on the subject would take my response away from Web Standards, so feel free to contact me off-list if you want to discuss further. best wishes, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 2967 f: +61 2 9799 6135 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] IE8 news
How can you disagree with a capability? Isn't it a feature to be used if you so choose? For intranets etc that you can force this behaviour can actually be a good thing, but if you don't like it, you don't have to use it! Microsoft has certainly responded here, but in my opinion we shouldn't be criticising the for offering optional extras. On 04/03/2008, at 3:23 PM, Tate Johnson wrote: Microsoft is actually responding to their customers (and the community). Wow, I'm impressed. While I still disagree with the capability to render in "IE7 Strict Mode", at least this is no longer the default in IE8. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Screen Standards - was alachu
Hi David, There are actually standard screen sizes, which is why screens like HP's 1280x768 14" screen and Apple's 15" screen were retired quietly. They were new and different, then different, then became non-standard when 14.1" and 15.4" devices preserved a 16:10 aspect ratio. The manufacturers of LCD (and CRT) panels have been sitting down and working out what sizes they should all work to, to make things easy, predominantly, for gaming and windows driver manufacturers. And they've been doing this for about 15 years or so - so there are standards. That there isn't a 'standard' screen size is agreed in terms of 'everyone uses a different screen', but that's why we all seem to design to the lowest (common) common denominator, whatever our definition of that is. In terms of internet browsing, many professionals have been using the HTC devices for a while, such as the Universal, TyTn etc. These typically have 320x240 (either aspect) or 640x480 screens and as such some websites really struggle - alistapart is a great example of one. Many seem to be of the opinion that these screen sizes don't matter at all in terms of design - my method is usually to build a /mobile site for mobile users. John. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hucklesby Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2008 4:41 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Site review - alachua co library On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:42:07 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2008/02/27 18:39 (GMT+1100) John Hancock apparently typed: > >> Just a thought, but a moderately high resolution environment to me is a setup of over >> 3mpx. For instance, dual 20" TFTs, dual 19" CRT or single 30" etc. A high resolution >> environment for me is about 7.5mpx. While I'm aware that your mileage may vary, a >> 1680 x 1200 pixel screen size is certainly not a standard one! >> [...] >> Thus I'm really curious about >> your definition of a standard one! >> There is clearly no "standard" screen size or resolution, despite assumptions too often made by designers. Please consider that the web is no longer only available on PCs. I read recently that 30-40% of Internet traffic in Europe comes from mobile phones. There are hand-held devices, game boxes, and doubtless more to come as well. The advent of the iPhone in N. America is already changing Internet browsing habits over here. I agree with Felix that we should get away from the idea that CSS can deliver a better experience by significantly changing the text size. FWIW my 15" laptop display is 1400 x 1050 running at 120 DPI. With "large fonts" I find the defaults very comfortable. I use Opera as my default browser, so text delivered as 10 pixels is easily increased. Age seems relevant to some who discuss this issue, for some reason I can't fathom, so I'll mention that I am 72. 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] Site review - alachua co library
Hi Felix, Here's a screenshot of a typical moderately high resolution environment: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-alaclib1.jpg and the setup source: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/sc-alaclib1.html Just a thought, but a moderately high resolution environment to me is a setup of over 3mpx. For instance, dual 20" TFTs, dual 19" CRT or single 30" etc. A high resolution environment for me is about 7.5mpx. While I'm aware that your mileage may vary, a 1680 x 1200 pixel screen size is certainly not a standard one! Thus I'm really curious about your definition of a standard one! The Standard Panels Working Group (SPWG) isn't the fastest moving of organisations, admittedly, but you'll find that they're usually ratifying 16:10 aspect ratios as standard - something to consider when designing sites. Additionally, those of us with extremely large working areas should usually have a 17" TFT or lower to test on for 'the great unpixeled'. kind regards, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 0274 f: +61 2 9799 6135 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] hello - [OT]
Please can this be closed? It's far off any standards related topic. Possibly the only thing I can see as a relevant part of the 'Web 2.0 movement' is the abstraction of the presentational information from data on a page, which isn't being discussed here. If posting an off-topic message, please at least mark it as such so the rest of us can hit the delete button without checking it first for relevant information! Kind regards, John Hancock Identity From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Ortenzi Sent: Friday, 15 February 2008 6:32 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] hello That's art, Kat, design is different. And design is a significant part of the web. On Feb 12 2008, at 22:52, Katrina wrote: kevin mcmonagle wrote: yes its a buzzword mostly but from a design standpoint its also a genre. That's an interesting thought. Is Web 2.0 larger than the web itself? Has it become an art movement/period, in the same way as Modernism, Post-Modernism, Humanism, Impressionism, etc? Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** 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] ***
[WSG] Developing for Mixed Browsers - Form Buttons
This is why most of us are now using default form styling or a very simple approach (fieldset, legend, and possibly submit button). Cameron Adams makes a few good points at: http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/04/28/ , and of course - remember that his example button looks different in IE, Safari and Firefox! While this article is old, it covers most salient points and provides a simple approach that works well. Having said that, his 'Submit/Go' button is labelled as '>>', and the page options as \/, and these have two different effects (one shows a menu, one takes you to another page). Consistency is key - but remember that users usually browse in only one browser at a time. John Hancock identity.net.au PS. On a side-note, can we keep platform discussion to standards and implementation? 'My computer is bigger/better/faster/stronger' is fairly non-relevant to WSG and most of us aren't on the list to receive that kind of post. The cheapest way of getting a Mac testing environment is an older tower running OS X, and a G3 (or older) running IE5.5 if you care about these things. Personally I run an older mac for Safari 2 testing and older Firefox versions (1.5), and a newer one running Safari 3 and Firefox 2, alongside a PC running Safari, Opera, Firefox and IE7, with IE6 in the usual VPC, and also on an older box with remote desktop. If you're retentive about testing, then you may also wish to run a suite with flash turned off, a suite with javascript turned off and one with CSS turned off - not to mention the usual On 14/01/2008, at 12:47 PM, John Horner wrote: can I safely develop in non Mac versions and expect my web sites to behave the same on the Mac? Behave? Yes. But... I don't think anyone's made this point yet -- one key difference between the platforms is the display of form elements. Elements like buttons and select menus and checkboxes, etc., pretty much belong to the operating system and the browser is only borrowing them. If your design has an expectation that those elements can be finely controlled, cross-platform, then you might get an unpleasant surprise. For instance, if you have documentation which says "click on the button which looks like this [image of the button from a Windows browser]" then Mac users may not have a button which looks like that. = = = = = = = = == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments = = = = = = = = == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******* kind regards, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 0274 f: +61 2 9799 6135 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Do we just throw out the img tag
Personally, I think the img tag has the correct semantics (and attributes) for an image. I'd just keep them for images in paragraphs and use css background for everything else. An object is just that! -Original Message- From: Michael Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:36 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Do we just throw out the img tag Now that I have mastered putting an image in a site using CSS do we just throw out the img tag in standards based xhtml. And how does the use of css compare with use of the object tag http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/jun2004/ I found in my google searches on the issue. -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** 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] list image not showing properly
Hi Taco,
Have you got a link to the page you're trying to fix this on?
Regards,
John Hancock
Identity
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Taco Fleur
Sent: Friday, 7 December 2007 12:51 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] list image not showing properly
Hello all,
I have a problem where the list image is not showing properly
form#search-main .li1 {
background: url(/_resource/image/form/step_1.gif) top left
no-repeat;
}
I realize this is not exactly assigning an image to the list item, but I
went down that path before, and it didn't work out either.
The problem I am having now is that in IE7 it doesn't display well when I
specify a height of 3em (see below) and the content is larger than that.
form#search-main li {
height: 3em; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
padding: 0.5em 0 0.5em 50px;
clear: left;
}
The css is on
www.clickfind.com.au/_resource/style/layout/search/default.css
In the end I'll accept any suggestion that displays the numbered icons in
the same position they are now, but not causing problems elsewhere.
Thanks in advance..
clickfindT 1300 859 179
www.clickfind.com.au the new Australian search engine for businesses,
products and services .
***
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] Iframe navigation accessibility question
On 22/11/2007, at 1:31 AM, James Leslie wrote: Hi Folks, I have just inherited a bands website which places all of the navigation (both top and bottom links) in iframes. I don't 100% understand why the developer chose to do this unless it is emulating php includes in static html, anyway, it seems like a bad idea to me and is high on my list of things to sort out on the site. My question is: Is this as inaccessible as I fear it is? Yes, at least in my own (real world) testing. Will a screen reader be likely to have issues with it? Mine does, and my father-in-law's partner's does (older Jaws version). I have to do a new version of the site around Easter next year when a new album comes out, I'm wondering whether I should spend the time fixing this version up in the meantime or whether it's issues are not as harmful as I fear. I would fix it now, you can always mention it as a SEO problem if you need to provide a business case for it. kind regards, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 0274 f: +61 2 9799 6135 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Site check
I fear for their welfare. Best, ~dL -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ Me too. Personally I like seeing tags have only text content in them, and to at least have text content in them. Hey, are we in a timewarp? I have an issue that a lot of the content is inaccurate (eg. Ajax isn't a programming language) and lots of the rest is hard to use, or feels unfinished, from the Web button that when clicked, does nothing but float and return, via the 'web gallery wheel of doom' to the Work links' flash of unstyled content (FOUC) which is very avoidable. Kenny, you've got some fairly big issues with the site. I suggest reading a good book, maybe something like 'Designing with Web Standards', or alternatively 'Foucault's Pendulum'. If you want I can guide you through fixing some of the more obvious ones off-list, stuff like the empty (and useless) s in the nav. Although XHTML 1.1 valid, a cursory glance at webxact would show your site fails some of the basic accessibility standards and quality checks. John *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Navigation - Pseudo Standards?
Hi Christie, The 'average joe/average jane' site visitor would expect the site navigation at the top (and possibly some links at the bottom), with the product navigation usually on the left. The exceptions to this usually involve multi-level, drop-down or drop-line menus which are under the header section of the page. Amazon has been a good example of this. Is there an overriding reason for using two side columns? This would usually cut out 800x600 viewers unless you want to do some really nifty javascript style switching to turn it into a bottom/top column for smaller screen resolutions. kind regards, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 0274 f: +61 2 9799 6135 On 15/11/2007, at 5:02 PM, Christie Mason wrote: We're having an internal discussion about the placement of site navigation (Contact Us, etc) vs Product Navigation (Search, Category 1, Category 2, etc) in a 3 column layout with | Navigation |Content | Navigation | Some feel the site navigation should be in the left column with products in the right column, others feel the opposite. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Javascript Dropdown Problems
Hi James, This might sound like a stupid idea - it's late and I haven't thought it through fully, but can't you hide it the relevant nodes by triggering something through onLoad on the body tag - that way if JS is disabled the page will load with the lists expanded rather than invisible. I would place only physical links in the href function, and use the onClick/onMouseOver/ + on(whateverkey) event instead. Diego beat me to most of this, it seems. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
