RE: [WSG] RE: [BULK] WSG Digest
I agree with this bloke - it's starting to look like blatant advertising. www.humdingerdesigns.co.uk -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Glen Wallis Sent: 16 March 2009 08:10 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] RE: [BULK] WSG Digest Am I the only person on this list who is sick of the constant and blatant advertising for this Content Management System? Don't we have rules against this? If so, they are not being enforced. -Original Message- From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:w...@webstandardsgroup.org] Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 6:42 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [BULK] WSG Digest Importance: Low * WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST * From: Sigurd Magnusson Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:10:09 +1300 Subject: Re: Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back? Most websites we build at SilverStripe have IE 6.0 as a minimum, and even then, we're unpatiently anticipating the time when we can drop IE 6. FireFox (2), Safari (3), Chrome (latest) users are more encouraged to keep up to the latest versions, and have more aggressive update mechanisms, so we just use the bracketed versions as minimum. We have not given thought to Netscape for years. The same applies to when we're working on the administration interface of our open source SilverStripe CMS (www.silverstripe.org.) Cheers, Sig. On 15/03/2009, at 8:32 PM, wrote: > * > WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST > * > > > From: Brett Patterson > Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:19:00 -0400 > Subject: Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back? > > Hi all, > > I was just reading from a book that talked about some code that would > not work in Internet Explorer 3.0, but would in Internet Explorer 4.0 > and later, and Netscape Navigator 3.0 and later. This brought up a > question that I could not find direct and consistent answers while > searching the Internet...so, how far back would it be acceptable to > design for, when it comes to backwards browser compatibility? I have > been told from some sites, that Internet Explorer 5.0/later and > Netscape Navigator 4.0/later, as well as Firefox 1.5/later and Opera > 6.0/later. Is this correct? > > -- * From: James Jeffery Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:44:56 + Subject: Blueprint & Grids After reading 'Transcending CSS' I have learnt that grids are not a replacement for table based layouts (as has been drummed into me by so called evangelists on IRC). I understand the importance of grids in print and non-web media and now want to start using them. I've started using Blueprint. I quickily scrolled through the CSS file and got a grasp for it. My problem is this. In the book I am seeing examples where they are using 4 and 5 columns. I have developed a layout, which uses the divine proportion. So far I have the container, and 2 divs. Now, within these grids do I use more columns to go with the layout and structure of the design? And if so, how can I overlap? For example, in the "main-content" area I might have 5 columns, now lets say using Blueprint and my own CSS I want to use 4 columns for the content and 1 for meta date per article. How do I use all 4 and leave the one? Sounds like a silly, vaugue, question ... I know. But I'm a little taken by this and am eager to learn because I feel this is going to greatly boost productivity. Thanks -- James Jeffery Web Developer and iPhone Applications Developer m: 07964722061 ** Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Agreed - people certainly aren't getting any smarter as far as web technologies go. Particuarly as the web is now viewed as a common commodity that virtually everyone has access to. In the old days, it was more or less used exclusively by tech savvy users; it was very far from the plug and play service it is now. Unless an automated system is switching off javascript for the end user, from my experience the vast user base of the common population isn't going to actively go into settings and make a conscious effort to switch it off. The vast majority don't even know what it is. I, for one, will carry on designing sites on the basis that the chances of someone using a javascript disabled browser stumbling across me is minimal. -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dixon Sent: 26 January 2009 22:50 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript Again, can you show that the small decline in IE's market share has contributed to users blocking Javascript or using specific Firefox extensions? IE has had plugins such as the Web Accessibility Toolbar etc for some years now that allow disabling of Javascript very easily, so why would the usage of another browser and additional extensions change this? People do change their viewing habits all the time, and migrations between browsers will continue (whether to IE detriment or not), it doesn't mean people are getting smarter or that they are concerned at all about Javascript (im sure the security concerns over IE6/7 that have talked about over in the mainstream news networks over the past couple of years have had nothing to do with Javascript, and are far more related to Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX functionality). If memory serve's, the "people are getting smarter" observation has been stated on this mailing list since its inception, and we've yet to see any evidence of this. David David Lane wrote: > Agreed - the level of savvy of most user is absurdly low, and at > present few will know what Javascript is, much less how to disable it. > The question is whether people today design for today's users, or > tomorrow's... > > The trend will continue towards more sophisticated users, using better > browsers (i.e. not IE) which support useful plugins like NoScript and > their analogues for Opera, Webkit, etc. > > I suspect as more and more people get burned by identity theft and > other forms of exploitation, the pain individuals experience will > provide a strong motivation for learning. Also, organisations will > increasingly make that decision on behalf of their users to minimise > their own risk... > > Cheers, > > Dave > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Failed A Job :(
Join the club, I've been commissioned to do a local website and the guy was hoping he'd be able to get a quick bug-fix on his current with a bit of updating. Unfortuanetly the css was akin to the Guttenberg Bible; completely unreadable and would have been a pig to translate. Not to mention, a strange and chaotic mishmash of tables, frames and weird proprietary software markup. Some clients (and this one did, thank god) need to realize that when the original is written by a back street bedroom "I can do that" wannabe, they're paying for someone who can stick a few words and pics up and not much else. From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of James Jeffery Sent: 29 January 2009 14:13 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Failed A Job :( Indeed. My only problem is I have lost future work from the guy that feeds me these jobs because I failed it, he isn't even understanding my situation and he's a front-end developer aswell. I mean 10 hours to do a whole lot of bug fixing and a near rewite is stupid. Also there was no SV so when I edited stuff, they overwrite it and it was an absolute nightmare. As you said. Lesson learned :p On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Krystian - Sunlust wrote: I remember when through GAF I got a on-page SEO job for a website, I was stupid enough to accept it without first looking at the code, it came out that it's a table based design with images in the markup used for layouts etc. I've done as much as I could, but it was a nightmare. Like Simon posted, it's a good lesson. Regards, -- Krystian - Sunlust Affordable Web Services in Eastbourne: http://eastbournewebdesign.net Mobile UK (Orange): 07528 036 337 Call for more information or email me. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute
What puts me off about about Contribute is the cost; very few of my clients are willing to pay that amount of cash. There aren't many open source alternatives to choose from, I'm currently riding with SnippetMaster ( do a search), one or two bugs, but all in all an excellent, web based alternative. There's a perfectly usable free version available and the full version only costs 23 GBP. Kieren From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe ContributeDate: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:10:36 +1100Hi Several people are misunderstanding why some of us are challenging the use of Contribute (please note, challenging, not refusing) and why a consultant might discover (please note: discover, not insist) where a CMS might be a better solution for the client in the long run and better meets their own expressed business goals and defined measurable strategy (note: in line with their business goals and internal resources, not dictated to rudely). So please understand my position in this matter (I can't speak for others) when I say a simple CMS might achieve the goals you already have expressed (easy to edit, client stays outside of code, accessible and SEO friendly pages) and is worth considering and suggesting. All I said was it is your job to find the best fit of technology that meets their stated goals and available resources and not bow to their not necessarily wide-enough research. To reflect on the example you stated, where the client clicks a button on the existing site to edit the copy of the page therein; well what about posting news items in the site simply by send in an email to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" without even having to visit the site,which is possible with some CMS's or using a blog to increase presence and content interest which wordpress (installed in a hour and can move a large site's 50 pages of content into within a day) could easily mnage. The point was not to roll over and use the technology they request but to dig deeper into their business goals and resources and aims for the site, step back and analyse their needs, then return with a best fit for their time, aims, strategy and budget. Joe On 04/11/2008, at 1:02 AM, Susan Grossman wrote: On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM, James Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Guys,A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.Is there any point writing standards complient code or will contribute butcher the code anyway?Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include html files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime navigation changes etc.James I do free work for non-profits, and many of them ask about using Contribute. A CMS won't work for them because most of them have a small existing website that they got someone to do at some point in the last few years and they're trying to change it/add to it/figure out how to do anything to it. They aren't willing to start from scratch and have a CMS set up for them, nor do the volunteers want to learn all about editing in a role based application, no matter how easy it is. These are the people who Contribute is a lifesaver for. I go in and clean up their stuff, make it into PHP and design includes they can't accidently edit and show them how to use Contribute by surfing to their web site and clicking the Contribute button. TaDa - they can edit, sans butchering.Yes there are better solutions out there, but there's nothing wrong with this solution. I don't feel it's my job to tell them that I won't help them unless they get on board with the latest and greatest. I'm here to help them make sure their web site is accessible and that they can change text on the few pages they'll update.For me, the client is always right. They know their business, their people, their limitations. That doesn't mean I can't say, "Yes, though we could also do that by " but in the end, they make the final decisions and a lot of the time I don't agree on everything, but they call the shots, and we have to be gracious. I try to teach as I go , but I don't force my clients to learn if they don't want to. And you might be surprised how many don't want to. -- Susan R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)434 047 804http://www.typingthevoid.com http://twitter.com/wheelyweb http://www.linkedin.com/in/jortenzi Skype:wheelyweb http://au.movember.com/mospace/1714401***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubs
