@David: Javascript can improve the semantic-correctness of a site.
There are many CSS design patterns that use divs and spans as 'hooks'
to apply CSS. These divs and spans don't serve any semantic purpose.
Using Javascript to add these extra divs keeps the HTML clean and
semantic.
~Chetan
On Sat,
Well, my employer has 1600 staff members browsing the web with IE6,
protected by a proxy that strips some (but not all) Javascript.
Considerably more than "12" people. Upgrading from IE6 is forbidden
because a couple of enterprise apps we use don't work in anything except
IE6.
But whatever. I
@David: I think it is established, with reasonable accuracy, that a
very small percentage (~1%) of surfers block Javascript. If somebody
wants to make sure that their site looks absolutely perfect to the 12
people that surf using Internet Explorer 6 with a Javascript blocking
proxy wearing tin-foil
Chetan Crasta wrote:
Javascript can considerably improve the aesthetics,
Not for a site that's properly-designed in the first place.
usability
That is one point where JS can provide functionality.
and semantics of a site,
JS should have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEMANTICS of a site. That
Chetan Crasta wrote:
I couldn't guess why presentational javascript is a bad thing, so I
did a quick search and I found two articles that appear to address the
issue:
http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/articles/presentational_javascript/index.html
http://www.digital-web.com/articles/separating_beha
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
If having valid stylesheets is important, one could simply apply zoom
using javascript: object.style.zoom="1";
But then your presentational layer is bound to the behavior layer :-(
And if someone has turned off JS off, or their company's proxy server
purges incoming J
@Christie: It is true that Yahoo's stats cannot be extrapolated to the
whole Internet. Unfortunately it appears that these are the only stats
available.
Javascript can considerably improve the aesthetics, usability and
semantics of a site, so it would be a pity if one disables it just to
avoid the
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Chetan Crasta
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:52 AM
To: n...@tjkdesign.com
Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org; Matthew P. Johnson
Subject: Re: [css-d] [+] Re: does anyone kn
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of David Laakso
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:46 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] does anyone know of...
On 12/2/10 8:30 PM, Matthew P. Johnson w
From: Chetan Crasta "About 1% of Yahoo's visitors had Javascript disabled
(2% for Yahoo USA) "
[-CM-] % of Yahoo visitors disabling js canNOT be used to extrapolate % of
all web users disabling js. I haven't visited Yahoo in years and I'm sure
that's true of a large % of web users. I also suspec
As one of those much maligned people who surf the web with js disabled, I
can tell you that any number representing % of users surfing with js
disallowed is suspect. I surf with js disabled, even though it can be a
pain, to avoid loading the multiple js files that are used by many sites to
do thi
The statistics provided by Nicholas Zakas are interesting!
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
About 1% of Yahoo's visitors had Javascript disabled (2% for Yahoo USA).
So I guess the decision whether to use presentational Javascript or
not d
On 12/3/10 10:24 AM, Barney Carroll wrote:
1. Could it be argued that *any* layout...
You could argue that in conversation and on paper from here to
eternity but making it happen on a screen with anything short of a
very simplistic layout is a pipe-dream. And therein may lie an answe
>
> These don't seem to be huge disadvantages: I can't think of a good
> reason to surf with Javascript disabled.
According to a recent blog post from Nicholas Zakas (Yahoo!) about 2% of
users browse the web without JS.
As a side note, I don't think it is always their choice.
> Also, since the
> Not only can you apply multiple classes to elements, you can also
> select elements with both classes and apply styles to only things with
> both.
>
> For example:
> .column {width: 48%}
> .left {float: left}
> .left.column {
> border-right: 1px solid #333;
> padding-right: 1em;
> }
I couldn't guess why presentational javascript is a bad thing, so I
did a quick search and I found two articles that appear to address the
issue:
http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/articles/presentational_javascript/index.html
http://www.digital-web.com/articles/separating_behavior_and_structure_2/
> Thanks, Tim. Yes, you are quire right about the proliferation of classes,
> and I did not know about applying a second class. This has been the
> result of "learn as I go" and it seemed easier (at the time) to simply
> copy a class and make a few adjustment.
>
We all learn as we go. Just some
On 12/3/2010 12:51 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Hi Bill,
Many thanks, Thierry. Will settle for additional classes.
Actually, you should not have a list/list items in that span. So rather than
adding a class you'd better replace that span with a div (which will take
the padding).
As a side note
On 12/3/2010 12:51 PM, Climis, Tim wrote:
I am using this approach (rather than just change the registercolright
class) because each page where that class is used requires some
adjustment and I'd prefer, if possible, not to create a large number of
similar classes.
Then don't Apply multiple
Hi Bill,
> Many thanks, Thierry. Will settle for additional classes.
Actually, you should not have a list/list items in that span. So rather than
adding a class you'd better replace that span with a div (which will take
the padding).
As a side note, do you need that additional wrapper? Can't you
> I am using this approach (rather than just change the registercolright
> class) because each page where that class is used requires some
> adjustment and I'd prefer, if possible, not to create a large number of
> similar classes.
Then don't Apply multiple classes instead.
The point h
Many thanks, Thierry. Will settle for additional classes.
Bill
On 12/3/2010 12:41 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Everything I've research tells me this ought to be valid, but the seems to have no effect.
vertical padding will not create vertical space on inline elements
--
Regards,
T
> Everything I've research tells me this ought to be valid, but the style> seems to have no effect.
>
>
>
> // some code that writes an unordered list
> ?>
>
>
vertical padding will not create vertical space on inline elements
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez
Hi guys,
I am posting this message with permission from the list-mom. Please
respond off-list if you are interested, to avoid cluttering everyone
else's inboxes.
Since 2005 I have been part of group that goes in together on a
Premium BrowserCam subscription (see info at bottom). We usually
On 03.12.2010 17:43, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
But I agree with you, I don't see this as "problematic".
Guess that's what it comes down to when choosing hasLayout triggers or
other hacks for old IE. I still prefer "the phony stylesheet for
IE/win"[1] solution that I have used for years for shov
Good Afternoon,
Everything I've research tells me this ought to be valid, but the style> seems to have no effect.
I am using this approach (rather than just change the registercolright
class) because each page where that class is used requires some
adjustment and I'd prefer, if possibl
>
> If having valid stylesheets is important, one could simply apply zoom
> using javascript: object.style.zoom="1";
>
But then your presentational layer is bound to the behavior layer :-(
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz
___
If having valid stylesheets is important, one could simply apply zoom
using javascript: object.style.zoom="1";
~C
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> Hi Georg,
>
>> Myself, I use any property/value that gets the job done, whenever I
>> need
>> to trigger hasLayout. Loss of
@Thierry: All valid criticisms. However, when one wants to do anything
fancy with plain HTML and CSS2, it is often at the cost of semantic
correctness.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>>
>> A CSS-only lightbox will have many limitations. You cannot have the
>> same functio
Hi Georg,
> Myself, I use any property/value that gets the job done, whenever I
> need
> to trigger hasLayout. Loss of "validity" because of proprietary IE CSS
> isn't more problematic than use of some "mos-", "webkit-" or "o-"
> proprietary CSS ... IMO.
I do not care much about CSS validation,
Does anyone know an email address for the list-mom?
I sent a message to the published owner-address yesterday and did not
get any response.
css-d-ow...@lists.css-discuss.org
Thanks,
Matt
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discu
1. Could it be argued that *any* layout (necessitating complex
absolute/relative positioning, overflows, nested lists, etc),
carefully built with a thorough knowledge of the Trident box model
in mind can avoid having to artificially trigger hasLayout?
As co-author of that article and based o
>
> A CSS-only lightbox will have many limitations. You cannot have the
> same functionality as the example you gave, with only CSS2.
> However, here is one good implementation of a css-only lightbox
> http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/lightbox-hover.html
fwiw, I would not call this solution a "good
Hi folks, bit of philosophy & CSS for y'all.
A recent project faced a series of late-noticed serious IE6 hasLayout bugs,
and got the team in a panicked discussion in which IE6 bug-fixing best
practice got discussed. I ended up re-reading Ingo Chao's excellent article
'On having layout' http://www.
> > Lighten up a little, organize it, and make it readable-- or you'll put
> I don't understand you comment: "Lighten up a little"
I think he means simply that your page is dark. Contrast your beige patterned
backgrounds (which look remarkably like my office wallpaper, btw) with his
solid whit
I stand corrected. Here is a CSS-only lightbox, similar to your
example, that works through ingenious use of the object element
(iframe for IE): http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/object-gallery.html
Amazing!
~Chetan
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Chetan Crasta wrote:
> Here is another one http://w
Here is another one http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/gallery.html
~Chetan
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Chetan Crasta wrote:
> A CSS-only lightbox will have many limitations. You cannot have the
> same functionality as the example you gave, with only CSS2.
> However, here is one good implementati
A CSS-only lightbox will have many limitations. You cannot have the
same functionality as the example you gave, with only CSS2.
However, here is one good implementation of a css-only lightbox
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/lightbox-hover.html
~Chetan
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Matthew P. John
38 matches
Mail list logo
