A while back I was part of the MACCAWS team (http://www.maccaws.org)
which did a pretty good job (IMHO) of creating a document that could
be used to make a commercial case for adoption of web standards.
The advent of WCAG 2 and it's apparently almost impossible to
understand language makes me
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
A while back I was part of the MACCAWS team (http://www.maccaws.org)
which did a pretty good job (IMHO) of creating a document that could
be used to make a commercial case for adoption of web standards.
The advent of WCAG 2 and it's appar
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
However, I'm not saying a wiki would be completely useless. One could
be used for people to document specific techniques and ideas, but use a
mailing list to discuss and develop the actual spec translation.
would this be a good use of http://www.writeboard.com/ ?
like a w
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
As helpful as translations/revisions here may be, they should be fed
back to the W3C directly.
But aren't they stuck with the problem of writing for device and
technology independence?
My suggestion and hope, was that this community could create a
document(s) that a
Jonathan Carter wrote:
If anyone has any examples or could help me in getting this
result, I would greatly appreciate it.
Why does it have to be a list?
would a series of floated divs not work as well?
**
The discussion list for http://web
Justin Carter wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why does it have to be a list?
would a series of floated divs not work as well?
Divs would work, but since navigation is basically a list anyway it
makes sense to use elements which have a more semantic meaning,
Jonathan Carter wrote:
That would be the my desired way of doing it, but like I said, the list
is generated dynamically, it's not static HTML. There could be any
number of list items that are displaying any image that is uploaded by
the user, so I wouldn't know what image to make as the backgro
Bojana Lalic wrote:
Is this valid css and if not what’s wrong with it:
font: 2.2em/1.5;
the 2.2em/1.5 bit is okay and says font-sze 2.2em line height 1.5
times that...
(see:
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2006/02/08/unitless-line-heights/
Eric's Archived Thoughts: Unitless line-he
Bojana Lalic wrote:
However, I've got a slight problem now. When printing out the article
that is three pages long (when printed out) the url appears on the first
page. How do I force it to display only on the last page?
Why not put the url for the article at the end of the source code and
se
Bojana Lalic wrote:
The div is the url and I want it to appear at the bottom of the last
page when printed out.
Yes, I was hoping that it would appear at the footer of the page
regardless of how much content is on it.
Is this not possible?
it doesn't look like it.
why not settle for the ur
Jan Brasna wrote:
Outstanding site! That's going to be very helpful to me.
MACCAWS is actually not maintained any longer, lack of time I'd say, but
I hope we'll continue with the spreading of this message worldwide in
WaSP ILG as we have Stef Troeth (of the MACCAWS team) on board.
I think t
Felix Miata wrote:
All you're really doing is trying to guarantee your visitor doesn't get
to see his preferred font-family.
If a user cares that much about what font he sees, won't he have
over-ridden author stylesheet selections in his browser?
isn't CSS about *suggesting* a layout and a
Felix Miata wrote:
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html
can you explain the logic of separating this content into two columns
that are not continuous down the page, but short sections across the page.
I was reading down the left hand column and wondering why it kept
jumping...
;o
Designer wrote:
However, it's a clumsy solution, and not a little tedious to implement.
Is there a more recent (better) way to overcome this?
I'd say:
.imagerow a{
text-decoration: none;
}
would do it.
(in this specific instance)
given that the line you see is the underline for the
Buddy Quaid wrote:
Here is the page in question:
http://tangerinefiles.com/treatyoak/personal.html
for those that are confused, take a look at the page - the on state is
the same as the hover states .
and the over class is applied by the mouseover event in the javascript
to allow IE to use
Tony Crockford wrote:
Buddy Quaid wrote:
Here is the page in question:
http://tangerinefiles.com/treatyoak/personal.html
for those that are confused, take a look at the page - the on state is
the same as the hover states .
and the over class is applied by the mouseover event in the
Daniel Champion wrote:
I've no idea either, but moving the rule:
#mortgage.on
above the rule:
#mortgage
makes it work in IE for me. It shouldn't make any difference (should it?),
but it's IE.
I think it's the fact that all that changes is a background image...
I wish i could find the lin
Tony Crockford wrote:
I wish i could find the link, I'm sure IE won't just do background image
swaps unless something else changes too...
/me goes off to google for the page that explains it...
a mention of it here (referring to a different technique):
http://www.tjkdesign.co
morten fjellman wrote:
Thank you :)
That got me started. I do think the main problem I face is how to make
the menu expand. I was thinking maybe using display hidden to hide the
links when not active. Am I on the right track here, or is JavaScript
the only way to make this work?
if you want
Paul Bennett wrote:
What about using a definition list?
Thanks, but
A) it's a pig to style (I can't seem to get each di to display as a list item for a start
B) it's not really a definition list, semantically
is it really a list item?
given that you have a full paragraph of text and a link
Jackie wrote:
try sticking some line height on the tag like 140% or something.
that might work.
except if the link is long and wraps then you get huge spacing between
the lines..
e.g
this is the link to the
rest of the article
(which is 200% line height, but you get the idea...)
**
Helmut Granda wrote:
I set up my css like this:
*{
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
}
You could try:
/* Remove padding and margin on selected elements*/
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,pre,html,p,div{margin: 0; padding: 0;}
and then only reset margin and padding on the lists you're using for
navigation
Richard Conyard wrote:
It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us
aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because
it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things.
but you can have target_blank without a hack, just not with a strict
doctype.
Rick Faaberg wrote:
It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a
new window is the best way to present the information!
I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list.
in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the
standards and they al
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is
so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this
particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web
Standards can make mistakes. That's
Designer wrote:
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this
discussion is
so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether
this
particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web
Standards can mak
Designer wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
Eh?
if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid.
you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what
are you talking about?
time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration.
;o)
Hi Tony,
AFAIK, the files tha
Matthew Pennell wrote:
The upshot is you can't use Strict when using framesets.
well yes, I thought that was obvious?
but I'm struggling to understand the problem.
the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them "strict"?
and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and
Ian Pouncey wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
> the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them "strict"?
> and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate
> them against a strict DTD?
Why do the framed pages not have a doctype Tony? I can
Designer wrote:
No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.
what doesn't make sense is why you would use a strict doctype for
pages that are included in a frameset?
if you have to use a doctype for the framed pages, use a transitional
one and all will be valid and good...
the
Designer wrote:
XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural
mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together
with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color,
and layout effects you want.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. So
Ken McCormack wrote:
Now, in a big app might have 250 buttons and icons across all dialogs;
if you don't organise your css classes in this kind of hierarchical
manner, then the alternative looks like this:
Save
Cancel
..
Click Me
Interesting idea, but if I have to use a class on every elemen
David Cameron wrote:
I've a mix of both in my coding, and have decided to with one or the
other, and at least maintain continuity. Which?
using double line breaks to give a visual paragraph would seem to go
against purity and semantics, so I prefer the former, but if you're
using double line
I installed IE7 RC1 this morning and checked out my important sites,
where I found a strange problem relating to background images.
(http://www.bclm.co.uk/map.htm - map div only goes part way because
most content is absolutely positioned)
I have since set up a test case for the cause of the pr
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
should an undimensioned div stretch to the full width of its
container or only to the width of its content?
Anyway, it's a construction full of conflicts, so I wouldn't leave it to
the browsers to sort out what the standards say abo
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
http://www.bclm.co.uk/map.htm
Would be nice to know which browsers are rendered this page "correctly"
at the moment, as IE6, Firefox 1.5.0.6 and Opera 9.01 don't seem to
agree on much.
The addition of this...
#maprolloverli
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
...apparently help a bit across browser-land, but it's just a guess and
it isn't complete. So, what is it supposed to look, and behave, like?
Firefox 1.5.0.6 pretty much has it right. (as do other browsers I've
quickly checked - I'll set browsercam on it now...)
Opera
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Probably could do with slightly simpler CSS here and there, like less
use of the entire ID/class chain to target a type of elements inside a
container. Didn't look deep since that's not the real problem this time,
but unless that stylesheet is also behind other pages, it se
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
it is driving every page on the site from the one stylesheet and there
are a lot of list menus, hence the need to specifically identify them.
Makes sense, but how many #maprolloverlist are there? I can only find one.
Example:
#maprolloverlist li
Felix Miata wrote:
This is not a novel position I take. Our web standards organization
agrees with me. http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
yes, but even they specify a font-family:
html, body, h2, h3, h4, div, p, ul, li, input {
font-family: "Gill Sans", "Trebuchet MS", "Gill Sans MT", sans-s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or was it because they have seen one of the readability studies on the
web, and decided that Sans-serif was better on-screen than Serif?
in which case
html, body, h2, h3, h4, div, p, ul, li, input {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
would have been adequate.
someone made
Susie Gardner-Brown wrote:
Ok – here’s the Eric Meyer link -
http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo2.html
I’ve used that for text only, but he has an image that changes.
based on that and various other examples I did something similar here:
http://www.bclm.co.uk/
;o)
***
I understand the limitations of alpha transparency and 24 bit png, but
is it safe to use 8bit png in place of gif files?
which browsers won't display an 8bit png (no transparency, just for the
smaller file size)?
a definitive table would be great...
I've searched, but info is either old or c
L-J Lacey wrote:
--- Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So, would you criticise this as 'not best practice'?
I think the point is that if you decided to change the
left images to the right/top/bottom/etc it would no
longer be semantic, and would potentially be confusing
for you later on, or
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
That said, for my clients, using .left, .right, .center will be more
intuitive.
exactly!
;o)
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't think of a better method for doing what I want it to do.
surely a case for text as images?
make the text you don't want read as an image, with no alt text.
;o)
***
List Guidelines: http://webst
Designer wrote:
OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For example,
many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to put this at
the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests that 'header' is
presentational/positional.
So, what we need is a summary of u
Designer wrote:
I agree. The thing is, if top, middle and bottom are OK, surely left and
right are too? Where do you draw the line?
(my own view is that they probably are OK - like Patrick said,
pragmatism is the order of the day here, surely?)
I think so...
until we get a algorithm built
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
Designer writes:
I agree. The thing is, if top, middle and bottom are OK, surely left
and right are too? Where do you draw the line?
(my own view is that they probably are OK - like Patrick said,
pragmatism is the order of the day here, surely?)
In my current projec
John 'Max' Maxwell wrote:
I next want to look at full disabled access etc - can anyone recommend a
solid and well represented, up to date resource for this area of web
design?? Please do not say google it - I want advice from people who
have used it - there are websites and even published book
Tom Livingston wrote:
On 9/13/06 2:25 AM, "Kepler Gelotte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since IE 6.0 doesn't support min-width, you need to use (a CSS invalid)
expression:
min-width: 800px;
width: width:expression((document.documentElement.offsetWidth <
820)? "800px": "auto" );
Couldn't you
Says the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6090418.stm
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Designing a more accessible web
please send comments to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6041492.stm#Email
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Send us your comments
;o)
Rahul Gonsalves wrote:
There is no mention of flash being *more* accessible than websites laid
out with style sheets.
Do avoid quoting articles out of context.
My subject was a question, because I felt that the article made it
appear that using CSS was inappropriate and difficult to use for
Rob Kirton wrote:
The very first post had a link to the BBC which invited comments.
I followed this and posted the message. I suggest we all do the same
(or similar) the message may stick
or a direct approach?
http://www.talentnetwork.co.uk/team/team_katie.html
;o)
Christian Montoya wrote:
Otherwise I
will just have to keep on assuming that these specters don't exist.
There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not
respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than
default.
does that count?
*
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 11/2/06, Tony Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
> Otherwise I
> will just have to keep on assuming that these specters don't exist.
There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not
respecting your user
Just to clear up my confusion.
I've been in the habit of setting font-size on body to 100.01% because
AIUI it stops IE doing silly small font sizes when you use ems elsewhere
and the .01 is for Opera and a weird rounding issue.
recently I picked up the habit of setting body to 62.5% from
htt
Felix Miata wrote:
Consider asking the client if he has troubled himself to appropriately
adjust his own browser(s) so that unstyled text is the size he prefers.
Once he understands that this is the right thing to assume everyone has
done, even though some subset of the universe actually goes to
Nick Roper wrote:
Have looked at resources on the WSG site and also punted around on the
web and tried Amaya, CSSED etc, but any input from out there would be
appreciated.
You might take a look at Aptana
http://www.aptana.com/
Aptana: The Web IDE
it's javascript focussed but does HTML and CS
Nick Roper wrote:
Hi Tony,
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I did wonder about running topstyle under
crossover/wine on the Linux box. Don't think topstyle does
code-collapsing though, which would be particularly handy sometimes in
large xhtml docs.
Agreed, it's one thing that it doesn't do.
Susie Gardner-Brown wrote:
I'm mostly wanting to explain/show what can be done using CSS instead of
actual images, so their design takes advantage of what CSS has to offer,
and doesn't have to use graphic images to create the effect they want to
achieve.
Dunno if that's any clearer ...
I
Susie Gardner-Brown wrote:
Thanks everyone - good discussion, suggestions and links!
I found the link I was planning to post with my last email:
http://leftjustified.net/site-in-an-hour/
hth
;o)
--
Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/
Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7
Barney Carroll wrote:
?
& @import?
Which do you use, for what, and why?
here's what I do: