Re: [WSG] make poverty history website

So. On 5/19/05, Andy Budd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nancy Johnson wrote: > > > Is it true that the W3C has not done a spec for Flash? If that is so > > why? > > Because Flash is a proprietary product! > > > Yours > > Andy Budd > > http://www.andybudd.com/ > 01273 241355 > 07880 636677 >

Re: [WSG] cross-platform font consistency

Scott Reston wrote: http://www.capstrat.com/development/ncac/template-home.html) I've tried defining the text with a pixel size: font-size: 9px; and with a relative size: font-size: .75em; (the body container is set at 76%) But both attempts yield similar results - on mac browsers, the menu is

Re: [WSG] Site check - last... ADMIN WARNING

>> Yes it is. It's also quite dumb. > > Respect is rarely dumb. This is no exeption. When the defaults are > honored, everyone who cares can be a winner. WARNING Please do not let this discussion sink any further or the thread will be closed. The font size discussion is interesting and releva

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Felix Miata wrote: Outside web development discussion groups, the people over 40 I've personally come in contact with are almost unanimous in complaining most web sites have text that is too small, And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the default size of the text displa

Re: [WSG] make poverty history website

Nancy Johnson wrote: Is it true that the W3C has not done a spec for Flash?  If that is so why? Because Flash is a proprietary product! Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 Come see me speak at @Media2005 in London, England, 9-10th Jun. ***

[WSG] cross-platform font consistency

I'm working on a site design where I'm trying to use a styled list for navigation (I've posted a snippet at http://www.capstrat.com/development/ncac/template-home.html) I'm finding that my usual technique for getting the text-size to be similar cross-platform is working for *most* of the text elem

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Tom Hamshere wrote: > Felix Miata wrote: > > Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the > > default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both: > > 1-most others have the same need, and, 2-it is your job to "fix" it for > > them. In spite of the fact t

Re: [WSG] make poverty history website

I still have a question regarding Flash and Accessibility issues.  Is it true that the W3C has not done a spec for Flash?  If that is so why?   I believe that Flash has some accessibility features built in.  How successful are they?   Although Flash does many wonderful things, I have never consid

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/19/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Hamshere wrote: > > > Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without > > degrading it for everybody else. > > Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the > default is too big for you and needs to be

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Patrick Lauke wrote: > Also, compare the default size of 1em in browsers with the default size of > all other OS text (on a plain vanilla install of WinXP, for instance, 100% > in IE 6 looks about 20% larger than any of the text you find in the Start > menu, or even the browser's own menus). So,

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Romily Jones wrote: The BBC's site is a good guide -- they did tons of usability research, ... They did, but the latest update I could find is more than 2 years old. ...not all of it made good read today, although I didn't see anything

RE: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

> Felix Miata > The assumption you made is because the > default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both: > 1-most others have the same need, and, 2-it is your job to > "fix" it for > them. In spite of the fact that it is standard web design > practice, this > is absurd, and

Re: [WSG] Section 508 validation errors

Partick and Mike, thank you. It passed now. Partrick, the example from the usability site is clear and easy to understand - I often fail to understand the same English that is written in W3C site. Tee > > Read up on how to label form elements > http://www.usability.com.au/resources/forms.cfm#l

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

Tom Hamshere wrote: > Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without > degrading it for everybody else. Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both: 1-most others have the same need, and

RE: [WSG] Section 508 validation errors

> tee > Rule: 1.1.2 - All INPUT elements are required to contain the > alt attribute > or use a LABEL. Read up on how to label form elements http://www.usability.com.au/resources/forms.cfm#labelling *That's* what the validator is complaining about. Patrick Patr

RE: [WSG] Section 508 validation errors

Tee, Possibly associate labels: text description Or better still: text description But make sure you don't repeat id's. Mike 2k:)2 Mike Foskett Web Standards, Accessibility & Testing Consultant Mul

[WSG] Section 508 validation errors

Hi, Can you tell me what did I do wrong? * Failure - INPUT Element, of Type TEXT, found at Line: 173, Column: 6 I changed the id to 'value' and it showed different error. Rule: 1.1.2 - All INPUT elements are required to contain the alt attribute or use a LABEL. Below are the input area that

RE: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

The BBC's site is a good guide -- they did tons of usability research, I understand, so the odd time that I get asked by a client about the size of text on their site, this is the site I refer them to. BTW, this also looks to be the same size as that used on the WSG site. I find that 82% on the bo

Re: [WSG] Site Check

>> I'd also like if mac users tested it on safari and ie5/mac. In the 0s9 version of ie5mac the top buttons have are slightly offset from the background image. maybe only a pixel or two, so when you roll over they jump a wee bit. not much though.

Re: [WSG]-font size- lastminute.com

regarding the balance between type readability and aesthetics in general and with this site. I think that large blocks of text should be comfortable to read for everyone maybe at the expense of aesthetics, but in this case its only small amounts of type that can be read quickly and wont cause disc

Re: [WSG] Site check - lastminute.com

On 5/19/05, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bingo! You just got you first complaint. True. Walked in to that one, didn't I :) Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without degrading it for everybody else. -- Tom Hamshere ***

Re: [WSG] Site Check

Other than a 1px show-though of white on your header in IE, looks good on the mac browsers. I sent you a few PDF screen caps offlist. The white issue on IE doesn't show up in the caps...happens depending on the width the browser window is. Should be a quick and easy fix. ~MD On May 19, 2005,

Re: [WSG] Site Check - brunotorres.net

On 19 May 2005, at 4:36 PM, Bruno Torres wrote: Hello. I'd appreciate mush if you take a look at my weblog (http://www.brunotorres.net/) and tell me your opinions. I did some changes in the layout and want to know if others like it as I do. I'd also like if mac users tested it on safari and ie5/ma