Nick Cowie wrote:
Katrina
I would serve XHTML and stick to XHTML-Basic or XHTML-MP subset of
features.
Gday Nick,
Thank you for your response :
Which accompanying mime type would you choose for XHTML-Basic?
text/xml
application/xhtml + xml
application/xml
Note: XHTML-MP has it's o
Hi,
You may find the following dotmobi tools helpful:
Free online mobile-readiness report,
http://ready.mobi/launch.jsp?locale=en_EN
Free online mobile emulator,
http://emulator.mtld.mobi/emulator.php
The W3C tests that these are based on is here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/
O
Hi Katrina
I have not done enough research on this, but:
If I creating a site that I expected mobile browsers to visit (ie every site
I create from now) I would use XHTML 1.0 transitional DTD, mime type of
text/html and restrict my XHTML to the XHTML-MP subset and my CSS to the
WCSS subset
If I
On 31/05/2007, at 8:49 AM, kevin mcmonagle wrote:
Are there any safari hacks that validate and will be somewhat
permanent?
I'm curious as to why you need a hack for safari as it's a reasonably
compliant browser. What are you trying to work around?
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
On 31 May 2007, at 05:28:57, Blake wrote:
In a way I could almost take Katrina's thinking a little further wrap
each fieldset in an tag as part of an unordered list of
fieldsets, and insert an additional fieldset into each exisiting li.
Like so...
Keep it up and you'll get your page size back
Keep it up and you'll get your page size back up to nested table
levels ;-)
I was expecting a response like that. As I said, it is over the top,
but it is an idea of how far things can go if you try too hard to
pursue semantics. Sometimes the goal post is a little too far away,
and we can only g
Terrence Wood wrote:
I'm curious as to why you need a hack for safari as it's a reasonably
compliant browser. What are you trying to work around?
Hi Terrence,
In this case its to compliant for my design-which the client has all
ready approved. I didn't foresee this issue and cant change the
On May 31, 2007, at 10:04 PM, kevin mcmonagle wrote:
So i want safari to see
#wrapper
{overflow:auto;}
And I want all other browsers to see
#wrapper
{overflow-y:auto;}
Safari hacks seem to be semi-permanent because when they are found
they are fixed in the lastest version or build of webkit
You may find a lot of real-world info here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
It might not be to everyone's taste, as the group is often critical of
the W3C and its mobile efforts, perceived as choosing theoretical
constructs over what real handsets are out there in the wild..
Hello All,
Posting the following on behalf of Sylvia Edwards, Assistant Dean Teaching &
Learning, Faculty of Information Technology here at Queensland University of
Technology. A number of the papers, posters and presentations being shown at
the symposium discuss accessibility, usability and web
Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?
Thanks in advance.
-Tim
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.
Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website
traffic.
If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether
you still need to c
Hi Jermayn,
Can you send me those examples and I may be able to make the case here
:)
Cheers,
Craig
-
Craig Thomler
Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services
External Relations | Child Support Agency
P 02 627 286
Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few
others which they used as examples...
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am >>>
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites)
as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.
Many si
1024x768 would be my choice.
--
Cem Meric | http://www.kalkadoon.net/
Kalkadoon Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Offenstein
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 1:31 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] R
Ok, I cannot find all of them but hear are a few just we just deal or
have dealt with:
http://www.watercorporation.com.au/index.cfm
http://wa.gov.au
http://www.nrma.com.au (splash screen)
http://www.maa.nsw.gov.au
I am sure there woul dbe more as well
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:51:2
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote:
> Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
> when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?
I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation
doesn't actually break at
At 5/31/2007 08:31 PM, Tim Offenstein wrote:
Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a
baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?
Ideally, I believe the baseline should be no assumption of screen
size. Look at the spectrum of user agents
If you look around the web today you will see the general consensus is
1024x768px.
However, I would have a look at you stats to see what is the most
appropriate for your site. For example my blog 800x600 accounts for less
than 2.5% of the traffic, for my work site it is over 17%. If I was
redesig
There was a huge topic on digg about this (that i started :D ) after
yahoo released their new interface. Lot's of interesting comments in
that thread.
http://digg.com/programming/Is_it_Time_to_Abandon_800x600_
link to blog post (as it has changed since the digg):
http://www.skeymedia.com/prog
Earlier I was suggesting that, instead of stats telling us who to
target, they really tell us who to exclude.
A fellow poster wrote:
my blog 800x600 accounts for less than 2.5% of the traffic
That poster appeared to be advocating for leniency, but let's take
this example of screen resolution
Paul Novitski wrote:
>>Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience...
>>800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen
resolution (window width not >>mentioned). ...
These visitors probably wouldnt notice the difference between an 800 and
1000 wide lay
22 matches
Mail list logo
