Re: [WSG] Accessibility Transcripts for Audio and Video

Hi Jennie, Granted it was at the product launch of CS4 for Adobe, but one of the items they promoted was a feature in their sound program "Soundbooth" that did just this. It certainly appeared convincing, but as I say, it was a promotion night! There didn't seem to be any suggestion that it couldn'

[WSG] Accessibility Transcripts for Audio and Video

I was interested in finding out if anyone has had experience with transcripts for audio and video to meet accessibility standards. Did you do them yourself? How hard or easy was it? Can you recommend a technique, advice or anything to assist with this process? >From what I can work out it is a

Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Breton Slivka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But on the other side, I'm not sure how many people use add ons like "no >> flash" or "no script" and there's no way to find out. >> >> Cheers, >> Johan >> > > Yes, there IS a way to find out: Compare server logs with whi

Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

> But on the other side, I'm not sure how many people use add ons like "no > flash" or "no script" and there's no way to find out. > > Cheers, > Johan > Yes, there IS a way to find out: Compare server logs with which people actually executed the "analytics" script. I just haven't seen any impleme

Re: [WSG] google and validation

Brett Patterson wrote: So, Gunlaug, in essence, (essence being the operative word), you do validate your site by using tidy? Correct? I mean if you trust tidy to correct your code and all the code that tidy puts out is, as you say, 99.9% effective then that is kinda like validating, right? Pr

Re: [WSG] google and validation

And Ben, are you saying you validate or not? I aim for sites to validate unless there's an immovable reason why not (unmodifiable third party code, legally locked code, unable to prevent users creating errors, etc). So I suppose for your scenario the simpler answer is just "yes", because the code'

Re: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

True indeed, I'd never really checked on my google analytics what the values actually were. Here we go: 95.4% using flash 9 1.8% using 8 0.7% using 7 1.1% using with no flash The rest with 6 and some other beta/lite versions Flash 10 wasn't even in the list though. Not yet... I'm not sure how r

RE: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

Return Receipt Your RE: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future? document:

Re: [WSG] google and validation

On Oct 18, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Brett Patterson wrote: I understand what you are saying to a degree. But what YOU don't understand is that by validating a page, you are more ensured that your page will work for everyone. So it is an easy fix, but it has nothing to do with embedding Google cal

RE: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

Kerry I agree with you there - while 99% of computers online may have access to flash 2 or 3 some higher (of course) I think that we would be extremely hard pressed to find a majority of online machines with flash above flash 8. Myself, a web developer, only has flash 8 on my machine (I don't code

RE: [WSG] Flash replace Javascript in Future?

Johan Douma wrote: > Flash is on 99.9% of the computers. Which is the sort of claim made often by Adobe. But, if we're talking about a recent version of Flash on 99.9% of computers, that's a different matter. Kerry --- This

Re: [WSG] min-might question

On Oct 18, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote: Hi Tee, If you're willing to replace the table with some junk markup (spans for companion columns), you could try this approach: http://tjkdesign.com/test/tee.asp Hi Thierry, thank you so much! One new technique learned :) I will try

Re: [WSG] labels as input wrappers + in place of legend

> >>> >> >> I have an obsession with web form styling - I cannot stand ugly web form >> :-) >> >> >> >> >> Fieldset, label and input tags are enough for basic and nice styling, no >> extra div needed. >> >> >>Contact Information >> xyz >> >> >> >> That is f

Re: [WSG] google and validation

So, Gunlaug, in essence, (essence being the operative word), you do validate your site by using tidy? Correct? I mean if you trust tidy to correct your code and all the code that tidy puts out is, as you say, 99.9% effective then that is kinda like validating, right? And Ben, are you saying you va

Re: [WSG] labels as input wrappers + in place of legend

My boots.com does not redirect to that URL.Try this insted: http://www.boots.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/TopCategoriesDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10052 Cheers, Jason On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:47 PM, <[EM

Re: [WSG] Big Browsing Issues on clients PC Laptop AOL

Validate your CSS - there area few errors that may be to blame. >From the validator: URI : http://www.dianebrinker.com/styles.css 16 #contentProperty opacity doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in [css3] : 0.8 17 #contentParse Error opacity=80)

Re: [WSG] labels as input wrappers + in place of legend

- Original Message - From: "Jason Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Boots.com is one of the most 'formsy' web sites out there. I suggest you sign up for it and try to see what has been done there..." Regards. boots.com redirects to "bootsus.bri-global.com/" - is this the site you were re

Re: [WSG] google and validation

Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend extra > time making a validation error free page for the sake of validation when > third party's code is embedded. Surely the above example is an easy fix, but > how about embedding google calendar or other scripts? > Wherever possi