I'm relatively new to style sheets but I've been unable to find the answer
to a - hopefully - simple question. Is it valid to use more than one <LINK
REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document. Basically I'm working on a web site with
several different sections so I'm hoping to create one external global style
sheet and seperate external style sheets for each section.

It does seem to work, but is it against the rules?

TIA

Ken Davies

Ken Davies wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm relatively new to style sheets but I've been unable to find the answer
> to a - hopefully - simple question. Is it valid to use more than one <LINK
> REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document. Basically I'm working on a web site with
> several different sections so I'm hoping to create one external global style
> sheet and seperate external style sheets for each section.
>
> It does seem to work, but is it against the rules?[/color]

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.4

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Ken Davies wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm relatively new to style sheets but I've been unable to find the answer
> to a - hopefully - simple question. Is it valid to use more than one <LINK
> REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document. Basically I'm working on a web site with
> several different sections so I'm hoping to create one external global style
> sheet and seperate external style sheets for each section.
>
> It does seem to work, but is it against the rules?[/color]

It's fine:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.4

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Many thanks, that's going to make the project considerably easier....

Ken

"Mark Tranchant" <mark@tranchant.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4152b1a4$0$42248$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...[color=blue]
> Ken Davies wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I'm relatively new to style sheets but I've been unable to find the
>> answer to a - hopefully - simple question. Is it valid to use more than
>> one <LINK REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document. Basically I'm working on a
>> web site with several different sections so I'm hoping to create one
>> external global style sheet and seperate external style sheets for each
>> section.
>>
>> It does seem to work, but is it against the rules?[/color]
>
> It's fine:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.4
>
> --
> Mark.
> http://tranchant.plus.com/
>[/color]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:00:35 +0100, Ken Davies wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm relatively new to style sheets but I've been unable to find the answer
> to a - hopefully - simple question. Is it valid to use more than one <LINK
> REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document.[/color]

It sure is. In fact, CSS is more subtle and powerful
than you may first realize. Take this for example..

<link rel=stylesheet type="text/css" href="/files/old_safe_codes.css">
<style type="text/css">
@import "/files/all.css";
@import "/files/ltable.css";
@import "/files/gen_codes.css";
@import "/files/print.css" media='print';
</style>

The first is a stylesheet for very old browsers,
it sets foreground and BG color, and font size (100%).

The following stylesheets will not be picked up by
old browsers at all. I had to hide most of it because
it could destroy (as in, crash) the old browsers.

The next 4.. (I am not sure I have the fourth correct,
though somebody will be along in a moment to correct
me if I am wrong ;-) are even more interesting.

The first is a stylesheet that is common to all
my sites, it does thing like reduce the font size
of menus to 90%. The next two either add to, or,
in some case *override* earlier stylesheets as
appropriate to a page. I have one stylesheet,
for example, that 'prettifies' Java code samples,
I import it for any peage with a code smple, but
leave it out otherwise.

The last can make your site printer friendly,
without the extra effort of creating a separate
page!

With the added support of child selectors, and
many other quite clever inheritance and overriding
powers in the presentation of content, you will
find yourself so immersed in the power of *cascading*
style sheets that.. you will need to remind yourself
occasionally that there are browsers like NN4.8
that will get only ..FG and BG colors and standard
font size, while text browsers will get ..content.

HTH (begin the journey..)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.lensescapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane

Wow, many thanks for the comprehensive response. At the moment I'm juggling
the compatibility versus features problem for my companies web site
(www.ivojo.co.uk). According to our site stats 95% of the browsers visiting
are most recent editions (although for some reason a lot of people are still
using Netscape 4) so should be compatible with most CSS. Is there a site
listing browser compatilibity, which would make the job a bit easier?

A note to all that read: my apologies if I'm asking questions that I should
be digging out answers for myself but I'm not a full time web designer, it's
something I do amongst the various other stuff as part of my job so I'm
picking it up as I go along.

Best regards,

Ken Davies


"Andrew Thompson" <SeeMySites@www.invalid> wrote in message
news:1q9a0ao8iq006.co71q77uqfb3.dlg@40tude.net...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:00:35 +0100, Ken Davies wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I'm relatively new to style sheets but I've been unable to find the
>> answer
>> to a - hopefully - simple question. Is it valid to use more than one
>> <LINK
>> REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document.[/color]
>
> It sure is. In fact, CSS is more subtle and powerful
> than you may first realize. Take this for example..
>
> <link rel=stylesheet type="text/css" href="/files/old_safe_codes.css">
> <style type="text/css">
> @import "/files/all.css";
> @import "/files/ltable.css";
> @import "/files/gen_codes.css";
> @import "/files/print.css" media='print';
> </style>
>
> The first is a stylesheet for very old browsers,
> it sets foreground and BG color, and font size (100%).
>
> The following stylesheets will not be picked up by
> old browsers at all. I had to hide most of it because
> it could destroy (as in, crash) the old browsers.
>
> The next 4.. (I am not sure I have the fourth correct,
> though somebody will be along in a moment to correct
> me if I am wrong ;-) are even more interesting.
>
> The first is a stylesheet that is common to all
> my sites, it does thing like reduce the font size
> of menus to 90%. The next two either add to, or,
> in some case *override* earlier stylesheets as
> appropriate to a page. I have one stylesheet,
> for example, that 'prettifies' Java code samples,
> I import it for any peage with a code smple, but
> leave it out otherwise.
>
> The last can make your site printer friendly,
> without the extra effort of creating a separate
> page!
>
> With the added support of child selectors, and
> many other quite clever inheritance and overriding
> powers in the presentation of content, you will
> find yourself so immersed in the power of *cascading*
> style sheets that.. you will need to remind yourself
> occasionally that there are browsers like NN4.8
> that will get only ..FG and BG colors and standard
> font size, while text browsers will get ..content.
>
> HTH (begin the journey..)
>
> --
> Andrew Thompson
> http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
> http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
> http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
> http://www.lensescapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane
>[/color]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:21:39 +0100, Ken Davies wrote:
[color=blue]
> Wow, many thanks for the comprehensive response.[/color]

You're welcome. To repay the favor, might you
consider a different way of posting replies?

Folks round here generally prefer you to put
comments straight after what you reply to, and
trim the rest, like I will do below..
[color=blue]
> "Andrew Thompson" <SeeMySites@www.invalid> wrote in message ...[color=green]
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:00:35 +0100, Ken Davies wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> ..Is it valid to use more than one ..STYLESHEET..... in a document.[/color]
>>
>> It sure is. In fact, CSS is more subtle and powerful
>> than you may first realize.[/color][/color]
<snip>[color=blue]
>..At the moment I'm juggling
> the compatibility versus features problem for my companies web site
> (www.ivojo.co.uk).[/color]

Always an important consideration, especially for
a site that does business and (speculating) might
be more compelled to comply with accessibility
requirements.
[color=blue]
>..According to our site stats 95% of the browsers visiting
> are most recent editions (although for some reason a lot of people are still
> using Netscape 4)[/color]

That is not entirely clear to me. Are yo saying
up to 5% of your visitors are using NN4 variants?

If 1 in 20 of my customers had a particular condition
that made entry to the business difficult, I would
consider that a serious concern.

I am tending towrds the KISS principle here..

* ..Keep It Simple, Stupid. ;-)
[color=blue]
>..so should be compatible with most CSS. Is there a site
> listing browser compatilibity, which would make the job a bit easier?[/color]

...hmmm. Others might better guide you to
specific sites/keywords for that, but I
will simply end with some general tips.

* Ensure your content renders logically
with no styles at all, so using logical
HTML elements to mark-up your content is
an important foundation.
* It is important to test, I generally try for
NN4.8, (late) IE, Opera, Moz.
* and a critiques here, these folks will help
you shake a lot of the sillyness out of your CSS
if you give them a quick example of what your
are attempting.
<http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/help_us_help_you.htm>

* Check the FAQ
<http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.html>
(you might find section 5 links to
resources re browser compatibility)
[color=blue]
> ..I do amongst the various other stuff as part of my job so I'm
> picking it up as I go along.[/color]

Careful. It's habit forming. ;-)

HTH

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.lensescapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane

"Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4152ab02$1_5@127.0.0.1>...
[color=blue]
> Is it valid to use more than one <LINK REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document?[/color]
[ ... ]
[color=blue]
> It does seem to work, but is it against the rules?[/color]

You could submit a file with two or three LINK tags to
http://validator.w3.org and find out yourself.

--
Eric Pement

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:21:39 +0100, Ken Davies wrote:[color=blue]
> You're welcome. To repay the favor, might you
> consider a different way of posting replies?
>
> Folks round here generally prefer you to put
> comments straight after what you reply to, and
> trim the rest, like I will do below..[/color]

Fair enough.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> "Andrew Thompson" <SeeMySites@www.invalid> wrote in message ...[color=darkred]
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:00:35 +0100, Ken Davies wrote:[/color][/color][/color]

<snip>
[color=blue][color=green]
>>..At the moment I'm juggling
>> the compatibility versus features problem for my companies web site
>> (www.ivojo.co.uk).[/color]
>
> Always an important consideration, especially for
> a site that does business and (speculating) might
> be more compelled to comply with accessibility
> requirements.
>[/color]

This is the conundrum I imagine a lot of people here face. I've just taken
another look at our stats and I made a mistake in my previous post:

93% IE 5 or 6
6% Netscape 5x

and the rest taken up by Opera, Konqueror and older browsers.

The issue is redeveloping a site that evolved over the last 5 years to
become a bit of a mess into something that will be easier to keep up to
date, easier (hopefully) for spiders to index against keeping it compatible
with a very small number of older browsers. Bearing in mind our customers
tend to be fairly technically minded (thats the sort of stuff we sell) and
most seem to have relatively up to date browsers (as born out by the figures
above) we should be able make fairly extensive use of CSS. From a long term
point of view, the search engine question is foremost in my mind. If we have
a site that indexes easier, will this improve our ranking and make up for
older browsers having difficulty rendering the page?

<snip>[color=blue]
>
> * Ensure your content renders logically
> with no styles at all, so using logical
> HTML elements to mark-up your content is
> an important foundation.[/color]

Do you mean by this, continue to use tables for positioning and use CSS for
the rest? Finding the balance here strikes me as the most difficult task.
For example, if you remove the styling from a table element and put them in
a style sheet then your code is improved somewhat but your page looks a mess
in non-compliant browsers but if you leave it in the table element then the
code continues looking a mess.....I can see this may take me a while.
[color=blue]
> * It is important to test, I generally try for
> NN4.8, (late) IE, Opera, Moz.[/color]

I'm using Opera because I'd heard it was the least tolerant for sloppy code,
IE and I've just downloaded Firefox, which we may our standard in the
office.
[color=blue]
> * and a critiques here, these folks will help
> you shake a lot of the sillyness out of your CSS
> if you give them a quick example of what your
> are attempting.
> <http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/help_us_help_you.htm>
>
> * Check the FAQ
> <http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.html>
> (you might find section 5 links to
> resources re browser compatibility)[/color]


I'll do my best to follow the guidelines. Thanks for the links.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> ..I do amongst the various other stuff as part of my job so I'm
>> picking it up as I go along.[/color]
>
> Careful. It's habit forming. ;-)[/color]

Found that out already...........

Ken

Thanks, other replies have confirmed it's okay but I'll use the validator
before I post next time.

Ken


"Eric Pement" <pemente@northpark.edu> wrote in message
news:227a55e9.0409230633.1d930414@posting.google.c om...[color=blue]
> "Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<4152ab02$1_5@127.0.0.1>...
>[color=green]
>> Is it valid to use more than one <LINK REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document?[/color]
> [ ... ]
>[color=green]
>> It does seem to work, but is it against the rules?[/color]
>
> You could submit a file with two or three LINK tags to
> http://validator.w3.org and find out yourself.
>
> --
> Eric Pement
>[/color]

"Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> writes:[color=blue]
> This is the conundrum I imagine a lot of people here face. I've just taken
> another look at our stats and I made a mistake in my previous post:
>
> 93% IE 5 or 6
> 6% Netscape 5x[/color]

1) You may wish to get a better web stats tool - there is no such
thing as Netscape 5. I suspect it may also therefore be
misidentifying other browsers as IE.

2) http://www.analog.cx/docs/webworks.html
(Summary: Web stats are unreliable)

--
Chris

Interesting read but I have a couple of thoughts regarding the browser
statistics. As far as NN5: Could this be AOL? I know when they bought
Netscape they continued using Explorer but has this changed at some point?
As far as masking which browser you're using, the document makes it clear
that this is possible but I wonder first how many people know this (users
rather than web professionals) and second even if users know, how many
people would actually do it? If you're using Explorer and you don't like
Microsoft then you may decide to disguise yourself as say Opera but if
you're using Opera, why disguise your browser as Explorer or anything else?
If there's any weight to this thought and Explorer users are disguising
themselves as something else then this implies that there are even more
people using Explorer than the stats suggest.

Having said that, I'm quite willing (though disappointed) to accept that
these figures could be way out as the webworks document does make it clear
that tracking is virtually impossible.

Many thanks for posting and it's certainly been an eye opener.

All the best,

Ken

"Chris Morris" <c.i.morris@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:87vfe53rr6.fsf@dinopsis.dur.ac.uk...[color=blue]
> "Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> writes:[color=green]
>> This is the conundrum I imagine a lot of people here face. I've just
>> taken
>> another look at our stats and I made a mistake in my previous post:
>>
>> 93% IE 5 or 6
>> 6% Netscape 5x[/color]
>
> 1) You may wish to get a better web stats tool - there is no such
> thing as Netscape 5. I suspect it may also therefore be
> misidentifying other browsers as IE.
>
> 2) http://www.analog.cx/docs/webworks.html
> (Summary: Web stats are unreliable)
>
> --
> Chris
>[/color]

Quoth the raven Ken Davies:

<snip>[color=blue]
> Do you mean by this, continue to use tables for positioning and use
> CSS for the rest? Finding the balance here strikes me as the most
> difficult task.[/color]

It is a learning process. Once you 'figure it out' it all becomes
very, very easy.
[color=blue]
> For example, if you remove the styling from a table
> element and put them in a style sheet then your code is improved
> somewhat but your page looks a mess in non-compliant browsers but[/color]

I feel strongly that your visitors with "non-compliant" browsers will
number far less than 1%, after you subtract the bots. The bots don't
care a whit about your styling. In fact, the less styling mixed with
the HTML, the better.

If you page does look a real mess with CSS turned off (Opera is good
for testing this), then you have made other, more serious mistakes.

To qualify "real mess": it would be a mess if your content did not
appear in some sort of rational top-to-bottom layout. So, write your
code in a linear manner where that doesn't happen. This is a good test:
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html
[color=blue]
> if you leave it in the table element then the code continues
> looking a mess.....I can see this may take me a while.[/color]

You should strive to move /all/ styling to the CSS style sheet.
[color=blue]
> I'm using Opera because I'd heard it was the least tolerant for
> sloppy code, IE and I've just downloaded Firefox, which we may our
> standard in the office.[/color]

Any one of these browsers would be a better replacement for IE. <g>
....

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty"> Quoth the raven Ken Davies:
<snip>
[color=blue]
> It is a learning process. Once you 'figure it out' it all becomes very,
> very easy.[/color]

I'll try to remeber this when I'm hiding under my desk crying at 3am.

[color=blue]
> I feel strongly that your visitors with "non-compliant" browsers will
> number far less than 1%, after you subtract the bots. The bots don't care
> a whit about your styling. In fact, the less styling mixed with the HTML,
> the better.[/color]

This is what I'm thinking and this 1% is only going to get smaller as time
goes by.
[color=blue]
> If you page does look a real mess with CSS turned off (Opera is good for
> testing this), then you have made other, more serious mistakes.
>
> To qualify "real mess": it would be a mess if your content did not appear
> in some sort of rational top-to-bottom layout. So, write your code in a
> linear manner where that doesn't happen. This is a good test:
> http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html[/color]

This is one of the problems I'm pondering. If I use CSS positioning then I
can move the code for navigation to the bottom of the source whilst still
having it appear at the top left. This will move the pages actual content
further up the source, so making the content - hopefully - more search
engine friendly but, if I follow this route, then any browser which is not
compatible will have all the navigation at the bottom of the page. The
alternative (and I'm always open to suggestions) is to use table trickery to
have the nav code at the end of the source but appearing at the start of the
page.

<snip>
[color=blue]
> Any one of these browsers would be a better replacement for IE. <g>[/color]

Can't argue with that....

"Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> wrote in news:41530250_5@127.0.0.1:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> To qualify "real mess": it would be a mess if your content did not
>> appear in some sort of rational top-to-bottom layout.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> This is one of the problems I'm pondering. If I use CSS positioning
> then I can move the code for navigation to the bottom of the source
> whilst still having it appear at the top left. This will move the
> pages actual content further up the source, so making the content -
> hopefully - more search engine friendly but, if I follow this route,
> then any browser which is not compatible will have all the navigation
> at the bottom of the page. The alternative (and I'm always open to
> suggestions) is to use table trickery to have the nav code at the end
> of the source but appearing at the start of the page.[/color]

Use either:
- "skip to content" link
- Navigation stuff
- Content
or
- "skip to navigation" link
- Content
- Navigation stuff
You can use CSS to hide the "skip to" link
from CSS-compliant browsers.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:13:04 +0100, Ken Davies <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"> Quoth the raven Ken Davies:[color=green]
>> It is a learning process. Once you 'figure it out' it all becomes very,
>> very easy.[/color]
>
> I'll try to remeber this when I'm hiding under my desk crying at 3am.[/color]

What did Tom Hanks say in that movie? "There's no crying in web design!"
[color=blue]
> This is one of the problems I'm pondering. If I use CSS positioning then
> I
> can move the code for navigation to the bottom of the source whilst still
> having it appear at the top left. This will move the pages actual content
> further up the source, so making the content - hopefully - more search
> engine friendly but, if I follow this route, then any browser which is
> not
> compatible will have all the navigation at the bottom of the page. The
> alternative (and I'm always open to suggestions) is to use table
> trickery to
> have the nav code at the end of the source but appearing at the start of
> the
> page.[/color]

There's a thread a week or two ago in c.i.w.a.site-design called
"Navigation" where a lot of opinions on this were contributed. Might be a
worthwhile read.

Myself, if the navigation is at all complex, I put it below in the source,
position it to where I want it on the page, and add a "Skip to navigation"
- style link before the content if the user wishes to find a specific
page. That text is positioned offscreen in CSS environments. With
navigation at the top, "Skip to content" is handled the same way, but as
you say getting relevant content closer to the top of the page is better
for both SEO and having more content above the fold for the user.

Quoth the raven Ken Davies:
[color=blue]
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty">
> ...[color=green]
>> To qualify "real mess": it would be a mess if your content did
>> not appear in some sort of rational top-to-bottom layout. So,
>> write your code in a linear manner where that doesn't happen.
>> This is a good test: http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html[/color]
>
>
> This is one of the problems I'm pondering. If I use CSS positioning
> then I can move the code for navigation to the bottom of the source
> whilst still having it appear at the top left. This will move the
> pages actual content further up the source, so making the content -
> hopefully - more search engine friendly but, if I follow this
> route, then any browser which is not compatible will have all the
> navigation at the bottom of the page. The alternative (and I'm
> always open to suggestions) is to use table trickery to have the
> nav code at the end of the source but appearing at the start of the
> page.[/color]

Dave's suggestion of the 'skip link' is a very good idea. Table
trickery is not necessary. My content and menu is inline in the
source, with the menu following the content, and before the footer.

<div class="ahem">
<p>You may go directly to <a title="Navigate" href="#themenu">the
navigation menu</a> after the content.</p>
<hr />
</div>

The CSS for "ahem" is:
..ahem {
display: none;
}

See a sample at this one of my sites: http://fingerlakesbmw.org/

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:00:22 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> <div class="ahem">
> <p>You may go directly to <a title="Navigate" href="#themenu">the
> navigation menu</a> after the content.</p>
> <hr />
> </div>
>
> The CSS for "ahem" is:
> .ahem {
> display: none;
> }
>
> See a sample at this one of my sites: http://fingerlakesbmw.org/
>[/color]

Only problem - a screen reader often won't read display: none elements.
After all, it's reading what the sighted person would get. Positioning
offscreen is a better method, as this will be read.

Quoth the raven Neal:
[color=blue]
> Only problem - a screen reader often won't read display: none
> elements. After all, it's reading what the sighted person would
> get. Positioning offscreen is a better method, as this will be
> read.[/color]

Good idea. I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:38:04 +0100, Ken Davies <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk>
wrote:

[snip]
[color=blue]
> As far as masking which browser you're using, the document makes it
> clear that this is possible but I wonder first how many people know this
> (users rather than web professionals) and second even if users know, how
> many people would actually do it?[/color]

Some browsers make it simple with the settings presented in the
preferences. Others require editing configuration files or the Windows
registry. If you use Opera, spoofing as IE is actually the default!

Unfortunately, a lot of users don't seem to realise there's more than just
IE and Netscape. It gets really depressing when they think that the only
browser is IE. One of my friends thought that. :( I corrected him, of
course.
[color=blue]
> If you're using Explorer and you don't like Microsoft then you may
> decide to disguise yourself as say Opera but if you're using Opera, why
> disguise your browser as Explorer or anything else?[/color]

I don't think the former would happen, but there is certainly reason for
the latter. Plenty of sites written by clueless authors detect the browser
used and reject them if they aren't a common subset. This is usually
because the author is incapable of writing good cross-browser code, so
they allow IE and Netscape only. This site:

<URL:http://www.getelementbyid.com/>

recommended on the Netscape DevEdge website[1] will reject Opera.
Unfortunately, this is because Opera can still be detected in a couple of
ways, but it proves quite nicely why someone would want to spoof another
browser: to try and get around stupidity like this.

There are many browsers. Well over a hundred[2]. A lot of the minor ones,
fearful of being excluded because they're unknown, will pretend to be a
mainstream user agent so their operators can actually use them on the Web.
[color=blue]
> If there's any weight to this thought and Explorer users are disguising
> themselves as something else then this implies that there are even more
> people using Explorer than the stats suggest.[/color]

It's the other way around.

[snip]

Mike


Please don't top-post.

[1] I attempted to point out to Netscape that this site is a bad example
by virtue of the fact that it employs such a terrible approach, but I was
obviously ignored as the link remains.
[2] These are numbers quoted by people I have a lot of confidence in. I
forget if they include different versions of the same browser but even so,
there are minor browsers that few will ever see in person but will
probably find hidden amongst IE statistics.

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

A: It destroys the natural flow of conversation and makes discussions harder
to follow. See http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Ken Davies <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
> If you're using Explorer and you don't like
> Microsoft then you may decide to disguise yourself as say Opera but if
> you're using Opera, why disguise your browser as Explorer or anything else?[/color]

The reason for alternative browsers to spoof mainstream browsers is simple.
If they don't spoof mainstream browsers, then their users are harrassed by
being redirected to pages like these:

http://www.c-a-t.org/get_ie.htm
http://www.geoaccess.com/bsca/po/War...?error=BROWSER
http://www.turbotax.intuit.com/welco...on/browser.htm

See also the Hall of Shame at

http://webtips.dantobias.com/brand-x/useragent.html

Q. What's wrong with Text Over, Fullquote Under (TOFU) posting?
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software."

"Michael Winter" <M.Winter@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote in message
news:opsespyek4x13kvk@atlantis...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:38:04 +0100, Ken Davies <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk>
> wrote:[/color]
[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you're using Explorer and you don't like Microsoft then you may
>> decide to disguise yourself as say Opera but if you're using Opera, why
>> disguise your browser as Explorer or anything else?[/color]
>
> I don't think the former would happen, but there is certainly reason for
> the latter. Plenty of sites written by clueless authors detect the browser
> used and reject them if they aren't a common subset. This is usually
> because the author is incapable of writing good cross-browser code, so
> they allow IE and Netscape only. This site:
>
> <URL:http://www.getelementbyid.com/>
>
> recommended on the Netscape DevEdge website[1] will reject Opera.
> Unfortunately, this is because Opera can still be detected in a couple of
> ways, but it proves quite nicely why someone would want to spoof another
> browser: to try and get around stupidity like this.[/color]

Good grief, I had no idea that sort of thing went on. Went I origionally
learned HTML (mid nineties) it was nigh on impossible to make your code
render the same in pretty much any 2 browsers but at least you tried. It's
hard to believe anyone would reject a browser completely for any reason but
this reminds me of the "Best views with Internet Explorer" days.....

[snip]
[color=blue]
> Please don't top-post.[/color]

Apologies, it's been too long since I've had occasion to post in newsgroups
populated by web authors rather than end users and being in a business which
sells goods over the internet you wouldn't believe how many people we get
phoning us who don't realise that you scroll down to see the rest of the
page. Guess I've got into bad habits.

Ken Davies

"Darin McGrew" <mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:civcl4$gdi$1@blue.rahul.net...[color=blue]
> A: It destroys the natural flow of conversation and makes discussions
> harder
> to follow. See http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html[/color]

Fair enough and apologies, I've spent so long on newsgroups aimed at our
business rather than web design that I've got into some bad habits I need to
shake.

[snip]
[color=blue]
>
> The reason for alternative browsers to spoof mainstream browsers is
> simple.
> If they don't spoof mainstream browsers, then their users are harrassed by
> being redirected to pages like these:
>
> http://www.c-a-t.org/get_ie.htm
> http://www.geoaccess.com/bsca/po/War...?error=BROWSER
> http://www.turbotax.intuit.com/welco...on/browser.htm
>
> See also the Hall of Shame at
>
> http://webtips.dantobias.com/brand-x/useragent.html
>[/color]

Micheal Winter pointed out this issue as well. Having been out of the loop
for so long, I had no idea this sort of thing went on. Thanks for posting
the examples.

Ken

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>[color=green]
>> <div class="ahem">
>> <p>You may go directly to <a title="Navigate" href="#themenu">the
>> navigation menu</a> after the content.</p>
>> <hr />
>> </div>
>>
>> The CSS for "ahem" is:
>> .ahem {
>> display: none;
>> }[/color]
>
> Only problem - a screen reader often won't read display: none elements.
> After all, it's reading what the sighted person would get. Positioning
> offscreen is a better method, as this will be read.[/color]

Better still: lose the "skip to..." link altogether. Chances are your
visitors know how to move around a page.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

I wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> The reason for alternative browsers to spoof mainstream browsers is
>> simple. If they don't spoof mainstream browsers, then their users are
>> harrassed by being redirected to pages like these:
>>
>> http://www.c-a-t.org/get_ie.htm
>> http://www.geoaccess.com/bsca/po/War...?error=BROWSER
>> http://www.turbotax.intuit.com/welco...on/browser.htm[/color][/color]

Ken Davies <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
> Micheal Winter pointed out this issue as well. Having been out of the loop
> for so long, I had no idea this sort of thing went on. Thanks for posting
> the examples.[/color]

It's been going on for quite a while. I remember being told to upgrade to
NN 2, which came out 8 years ago. Even MSIE claims to be "Mozilla" in its
user-agent string.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software."

Quoth the raven Brian:
[color=blue]
> Better still: lose the "skip to..." link altogether. Chances are
> your visitors know how to move around a page.[/color]

Probably many do, but as Ken Davies points out in this thread, people
call his company because they don't even know they can scroll down a
page! (I'm sure that is fairly rare, though. I hope...)

If the content pushed the non-css'd links below the fold, I'd prefer
to keep the skipto there.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Darin McGrew <mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in
news:civcl4$gdi$1@blue.rahul.net:
[color=blue]
> The reason for alternative browsers to spoof mainstream browsers is
> simple. If they don't spoof mainstream browsers, then their users are
> harrassed by being redirected to pages like these:[/color]

Having just today installed the PrefBar extension:
http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
into my copy of Firefox, I decided to try out it's
user agent spoofing feature on the listed sites ;-)
[color=blue]
> http://www.c-a-t.org/get_ie.htm[/color]
http://www.c-a-t.org/ works fine when Firefox pretends
to be "IE 6.0 WinXP".
"Workability is a dynamic new project providing disabled people with
free computer equipment, training and employment support when competing
for jobs. Recent research shows that unemployment of disabled people is
almost three times higher than that of non-disabled people. Computing
awareness influences potential employers, especially if accompanied by
qualifications or documentary evidence."
http://www.c-a-t.org/ redirects after 60 seconds:
<META http-equiv="Refresh" content="60; URL=default1.asp">
From http://www.c-a-t.org/default1.asp
"Here at CAT you will be able to find all the things you would
normally expect to find in a college of learning."
(of course, that's assuming you aren't looking for people who
understand the WWW!)
[color=blue]
> http://www.geoaccess.com/bsca/po/War...?error=BROWSER[/color]
Using firefox, I have no problem accessing:
https://www.mylifepath.com/bsc/provi...welcome2.jhtml
but I'm not going to bother trying ever option to confirm which
one(s) give the above error when the browser isn't IE.
[color=blue]
> http://www.turbotax.intuit.com/welco...on/browser.htm[/color]

A quick look at http://www.turbotax.com/index.php seems to show
pages working in Firefox, but I'm not going to spend any time
trying every option.

Could it be possible that two of these three have actually
made changes and "seen the light"?

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

Dave Patton <spam@trap.invalid> wrote:[color=blue]
> Having just today installed the PrefBar extension:
> http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
> into my copy of Firefox, I decided to try out it's
> user agent spoofing feature on the listed sites ;-)
> [...]
>
> Could it be possible that two of these three have actually
> made changes and "seen the light"?[/color]

Perhaps. Although some of the sites in the hall of shame at
http://webtips.dantobias.com/brand-x/useragent.html let in anything that
calls itself "Mozilla/x.x (compatible; ...)", and only reject browsers that
have the nerve to identify themselves without spoofing of any sort.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Warning: Dates in the calendar are closer than they appear."

On 23 Sep 2004 16:54:37 +0100, Chris Morris <c.i.morris@durham.ac.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> writes:[color=green]
>> 93% IE 5 or 6
>> 6% Netscape 5x[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>1) You may wish to get a better web stats tool - there is no
> such thing as Netscape 5.[/color]

Not officially; but at some point in history there was a release of
Mozilla (for unix? IMMIC) that did identify itself as a version 5 of
Netscape "out of the box".

I do recall a thread we had here (or in ciwah maybe) where this
misleading version numbering for Netscape was discussed.

Tina Holmboe had some input on this and a google search for...

"Tina Holmboe Netscape 5"

....seems to give a few pointers on the subject.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:r_K4d.80738$Kt5.41276@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
[Snip][color=blue]
>
> Probably many do, but as Ken Davies points out in this thread, people call
> his company because they don't even know they can scroll down a page!
> (I'm sure that is fairly rare, though. I hope...)
>[/color]

Here's what keeps me awake at night: If we get calls from people who don't
reaslise you have to scroll down the page to get our phone number then they
must have clicked the Home button to get said phone number where it is at
the top of the page. This leads on to how many people don't call because
they havn't scrolled to the bottom of the page and havn't clicked the Home
button and so give up in frustration because they can't figure out how to
contact us.

So I move our contact details to the header. But, this moves the page
content lower down, making it less relevant as far as search engines are
concerned. Hmm.....

[Snip]

Ken Davies

"Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> writes:[color=blue]
> Interesting read but I have a couple of thoughts regarding the browser
> statistics. As far as NN5: Could this be AOL? I know when they bought[/color]

NN5 is a common misidentification by older (as in - hasn't been
updated since before Netscape 6 was released ~3-4 years ago) stats
programs of any Gecko-based browser. If you look at the UA strings for
Netscape 4 and Mozilla you'll see *why* this happens.

(though apparently there was a 'real' NN5 briefly too - I didn't know that)

--
Chris

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:10:15 +0100, Ken Davies <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Here's what keeps me awake at night: If we get calls from people who
> don't
> reaslise you have to scroll down the page to get our phone number then
> they
> must have clicked the Home button to get said phone number where it is at
> the top of the page. This leads on to how many people don't call because
> they havn't scrolled to the bottom of the page and havn't clicked the
> Home
> button and so give up in frustration because they can't figure out how to
> contact us.[/color]

If a person cannot use a homepage link OR scrollbars, they are going to
have problems with a LOT of sites. As long as your homepage link is clear
and you've done nothing to make it not look like a link, and you haven't
done anything tricky with the scrollbars, I think you're OK. The few users
who can't operate their browser to this extent are not going to another
website, that's for sure...

[color=blue]
> Here's what keeps me awake at night: If we get calls from people who
> don't reaslise you have to scroll down the page to get our phone number
> then they must have clicked the Home button to get said phone number
> where it is at the top of the page. This leads on to how many people
> don't call because they havn't scrolled to the bottom of the page and
> havn't clicked the Home button and so give up in frustration because
> they can't figure out how to contact us.[/color]

I regard it as an *essential* part of practically any website to have a
link called "Contacts" or "Contact us" or similar, in a part of the page
which will be viewed without first having to scroll. This can then link to
a page having all your contact details in one central place. Putting a
phone number only at the end of some pages is asking for trouble.

Read any usability book and you will see the same thing: you must have
Home, Contacts, Search all easily accessible as part of the house style.

[color=blue]
> So I move our contact details to the header. But, this moves the page
> content lower down, making it less relevant as far as search engines are
> concerned. Hmm.....[/color]

I don't think that hypothesis is correct.


Martin

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:39:52 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>It's been going on for quite a while. I remember being told to upgrade to
>NN 2, which came out 8 years ago.[/color]

There was a site somewhere which invited me to upgrade to NN 3 earlier
this year!

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:44:55 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Quoth the raven Brian:
>[color=green]
>> Better still: lose the "skip to..." link altogether. Chances are
>> your visitors know how to move around a page.[/color]
>
>Probably many do, but as Ken Davies points out in this thread, people
>call his company because they don't even know they can scroll down a
>page! (I'm sure that is fairly rare, though. I hope...)[/color]

I suppose it's sort of the equivalent of people ten years ago
overlooking that a desktop PC had to be plugged in to the mains. Hard to
believe, and yet I'm told help-desks had to field that sort of call
regularly.

It really isn't worth trying to design pages to cope with this sort of
problem, just as it is pointless trying to design cars for people who
can't remember which pedal is the accelerator and which the brake [1].
Ensure that most people can use them easily - the others will either
learn quickly enough or give up browsing altogether.


[1] Depress accelerator pedal ... computer-generated voice enquires "are
you sure?" ...

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Stephen Poley wrote:
[color=blue]
> There was a site somewhere which invited me to upgrade to NN 3 earlier
> this year![/color]

That's pretty grim! I was recently told I'd need to "upgrade" my
latest Mozilla installation to "Netscape 6", which shows a strange
kind of blind-spot. Failing which, they said I'd have to use MSIE 5.5
or later. "I couldn't possibly comment".

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:02:10 +0200, Stephen Poley wrote:
[color=blue]
> [1] Depress accelerator pedal ... computer-generated
> voice enquires "are you sure?" ...[/color]

That's not too bad, but I'd worry about..

[2] Depress *break* pedal ... computer-generated voice enquires
"are you sur, su.. su-ur.. sur [System Reboot]" ... ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.lensescapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:[color=blue]
> Quoth the raven Brian:
>[color=green]
>> Better still: lose the "skip to..." link altogether. Chances are
>> your visitors know how to move around a page.[/color]
>
>
> Probably many do, but as Ken Davies points out in this thread, people
> call his company because they don't even know they can scroll down a
> page![/color]

I think he was referring to email. And the problem is that top-posters
are used to seeing quoted material *only* below replies. Thus, when he
used to reply inline, and people saw quoted text at the top, they got
confused. I'm sure that they know to page down on long email messages,
and I'm sure that they know how to page down on long web pages.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

pemente@northpark.edu (Eric Pement) wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Ken Davies" <krdavies@ivojo.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Is it valid to use more than one <LINK REL=STYLESHEET..... in a document?[/color]
> [ ... ]
>[color=green]
> > It does seem to work, but is it against the rules?[/color]
>
> You could submit a file with two or three LINK tags to
> http://validator.w3.org and find out yourself.[/color]

From which you would learn nothing, since a validator doesn't check
the values of attributes like rel="not a stylesheet". Which is a valid
way to link a stylesheet, BTW. (Though only Mozilla will get it
right.)