468,785 Members | 1,724 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,785 developers. It's quick & easy.

Adding borders...

I have an anchor using a class that defines a hover subclass. The issue is
that the anchor itself doesn't have any border and when hovered it adds a
border, the problem is that when it adds the border, the text gets shifted.
Does anyone have any idea how to correct this issue? I would like to create
a transparrent or invisible border (spacer) so that there's room for the
visible border to appear when needed but I cannot seem to get it to work.
Visit http://callandermats.adconn.com/ and hover over left links to see what
I mean. The style sheet for this is:

..menu{
font-size:12px;
text-decoration:none;
}
..menu:hover{
border-style:groove;
border-width:1;
width=100%;
}

Thanks!
Jul 21 '05 #1
58 5563
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
I have an anchor using a class that defines a hover subclass. The issue is
that the anchor itself doesn't have any border and when hovered it adds a
border, the problem is that when it adds the border, the text gets shifted.
Does anyone have any idea how to correct this issue? I would like to create
a transparrent or invisible border (spacer) so that there's room for the
visible border to appear when needed but I cannot seem to get it to work.
border-color: transparent; or whatever your background colour is if
you have a solid backgound rather than an image.
Visit http://callandermats.adconn.com/
Lots of syntax errors to fix:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ts.adconn.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...1&profile=css2

Anyway, I see no shifting text in either IE6 or Opera 7.54. In Opera
only the left and right borders show up, not the top and bottom ones,
and the links are all different widths (probably because Opera is
correctly ignoring your bogus width, see below).
and hover over left links to see what
I mean. The style sheet for this is:

.menu{
font-size:12px;
text-decoration:none;
}
Pixels are a very bad idea for font-size. Percentages, or not setting
a size at all, are much preferable.
.menu:hover{
border-style:groove;
border-width:1;
1 what?
width=100%;
}


Invalid syntax and width doesn't apply to inline elements so pointless

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #2
Wow the syntax errors are funny. The site is totally valid and I cannot
find one truthfull error in that validator tool.

Oh well. It works.

As for the problem I had, I resolved it by creating a border the same color
as the background.

Thanks,
Jon
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:pa********************************@4ax.com...
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
I have an anchor using a class that defines a hover subclass. The issue
is
that the anchor itself doesn't have any border and when hovered it adds a
border, the problem is that when it adds the border, the text gets
shifted.
Does anyone have any idea how to correct this issue? I would like to
create
a transparrent or invisible border (spacer) so that there's room for the
visible border to appear when needed but I cannot seem to get it to work.


border-color: transparent; or whatever your background colour is if
you have a solid backgound rather than an image.
Visit http://callandermats.adconn.com/


Lots of syntax errors to fix:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ts.adconn.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...1&profile=css2

Anyway, I see no shifting text in either IE6 or Opera 7.54. In Opera
only the left and right borders show up, not the top and bottom ones,
and the links are all different widths (probably because Opera is
correctly ignoring your bogus width, see below).
and hover over left links to see what
I mean. The style sheet for this is:

.menu{
font-size:12px;
text-decoration:none;
}


Pixels are a very bad idea for font-size. Percentages, or not setting
a size at all, are much preferable.
.menu:hover{
border-style:groove;
border-width:1;


1 what?
width=100%;
}


Invalid syntax and width doesn't apply to inline elements so pointless

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #3
Re: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ts.adconn.com/
Jon Glazer <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Wow the syntax errors are funny. The site is totally valid and I cannot
find one truthfull error in that validator tool.


Huh?

You mean that http://callandermats.adconn.com/ isn't missing a bunch of
required attributes (TYPE for STYLE and SCRIPT elements, ALT for IMG
elements)?

That it doesn't use attributes that are not defined in the DTD that it
claims to use (HEIGHT in TABLE and TR elements, BACKGROUND in TD elements)?

That there aren't extraneous <html> and <head> tags in the middle of the
document?

That there aren't missing quotes around attribute values that require
quotes, causing a cascade of problems when the SGML parser tries to parse
the attribute values as markup?
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: TRC's 24th Anniversary (Saturday, February 5)
Jul 21 '05 #4
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:

Upside down posting fixed.
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote :
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
I have an anchor using a class that defines a hover subclass. The issue
is that the anchor itself doesn't have any border and when hovered it adds a
border, the problem is that when it adds the border, the text gets
shifted.
Does anyone have any idea how to correct this issue? I would like to
create a transparrent or invisible border (spacer) so that there's room for the
visible border to appear when needed but I cannot seem to get it to work.
border-color: transparent; or whatever your background colour is if
you have a solid backgound rather than an image.
Visit http://callandermats.adconn.com/


Lots of syntax errors to fix:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ts.adconn.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...1&profile=css2

Wow the syntax errors are funny.


Yeah, there's a certain gallows humour in examining a really badlt
coded web site.
The site is totally valid
It obviously isn't. If it was valid the validator wouldn't have failed
it.
and I cannot find one truthfull error in that validator tool.
Why not? They're all errors and they're all accurately reported.
Oh well. It works.
How many browsers did you test it in? 1? 2? 3? 10? 100?

I've already given you examples of how your poor coding means that the
page doesn't display as you want in Opera and I now see that Firefox
agrees with Opera.

Did you test with images turned off? (obviously not, unless you think
that black text on a black background counts as working) With
stylesheets turned off? With a user stylesheet? With a larger than
normal font size? With a smaller than normal font size? On a speech
browser? With JavaScript turned off? On a Mac? On Unix? Have you tried
printing the page?
As for the problem I had, I resolved it by creating a border the same color
as the background.


Before or after I suggested doing just that? Just curious as to
whether I totally wasted my time.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #5
Right. None of those issues are outstanding problems given that they do not
cause errors on any browser (and I tested 8 different ones).

Alt tags are definitely not a requirement.

"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:cs**********@blue.rahul.net...
Re: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ts.adconn.com/
Jon Glazer <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Wow the syntax errors are funny. The site is totally valid and I cannot
find one truthfull error in that validator tool.


Huh?

You mean that http://callandermats.adconn.com/ isn't missing a bunch of
required attributes (TYPE for STYLE and SCRIPT elements, ALT for IMG
elements)?

That it doesn't use attributes that are not defined in the DTD that it
claims to use (HEIGHT in TABLE and TR elements, BACKGROUND in TD
elements)?

That there aren't extraneous <html> and <head> tags in the middle of the
document?

That there aren't missing quotes around attribute values that require
quotes, causing a cascade of problems when the SGML parser tries to parse
the attribute values as markup?
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: TRC's 24th Anniversary (Saturday, February 5)

Jul 21 '05 #6

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:ln********************************@4ax.com...
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:

Upside down posting fixed.
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote :
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:

I have an anchor using a class that defines a hover subclass. The issue
is that the anchor itself doesn't have any border and when hovered it
adds a
border, the problem is that when it adds the border, the text gets
shifted.
Does anyone have any idea how to correct this issue? I would like to
create a transparrent or invisible border (spacer) so that there's room
for the
visible border to appear when needed but I cannot seem to get it to
work.

border-color: transparent; or whatever your background colour is if
you have a solid backgound rather than an image.

Visit http://callandermats.adconn.com/

Lots of syntax errors to fix:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ts.adconn.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...1&profile=css2

Wow the syntax errors are funny.


Yeah, there's a certain gallows humour in examining a really badlt
coded web site.
The site is totally valid


It obviously isn't. If it was valid the validator wouldn't have failed
it.
and I cannot find one truthfull error in that validator tool.


Why not? They're all errors and they're all accurately reported.
Oh well. It works.


How many browsers did you test it in? 1? 2? 3? 10? 100?

I've already given you examples of how your poor coding means that the
page doesn't display as you want in Opera and I now see that Firefox
agrees with Opera.

Did you test with images turned off? (obviously not, unless you think
that black text on a black background counts as working) With
stylesheets turned off? With a user stylesheet? With a larger than
normal font size? With a smaller than normal font size? On a speech
browser? With JavaScript turned off? On a Mac? On Unix? Have you tried
printing the page?
As for the problem I had, I resolved it by creating a border the same
color
as the background.


Before or after I suggested doing just that? Just curious as to
whether I totally wasted my time.

Steve


OOps sorry steve, forgot to mention that, as I was posting the problem a
possible solution occured to me. You just responded too fast for me to say
I got it fixed. Thanks for the help though!

Jul 21 '05 #7
Oh, and one other simple example, there are not extranious <HEAD> tags in
the document. What it is evidently picking up is some javascript that
controls a separate window. One reason I don't trust these things.

Jon
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:cs**********@blue.rahul.net...
Re: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ts.adconn.com/
Jon Glazer <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Wow the syntax errors are funny. The site is totally valid and I cannot
find one truthfull error in that validator tool.


Huh?

You mean that http://callandermats.adconn.com/ isn't missing a bunch of
required attributes (TYPE for STYLE and SCRIPT elements, ALT for IMG
elements)?

That it doesn't use attributes that are not defined in the DTD that it
claims to use (HEIGHT in TABLE and TR elements, BACKGROUND in TD
elements)?

That there aren't extraneous <html> and <head> tags in the middle of the
document?

That there aren't missing quotes around attribute values that require
quotes, causing a cascade of problems when the SGML parser tries to parse
the attribute values as markup?
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: TRC's 24th Anniversary (Saturday, February 5)

Jul 21 '05 #8
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Alt tags are definitely not a requirement.


Of course they're not, but only because they don't exist.
alt attributes on the other hand are mandatory.

Or is this a private page that no one on the actual WWW wil ever look
at?

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #9
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Oh, and one other simple example, there are not extranious <HEAD> tags in
the document. What it is evidently picking up is some javascript that
controls a separate window. One reason I don't trust these things.


Liar.
The page http://callandermats.adconn.com/
has

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--EzCat Styles-->
<style>
.... bunch of CSS
</style>
<script src="homefade.js"></script>
<html>
<head>

So it does have the <html> and <head> in the middle of the page.

How hard would it be to move them to where they belong?

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #10
Pretty difficult.

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:1q********************************@4ax.com...
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Oh, and one other simple example, there are not extranious <HEAD> tags in
the document. What it is evidently picking up is some javascript that
controls a separate window. One reason I don't trust these things.


Liar.
The page http://callandermats.adconn.com/
has

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--EzCat Styles-->
<style>
... bunch of CSS
</style>
<script src="homefade.js"></script>
<html>
<head>

So it does have the <html> and <head> in the middle of the page.

How hard would it be to move them to where they belong?

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #11
Simple question...does it look ok? I thought so.

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:eh********************************@4ax.com...
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Alt tags are definitely not a requirement.


Of course they're not, but only because they don't exist.
alt attributes on the other hand are mandatory.

Or is this a private page that no one on the actual WWW wil ever look
at?

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #12
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:09:10 GMT, "Jon Glazer"
<jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Right. None of those issues are outstanding problems given that they do not
cause errors on any browser (and I tested 8 different ones).
You are just a bit ignorant, thats all.
Alt tags are definitely not a requirement.


You are absolutely right there since there is nothing in (X)HTML that is
called an 'Alt tag'.

--
Rex
Jul 21 '05 #13
Ignorant?

Highly doubtfull.

You need not put ALT="bla bla bla" (commonly referred as "alt tags") in
images (or img) tags.

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:sc********************************@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:09:10 GMT, "Jon Glazer"
<jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Right. None of those issues are outstanding problems given that they do
not
cause errors on any browser (and I tested 8 different ones).


You are just a bit ignorant, thats all.
Alt tags are definitely not a requirement.


You are absolutely right there since there is nothing in (X)HTML that is
called an 'Alt tag'.

--
Rex

Jul 21 '05 #14
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:eh********************************@4ax.com.. .
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Alt tags are definitely not a requirement.
Of course they're not, but only because they don't exist.
alt attributes on the other hand are mandatory.

Or is this a private page that no one on the actual WWW wil ever look
at?


Simple question...does it look ok?


http://steve.pugh.net/test/callandermats.gif
I thought so.


Yep.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #15
Next time try it with your images turned on like the rest of the world.
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:0q********************************@4ax.com...
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:eh********************************@4ax.com. ..
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:

Alt tags are definitely not a requirement.

Of course they're not, but only because they don't exist.
alt attributes on the other hand are mandatory.

Or is this a private page that no one on the actual WWW wil ever look
at?


Simple question...does it look ok?


http://steve.pugh.net/test/callandermats.gif
I thought so.


Yep.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #16
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Simple question...does it look ok?


http://steve.pugh.net/test/callandermats.gif

Next time try it with your images turned on like the rest of the world.


Is that what you tell blind visitors? Is that what you tell Google? Is
that what you tell people who want to save time and money by only
downloading the images that they think are important? Is that what you
tell people when there's a hiccup on the network and your background
image doesn't get downloaded?

Adding alt attributes and setting a background colour for your content
area is the work of minutes. Your stubborness speaks volumes about how
highly you value your visitors.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #17
Hahhahahhah

Wow, no I don't develop web sites for blind visitors. None of my clients
even consider that as an issue since their products are almost always
visual. Google has never had an issue indexing our pages.

Black is a background color.

So yep your right, I guess I should spend lots of time dealing with issues
that might effect 0.001% of potential visitors (not).

Gotta say that my clients are very happy, some of which make millions of
dollars on their web sites without anyone saying "hey, one of our customers
cannot tell what we have to offer cuz they don't want to download graphics".
Once I get a few comments like that I may devote a bit more time
concentrating on textual sites.

Any more questions?
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:p7********************************@4ax.com...
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:

Simple question...does it look ok?

http://steve.pugh.net/test/callandermats.gif

Next time try it with your images turned on like the rest of the world.


Is that what you tell blind visitors? Is that what you tell Google? Is
that what you tell people who want to save time and money by only
downloading the images that they think are important? Is that what you
tell people when there's a hiccup on the network and your background
image doesn't get downloaded?

Adding alt attributes and setting a background colour for your content
area is the work of minutes. Your stubborness speaks volumes about how
highly you value your visitors.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #18
*Jon Glazer* <jg***************@adconn.com>:

Ignorant?
To such a degree, that it's almost hard to believe you're not trolling.
You need not put ALT="bla bla bla" (commonly referred as "alt tags") in
images (or img) tags.


Let me guess, you've never had an actual look at the HTML specification,
let alone the DTD(s). Guessing again, you probably don't even know where
to find it nor what a DTD is.

F'up2 poster

--
The English language is the result of Norman soldiers
trying to set up dates with Saxon barmaids.
---
A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform.
Jul 21 '05 #19
Yes I know what all that is. Personally I'd prefer to spend my time on
paying and working sites than to nit-pick very little irrelevant details
that do not effect the actual quality of the site nor its functionality.
"Christoph Paeper" <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote in message
news:opskj5msflb8p244@crissov...
*Jon Glazer* <jg***************@adconn.com>:

Ignorant?


To such a degree, that it's almost hard to believe you're not trolling.
You need not put ALT="bla bla bla" (commonly referred as "alt tags") in
images (or img) tags.


Let me guess, you've never had an actual look at the HTML specification,
let alone the DTD(s). Guessing again, you probably don't even know where
to find it nor what a DTD is.

F'up2 poster

--
The English language is the result of Norman soldiers
trying to set up dates with Saxon barmaids.
---
A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform.

Jul 21 '05 #20
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> writes:
Hahhahahhah

Wow, no I don't develop web sites for blind visitors. None of my clients
even consider that as an issue since their products are almost always
visual. Google has never had an issue indexing our pages.

Black is a background color.

So yep your right, I guess I should spend lots of time dealing with issues
that might effect 0.001% of potential visitors (not).

Gotta say that my clients are very happy, some of which make millions of
dollars on their web sites without anyone saying "hey, one of our customers
cannot tell what we have to offer cuz they don't want to download graphics".
Once I get a few comments like that I may devote a bit more time
concentrating on textual sites.

Any more questions?


Are any of your clients in the UK? Because if they are your
are leaving them open to action under the disability
discrimination act.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk
Jul 21 '05 #21
Jon Glazer wrote:
Ignorant?

Highly doubtfull.
Not so much any more ...
You need not put ALT="bla bla bla" (commonly referred as "alt
tags") in images (or img) tags.


Really? Take your pages here, then.
http://validator.w3.org/

Only newbies call them alt tags.

Oh, and please learn how to post. Thanks.
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#upside
Get a news reader that accepts the press of the PageDown key.

open the front cover and begin reading there?
the back cover and end up at the front or do you
chapter one or do you start somewhere near
When reading a book, do you start at

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #22
Well this is pointless. Wasting too many calleries on a worthless
conversation thats entirely opinionated. I make a very good living
developing sites and have been for many many years.

Have fun

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:34*************@individual.net...
Jon Glazer wrote:
Ignorant?

Highly doubtfull.


Not so much any more ...
You need not put ALT="bla bla bla" (commonly referred as "alt
tags") in images (or img) tags.


Really? Take your pages here, then.
http://validator.w3.org/

Only newbies call them alt tags.

Oh, and please learn how to post. Thanks.
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#upside
Get a news reader that accepts the press of the PageDown key.

open the front cover and begin reading there?
the back cover and end up at the front or do you
chapter one or do you start somewhere near
When reading a book, do you start at

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 21 '05 #23
Already responded...this conversation is going no where and does not pertain
to the topic at hand.
"Jón Fairbairn" <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:wf************@calligramme.cl.cam.ac.uk...
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> writes:
Hahhahahhah

Wow, no I don't develop web sites for blind visitors. None of my clients
even consider that as an issue since their products are almost always
visual. Google has never had an issue indexing our pages.

Black is a background color.

So yep your right, I guess I should spend lots of time dealing with
issues
that might effect 0.001% of potential visitors (not).

Gotta say that my clients are very happy, some of which make millions of
dollars on their web sites without anyone saying "hey, one of our
customers
cannot tell what we have to offer cuz they don't want to download
graphics".
Once I get a few comments like that I may devote a bit more time
concentrating on textual sites.

Any more questions?


Are any of your clients in the UK? Because if they are your
are leaving them open to action under the disability
discrimination act.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk

Jul 21 '05 #24
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:53:40 GMT, "Jon Glazer"
<jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Ignorant?
Yes.
Highly doubtfull.


Prove me wrong (if you really know how to).

--
Rex
Jul 21 '05 #25
*Jon Glazer* <jg***************@adconn.com>:

I make a very good living developing sites


That's the point: It's not about you, the author, but about the many
others, whom your work is (or should be) made for.

--
Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on FTP,
and let the rest of the world mirror it. (Linus Torvalds)
Jul 21 '05 #26
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:10:09 GMT, "Jon Glazer"
<jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:ln********************************@4ax.com.. .
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote: [...] Before or after I suggested doing just that?
Just curious as to whether I totally wasted my time.
OOps sorry steve, forgot to mention that, as I was posting the problem a
possible solution occured to me. You just responded too fast for me to say
I got it fixed. Thanks for the help though!


You for one is exactly ignorant, to the base level of the word itself.

Post to usenet, wait for a discussion to start which may give you
several possibilities on how to solve your problem.

DO NOT change the turf for the guys who might be inclined to help you
out (but in your case I doubt you have many of those left here for you).

--
Rex
Jul 21 '05 #27
Jon Glazer wrote:
Well this is pointless. Wasting too many calleries
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,080 for calleries. (0.37 seconds)
on a worthless conversation thats entirely opinionated. I make a
very good living developing sites and have been for many many
years.
You're cheating someone... maybe lots of someones...
Have fun


We are, top-poster.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #28
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:

Post to usenet, wait for a discussion to start which may give you
several possibilities on how to solve your problem.


The given "advices" were not related to Jon's actual question.

Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #29
Jon Glazer.exe failed a Turing test with
Well this is pointless. Wasting too many calleries on a worthless
conversation thats entirely opinionated. I make a very good living
developing sites and have been for many many years.

Have fun


You are William G Schlake and I claim my £5.

Nik

--
I wish to be dissociated from your interpretation of my opinions

Few men think, but all have opinions.
Jul 21 '05 #30
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> wrote:
Wow, no I don't develop web sites for blind visitors. Any more questions?


Nope. I think we've learnt all we need to about you. Bye.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #31
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:

Post to usenet, wait for a discussion to start which may give you
several possibilities on how to solve your problem.


The given "advices" were not related to Jon's actual question.


Yes they bloody well were. The very first response, a mere twenty
minutes after the orginal post gave details of exactly how to solve
the OP's problem. The same solution that the OP had discovered and
implemented himself inside those twenty minutes. With the original
topic out of the way the rest of this thread is a mere diversion, an
opportunity for the OP to show his colours.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #32
> > [Someone who hates the existence of alt attributes writes something]

"Jón Fairbairn" <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:
Are any of your clients in the UK? Because if they are your
are leaving them open to action under the disability
discrimination act.


Or the US (proven by case law), Australia (proven by case law), most
of Europe, etc.

In the UK, at least, companies have been willing to take the sensible
route and settle out of court.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #33
Chris Morris wrote:

most of Europe, etc.


Can you point these out?

Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #34
Steve Pugh wrote:

Yes they bloody well were. The very first response, a mere twenty
minutes after the orginal post gave details of exactly how to solve
the OP's problem. The same solution that the OP had discovered and
implemented himself inside those twenty minutes. With the original
topic out of the way the rest of this thread is a mere diversion, an
opportunity for the OP to show his colours.


Jon asked for a missing border. This was already answered by your first
reply. He did not ask for "nice" advices whether ALT is required or not.
The following posts are just zealotting behaviour.

Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #35
"Jon Glazer" <jg***************@adconn.com> writes:
Wow, no I don't develop web sites for blind visitors. None of my clients
even consider that as an issue
Of course your clients don't consider it as an issue. While (in some
countries, at least with larger companies) public awareness of
legislation and/or actually caring has made some clients ask for
accessibile sites, the majority aren't aware of one or more of:
1) People with disabilities use the web
2) Incompetent coding can make it very difficult for people with
disabilities to use the web
3) There are enough people with disabilities to make it worthwhile

It shouldn't be the client's responsibility to have to explicitly ask
for a site that works properly, just as when I ask for a house to be
built I don't have to explicitly tell the builder "make sure the doors
can be opened and don't use asbestos".

Many years ago, the builder would have had an excuse, because people
didn't know the health risks of asbestos and had servants to open
doors for them.

Many years ago, the web developer would have had an excuse, because
people weren't really aware of the problems of badly-coded sites.
since their products are almost always visual.
Sorry, I forgot that people never buy presents for other people.
So yep your right, I guess I should spend lots of time dealing with issues
that might effect 0.001% of potential visitors (not).
Well, US and RNIB statistics agree that 2-3% of people have some
serious visual disability (not necessarily completely blind) beyond
the extent that glasses, etc can (entirely) correct.
Gotta say that my clients are very happy, some of which make millions of
dollars on their web sites without anyone saying "hey, one of our customers
cannot tell what we have to offer cuz they don't want to download graphics".
Once I get a few comments like that I may devote a bit more time
concentrating on textual sites.


Are your clients happy with the millions of dollars they are making?

Would they feel it was a good investment of money to pay someone
competent a few thousand dollars to increase their potential customer
base by 2-3% [1].

Conversely, if you said "sorry, due to my laziness, I'm going to have
to turn your website off for one week each year", would your clients
be happy? This action would also lose them "only" 2-3% of their
potential customers.

[1] In practice, possibly somewhat more than that, since there may
well be other usability/accessibility issues that could also be fixed,
benefiting a different group of customers.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #36
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:

Yes they bloody well were. The very first response, a mere twenty
minutes after the orginal post gave details of exactly how to solve
the OP's problem. The same solution that the OP had discovered and
implemented himself inside those twenty minutes. With the original
topic out of the way the rest of this thread is a mere diversion, an
opportunity for the OP to show his colours.


Jon asked for a missing border. This was already answered by your first
reply. He did not ask for "nice" advices whether ALT is required or not.
The following posts are just zealotting behaviour.


So what? This is isn't Jon's personal help desk, the fact that Jon is
a stubborn ass who doesn't care about his site's visitors and who has
no intention of improving the appalling quality of his coding doesn't
mean that we can't discuss it.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #37
Steve Pugh wrote:

So what? This is isn't Jon's personal help desk, the fact that Jon is
a stubborn ass who doesn't care about his site's visitors and who has
no intention of improving the appalling quality of his coding doesn't
mean that we can't discuss it.


First of I think you should watch your language!

Secondly, this is certainly not a "personal help desk" and you are not
required to answer at all. BUT IF YOU DO, you have to adhere to the
netiquette. Adding ALT tags might be a "nice to have" (although
especially problematically and rather senseless with small images) but
are certainly not a requirement. After all, who would be in the position
to REQUEST them?

I consider all your insults towards him as much worse than him leaving
out optional tags.

Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #38
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:

So what? This is isn't Jon's personal help desk, the fact that Jon is
a stubborn ass who doesn't care about his site's visitors and who has
no intention of improving the appalling quality of his coding doesn't
mean that we can't discuss it.
First of I think you should watch your language!


You complain about an 'ass' but let the 'bloody' in an earlier message
slide? Okay...
Adding ALT tags might be a "nice to have" (although
especially problematically and rather senseless with small images) but
are certainly not a requirement.
Yes they are. Look at the HTML specification.
After all, who would be in the position to REQUEST them?
Huh?
I consider all your insults towards him as much worse than him leaving
out optional tags.


They're not tags, they're elements and they're not optional.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #39
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> writes:
Chris Morris wrote:
most of Europe, etc.


Can you point these out?


Off the top of my head, no, sorry, it's not something I've
specifically needed to look at. Any country with reasonable disability
discrimination legislation is probably covered to some extent, though.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #40
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote:

I consider all your insults towards him as much worse than him leaving
out optional tags.


They're not tags, they're elements and they're not optional.


Whoops, attributes, not elements.

Oh and I might as well post this at this juncture, 'cos someone else
will if I don't. http://www.flightlab.com/~joe/sgml/faq-not.txt (Part
5)

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #41
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> writes:
Steve Pugh wrote:
So what? This is isn't Jon's personal help desk, the fact that Jon is
a stubborn ass who doesn't care about his site's visitors and who has
no intention of improving the appalling quality of his coding doesn't
mean that we can't discuss it.
Secondly, this is certainly not a "personal help desk" and you are not
required to answer at all. BUT IF YOU DO, you have to adhere to the


As is often said, you can't force anything related to CSS.
netiquette. Adding ALT tags might be a "nice to have" (although
especially problematically and rather senseless with small images) but
alt="" or alt=" " is appropriate for small decorative images. Or many
large decorative images, for that matter.
are certainly not a requirement. After all, who would be in the
position to REQUEST them?
1) The W3C who invented the latest HTML version?
2) Users who need them who may be able to sue you for very large
amounts of money under the legislation of many countries.
3) People who have met or know of 2) and want to give you a chance.
4) Clients who don't want suing
5) Clients who care about quality
I consider all your insults towards him as much worse than him leaving
out optional tags.


They are not optional, though. They are required by the HTML
specification, and needed by several web browsers and their users for
the page to function properly.

The src and alt attributes of the <img> tag are alternative
representations (one graphical, one text) of the same content.

<img src="foo.jpg"> makes as much sense as <img alt="foo"> which is
why both the src and alt attributes are required.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #42
Steve Pugh wrote:

You complain about an 'ass' but let the 'bloody' in an earlier message
slide? Okay...
You are british I suppose, so I am used to "bloody" but the former is a
definite insult.

Yes they are. Look at the HTML specification.


Do you want my honest opinion? I do not care. Can you name THE instance
who would have a legal right to prosecute Jon for not including them?
Which US law does he violate?

Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #43
Chris Morris wrote:

As is often said, you can't force anything related to CSS.
Sorry?

alt="" or alt=" " is appropriate for small decorative images. Or many
large decorative images, for that matter.
And where is the difference to leaving them out? "" is the default value.

1) The W3C who invented the latest HTML version?
I doubt that.
2) Users who need them who may be able to sue you for very large
amounts of money under the legislation of many countries.
First of all, this depends entirely on the jurisdiction. And secondly,
nobody is forced to visit a site. If someone does he has to obey the
"rules of the house".
3) People who have met or know of 2) and want to give you a chance.
??
4) Clients who don't want suing
This depends on the jurisdiction.
5) Clients who care about quality


Then they shall complain, but then its nevertheless up to THEM!
Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #44
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
[ALT attributes being required and all that stuff]
Yes they are. Look at the HTML specification.


Do you want my honest opinion? I do not care.


And my honest opinion is that I don't care about you not caring.
Gosh, what a cruel and hurtful world we live in!
Can you name THE instance
who would have a legal right to prosecute Jon for not including them?
Which US law does he violate?


I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an American so I'm not at all qualified
to answer that question. I never raised the legal issue at all, other
people did that. I really don't care about the legal specifics, I care
about building accessible web sites that can be used by everyone.

Steve


Jul 21 '05 #45
Steve Pugh wrote:

And my honest opinion is that I don't care about you not caring.
Gosh, what a cruel and hurtful world we live in!
And I do not care whether you care for my caring.

If you want we can continue this for all eternity, but someone actually
must care, as we wouldnt pursue this conversation otherwise.

A requirment is something that binds someone to something. Usually by a
contract or by a law. The HTML specifications are general
recommendations and hence cant be a requirment by defintion.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an American so I'm not at all qualified
to answer that question. I never raised the legal issue at all, other
people did that. I really don't care about the legal specifics, I care
about building accessible web sites that can be used by everyone.


Thats perfectly okay. You can give Jon your advice and suggest to
implements those tag (AND elements AND attributes ;)) but cant insult
him nor force him to do that. After all its HIS work, HIS time, HIS
money and of course HIS decision.

Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #46
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> writes:
Chris Morris wrote:
alt="" or alt=" " is appropriate for small decorative images. Or many
large decorative images, for that matter.
And where is the difference to leaving them out? "" is the default value.


alt="" means that the image is decorative and has no 'content'.

No alt attribute means that whether the image has 'content' is undefined.

If, historically, the majority of authors had placed alt attributes on
images that needed them, as opposed to leaving them off everything,
then it might be different, but because of the vast number of sites
that don't (or didn't use to) have alt attributes on their images,
browsers need to distinguish between "the author has said this image
is decoration" and "the author hasn't said anything about this image"
for the benefit of their users.
2) Users who need them who may be able to sue you for very large
amounts of money under the legislation of many countries.


First of all, this depends entirely on the jurisdiction.


Well, of course. But US/Australia case-law is in their favour, and the
UK and many other European countries have law (and there's related EU
legislation as well) that is similarly worded.
And secondly, nobody is forced to visit a site. If someone does he
has to obey the "rules of the house".


Most jurisdictions don't take that view as regards to disability
discrimination.

By analogy it would be technically possible for me to write an
ecommerce site that only sold products to men with a
native-english-family-since-1066 name. I would, however, be
immediately subjected to race and sex discrimination claims if I
tried, and "rules of the house" would not be an adequate defence.
4) Clients who don't want suing


This depends on the jurisdiction.


Obviously.

In certain jurisdictions (countries without functional government,
say) it's legal to make a website that kills users. That doesn't mean
that you should, or that saying "it's legal in some jurisdictions" is
a justification. Many jurisdictions with lots of web users and clients
certainly don't permit it.
5) Clients who care about quality


Then they shall complain, but then its nevertheless up to THEM!


5a) Clients who expect quality but aren't themselves web experts
(hence their hiring of someone else!) and so wouldn't think to
specifically ask for alt attributes. And, as I said before, shouldn't
have to.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #47
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote:
You can give Jon your advice and suggest to
implements those tag (AND elements AND attributes ;)) but cant insult
him nor force him to do that.


We can't force, but people who do not support and practice standard
compliant cross browser accessible coding will find themselves getting
perpetually criticised in the ciwa* groups, or they end up in twit
filters and lonely.

Accept the nature of this group or leave.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #48
Spartanicus wrote:

We can't force, but people who do not support and practice standard
compliant cross browser accessible coding will find themselves getting
perpetually criticised in the ciwa* groups, or they end up in twit
filters and lonely.
Attributes like ALT have NOTHING to do with cross browser compatibility.

Accept the nature of this group or leave.


Individual newsgroups usually have FAQs which state the general topic of
the group and certain common rules for behaviour.

However, if the nature of most regulars in this group is to criticise
everyone who doesnt blindly accept their rules, then I think actually
the opposite will become true. The group itself will be lonely soon enough.

Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #49
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> writes:
Spartanicus wrote:
We can't force, but people who do not support and practice standard
compliant cross browser accessible coding will find themselves getting
perpetually criticised in the ciwa* groups, or they end up in twit
filters and lonely.


Attributes like ALT have NOTHING to do with cross browser compatibility.


1) Download lynx
2) Run lynx
3) Load a site with alt attributes in lynx
4) Load a site without alt attributes in lynx
5) Repeat 3,4 with other sites until convinced that alt attributes
have a lot to do with cross-browser compatibility.

Optionally, use links, w3m, IBM Home Page Reader, JAWS, Opera with the
'text mode' user stylesheet etc. instead of or as well as lynx.
Accept the nature of this group or leave.


However, if the nature of most regulars in this group is to criticise
everyone who doesnt blindly accept their rules, then I think actually
the opposite will become true. The group itself will be lonely soon
enough.


I doubt that. Check the archives for years.

It's not really a case of accepting rules. There is plenty of room
for, and plenty of debate on, *how* to best produce a high-quality
website.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

2 posts views Thread by Hostile17 | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Haines Brown | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Melissa | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Melissa | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by Michael Redbourn | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by nicstel | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Marin | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.