469,271 Members | 1,001 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,271 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
58 5580
Chris Morris wrote:

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.
Seems your only arguments are the most extreme examples. But tell me the
percentage of these browsers. I guess they have much more problems with
Flash, JavaScript, Java, Frames and more than with missing ALT attributes.

But when you take these examples, I am actually wondering how you can
use CSS at, since neither the support in Mosaic nor in Netscape 4 is
very good for CSS ;).

It's not really a case of accepting rules.


But Spartanicus just mentioned that.
Alexander
Jul 21 '05 #51
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Chris Morris wrote:

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.
Seems your only arguments are the most extreme examples. But tell me the
percentage of these browsers.


Who cares? Google is a text browser.
I guess they have much more problems with
Flash, JavaScript, Java, Frames and more than with missing ALT attributes.
Which is why those items must be made accessible as well. They are all
be used in an accessible fashion by competent authors.
But when you take these examples, I am actually wondering how you can
use CSS at, since neither the support in Mosaic nor in Netscape 4 is
very good for CSS ;).


CSS is designed to be 100% optional. Browsers that don't support CSS
at all offer no problems. It's browsers that have buggy CSS support
(NN4, IE6, etc.) that cause problems.

Steve

Jul 21 '05 #52
Alexander Mueller <po********@127.0.0.1> writes:
Chris Morris wrote:
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.
Seems your only arguments are the most extreme examples.


Well, to an extent. The average IE user will never see an alt
attribute and won't care. But given the size of the web-using
population, 2-3% is a large number.
But tell me the percentage of these browsers. I guess they have much
more problems with Flash, JavaScript, Java, Frames and more than
with missing ALT attributes.
Detecting the percentage of images-off browsers is very tricky. The
1px GIF method of site logging used by
example.freesitewebstatisticscounter.com obviously says 0%, but that's
provably wrong. Web server logs are also inaccurate, of course, for
equally well-known reasons.

For what it's worth, of the page requests in the month to date on a
general-audience web server, assuming [1] complete honesty in UA
strings, I would say about 40% of the hits came from UAs without image
support (mostly search engine robots) but there's also around 1% from
_known_ interactive non-image UAs.

[1] Home Page Reader and JAWS tend to identify themselves as IE, due
to the way they use IE to retrieve and view pages. So it's completely
impossible to find out how many people use those.
But when you take these examples, I am actually wondering how you can
use CSS at, since neither the support in Mosaic nor in Netscape 4 is
very good for CSS ;).


Of course. The only thing for which display is guaranteed on the web
is text. Everything else (images, CSS, javascript, graphical design,
etc) can be added for the benefit of the majority with supporting
browsers and due to the design of HTML can be added in such a way that
it doesn't harm the minority with non-supporting browsers.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #53
Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
[1] Home Page Reader and JAWS tend to identify themselves as IE, due
to the way they use IE to retrieve and view pages. So it's completely
impossible to find out how many people use those.


They aren't the only ones. The KeyWeb browser included on the BrailleNote
computers (voice and braille output only) identifies itself as some version
of MSIE with no indication that it might be anything else. Too many stupid
web sites exclude "unsupported" browsers for minority browsers to identify
themselves honestly. Even MSIE masquerades as an obsolete version of NN.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Red meat isn't bad for you. Fuzzy blue-green meat is bad for you."
Jul 21 '05 #54
Alexander Mueller wrote:
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.


Irrespective of whether anyone has to date been insulted or merely
described, your statements are incorrect. Of course posters can insult
posters, this is Usenet. Why else is there a long & in most respects
pointless thread running here?

Eventually people will get bored & go away to do something more
productive & hopefully involving less anger & frustration. The OP is
unlikely to get much further help. Other people will. That's how it is.
Works for me, most of the time.

Bye bye.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 21 '05 #55
Chris Morris wrote:
In certain jurisdictions (countries without functional government,
say) it's legal to make a website that kills users.


If you know how to do this, please tell. Preferably along with a good
solution to browser sniffing & info on hacking a frequently used site
such as Google. I have a cunning plan...

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 21 '05 #56
Michael Rozdoba <mr**@nowhere.invalid> writes:
Chris Morris wrote:
In certain jurisdictions (countries without functional government,
say) it's legal to make a website that kills users.


If you know how to do this, please tell. Preferably along with a good
solution to browser sniffing & info on hacking a frequently used site
such as Google. I have a cunning plan...


I'm afraid implementation of this step is classified, but I can reveal
that it involves the <marquee> and <blink> elements, or equivalent
functionality. Be careful not to look at the page after you've
written it.

--
Chris
Jul 21 '05 #57
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Michael Rozdoba wrote:
Chris Morris wrote:
In certain jurisdictions (countries without functional government,
say) it's legal to make a website that kills users.


If you know how to do this, please tell. Preferably along with a
good solution to browser sniffing & info on hacking a frequently
used site such as Google. I have a cunning plan...


Google finds the full story (albeit with typos) at
http://www.pion.ch/Fun/funniest.html

SCNR
Jul 21 '05 #58
dan

Alexander Mueller wrote:
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.


He did, however, make some laughable assertions, such as that his site
was "perfectly valid", which basically invited responses showing that
it wasn't.

--
Dan

Jul 21 '05 #59

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
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.