By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
457,733 Members | 914 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 457,733 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Link indicator to off-site pages

P: n/a
TC
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website). The following was suggested:

Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.

Personally, I have not seen these. Are they really needed? Do users
care they are being directed off your site?
Nov 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
31 Replies


P: n/a
TC wrote:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website). The following was suggested:

Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.

Personally, I have not seen these. Are they really needed? Do users
care they are being directed off your site?


Besides my countryrode.com site, you should have also mentioned
Wikipedia.org
"Off-site" graphic in the link under the picture of the spider mite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technology

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<4u*****************@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented TC
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website). The following was suggested:


What browser doesn't show the user where a link goes?

--
Lars Eighner us****@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
War on Terrorism: Treat Viewers like Mushrooms
"It seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in
Afghanistan." -Walter Isaacson, _CNN_
Nov 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
TC
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
TC wrote:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will
send them off-site (to another website). The following was
suggested:

Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.

Personally, I have not seen these. Are they really needed? Do users
care they are being directed off your site?


Besides my countryrode.com site, you should have also mentioned
Wikipedia.org
"Off-site" graphic in the link under the picture of the spider mite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technology


Oh now that's interesting. These don't actually send you to another
site. They are used for editing?
Nov 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
TC
Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
<4u*****************@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented TC
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will
send them off-site (to another website). The following was
suggested:


What browser doesn't show the user where a link goes?


A visual indicator that shows the link points off-site, not to another
page within the site.
Nov 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
<4u*****************@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented TC
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website). The following was suggested:


What browser doesn't show the user where a link goes?


Probably all of them do, in some fashion. The little graphic is just a
visual cue in case the visitor doesn't look at the status bar.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
TC wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Besides my countryrode.com site, you should have also mentioned
Wikipedia.org
"Off-site" graphic in the link under the picture of the spider mite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technology


Oh now that's interesting.


You didn't look when I first posted the above? <g>
These don't actually send you to another
site. They are used for editing?


No, not the ones next to "edit". Look at the link for:
http://mems.sandia.gov/scripts/images.asp

David Dorward's site also uses such a graphic indicator:
http://dorward.me.uk/www/css/

As I first said, it's not new; it's just a nice enhancement.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
TC
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
TC wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Besides my countryrode.com site, you should have also mentioned
Wikipedia.org
"Off-site" graphic in the link under the picture of the spider

mite: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technology

Oh now that's interesting.


You didn't look when I first posted the above? <g>


I guess not?
These don't actually send you to another
site. They are used for editing?
No, not the ones next to "edit". Look at the link for:
http://mems.sandia.gov/scripts/images.asp

The arrow image and edit link both send me to the same place - edit
screen within the same website.
David Dorward's site also uses such a graphic indicator:
http://dorward.me.uk/www/css/

As I first said, it's not new; it's just a nice enhancement.


Those are even worse LOL. I'm sorry, not trying to be difficult. But
these are not intuitive to me and IMHO, take extra
programming/debugging time, distract the user and serve no real purpose.

Still, I may consider them. I'm not closed minded after all. :)
Nov 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
<4u*****************@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented TC
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will
send them off-site (to another website). The following was
suggested:


What browser doesn't show the user where a link goes?


Ones which permit the deezyner to scribble in their status area?

IMHO it does get rather tiresome, the way that some hyperactive
deezyners manage to sabotage just about any feature which users have
come to expect (one could mention marking the position of the focus,
marking links as visited, displaying target URLs in the status area,
the expected behaviour of the browser's Back function, etc.), and then
start looking for "exciting" new ways of duplicating the same
functionality, in ways which the user *isn't* expecting, and would
have to learn afresh for each new site they visit.

But, on the other hand, I don't really see any harm in using a little
icon which distinguishes between target pages for which the author or
site still has responsibility, and those which are out of their
control. It's not something that I fuss about myself, but it's OK by
me if others want it.

Neither the single nor the double north-east arrow are in WGL4, but
they're fairly commonly available in recent fonts I think, and Lynx (I
tried 2.8.5dev7) has a reasonable fallback at least for the first, so
if you use an img, alt="↗" for those north-east-arrow icon
graphics.
Nov 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
TC wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
TC wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Besides my countryrode.com site, you should have also mentioned
Wikipedia.org
"Off-site" graphic in the link under the picture of the spider

mite: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technology

Oh now that's interesting.


You didn't look when I first posted the above? <g>


I guess not?
These don't actually send you to another
site. They are used for editing?


No, not the ones next to "edit". Look at the link for:
http://mems.sandia.gov/scripts/images.asp


The arrow image and edit link both send me to the same place - edit
screen within the same website.


The sandia.gov link just below the words
"as small as several atoms wide. Credit SNL"
Clicking on it takes me to the mems.sandia.gov page with more spider
mite pictures.

I realize they use the same two-headed arrow for all their "edit" links
as well; don't know why.
David Dorward's site also uses such a graphic indicator:
http://dorward.me.uk/www/css/

As I first said, it's not new; it's just a nice enhancement.


Those are even worse LOL. I'm sorry, not trying to be difficult. But
these are not intuitive to me and IMHO, take extra
programming/debugging time, distract the user and serve no real
purpose.


I think they are kinda cute! <g>
Still, I may consider them. I'm not closed minded after all. :)


Best way to be.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
But, on the other hand, I don't really see any harm in using a little
icon which distinguishes between target pages for which the author or
site still has responsibility, and those which are out of their
control.
That's the object. "These are not my pages!!!" :-)
It's not something that I fuss about myself, but it's OK by
me if others want it.

Neither the single nor the double north-east arrow are in WGL4, but
they're fairly commonly available in recent fonts I think, and Lynx
(I tried 2.8.5dev7) has a reasonable fallback at least for the first,
so if you use an img, alt="↗" for those north-east-arrow icon
graphics.


Ahh, that little character is a good idea; never thought of it. Took me
a second to add it. I had used "[External link]". Turn off images and:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
In message <4u*****************@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, TC
<no*****@yahoo.com> writes
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website). The following was suggested:

Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.

Personally, I have not seen these. Are they really needed? Do users
care they are being directed off your site?


Are they really needed?

In the context shown -- no, not really.

Do users care that they're being directed off your site? -- again, not
really.

It may, however, be something that *you* may want to care about -- and
post a suitable notice e.g. Something like 'These links take you to an
external site; we provide these links as a service and are not
responsible for the content."

Unfortunately, in the example you quote I couldn't hear a thing. Was
there something important that I should know about ;-)

regards.

--
Jake (ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
Nov 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
"Off-site" graphic in the link


David Dorward's site also uses such a graphic indicator:
http://dorward.me.uk/www/css/


As does Lois Wakeman, for example:
<URL:http://lois.co.uk/web/articles/accessibility.shtml>

Links to RNIB and W3C are marked with a blue arrow graphic. She
redesigned her site no long ago. Before, the external page indicator was
red and really stood out more, at least for those of us who aren't
red/green color blind. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Nov 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, kchayka wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

David Dorward's site also uses such a graphic indicator:
http://dorward.me.uk/www/css/

Done with some CSS that's rather fun, I see, and works fine on Mozilla
(but way beyond what MessIE is capable of).
As does Lois Wakeman, for example:
<URL:http://lois.co.uk/web/articles/accessibility.shtml>


Here it's done as part of the HTML. I fear that users who need the
alt text would get more than a little tired of hearing "link to
external site" spoken over and over, though I can't exactly say what I
think the right answer should be.
Nov 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
TC
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
But, on the other hand, I don't really see any harm in using a
little icon which distinguishes between target pages for which the
author or site still has responsibility, and those which are out of
their control.


That's the object. "These are not my pages!!!" :-)
It's not something that I fuss about myself, but it's OK by
me if others want it.

Neither the single nor the double north-east arrow are in WGL4, but
they're fairly commonly available in recent fonts I think, and Lynx
(I tried 2.8.5dev7) has a reasonable fallback at least for the
first, so if you use an img, alt="↗" for those
north-east-arrow icon graphics.


Ahh, that little character is a good idea; never thought of it. Took
me a second to add it. I had used "[External link]". Turn off images
and: http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php


Is this your site? If so, why do you have presentation in the HTML for
height and width? Wouldn't it be best in the style sheet?
Nov 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
TC wrote:
Ahh, that little character is a good idea; never thought of it. Took
me a second to add it. I had used "[External link]". Turn off images
and: http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php


Is this your site? If so, why do you have presentation in the HTML for
height and width? Wouldn't it be best in the style sheet?


countryrode.com is my site. Are you talking about the
width="14" height="11"
for these little off-site images, or all images?

For these off-site images, that code is placed into the HTML by the
generating php code, because the image is always the same size. I would
not add a different css class for every image on the site.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
TC
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
TC wrote:
Ahh, that little character is a good idea; never thought of it.

Took >> me a second to add it. I had used "[External link]". Turn off
images >> and: http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php

Is this your site? If so, why do you have presentation in the HTML
for height and width? Wouldn't it be best in the style sheet?


countryrode.com is my site. Are you talking about the
width="14" height="11"
for these little off-site images, or all images?

For these off-site images, that code is placed into the HTML by the
generating php code, because the image is always the same size. I
would not add a different css class for every image on the site.


Ok, bear with me. I'm still learning. PHP puts that in your html doc?
Ok, I would have a class called "offsite" or something similar and just
put the height and width in that and place it in the css - just once.
No?
Nov 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:02:24 GMT from TC <no*****@yahoo.com>:
Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.


Nothing happened when I hovered except that the text of the link
changed background color.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Nov 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
TC wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
TC wrote:
Ahh, that little character is a good idea; never thought of it. Took >> me a second to add it. I had used "[External link]". Turn off
images >> and: http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php

Is this your site? If so, why do you have presentation in the HTML
for height and width? Wouldn't it be best in the style sheet?


countryrode.com is my site. Are you talking about the
width="14" height="11"
for these little off-site images, or all images?

For these off-site images, that code is placed into the HTML by the
generating php code, because the image is always the same size. I
would not add a different css class for every image on the site.


Ok, bear with me. I'm still learning. PHP puts that in your html doc?


The whole page (all the pages) are PHP generated. They do not exist as
HTML files. For the offsite links, I have a quick function call stuffed
into the <a element that places the code for the image. The function
writes the HTML. Write one function, use many places.
Ok, I would have a class called "offsite" or something similar and just
put the height and width in that and place it in the css - just once.
No?


I suppose you could. <g> But you may find that not all browsers will
see it, especially older ones that don't do css. There's nothing wrong
with including a height and width in the <img element; in fact, I would
rather do it that way.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #19

P: n/a
Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:51:37 -0500 from Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm>:
Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:02:24 GMT from TC <no*****@yahoo.com>:
Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.


Nothing happened when I hovered except that the text of the link
changed background color.


Sorry, I misread. When I hover over the graphic, I get "External
link" and an instruction to right-click.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Nov 23 '05 #20

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:51:37 -0500 from Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm>:
Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:02:24 GMT from TC <no*****@yahoo.com>:
Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.


Nothing happened when I hovered except that the text of the link
changed background color.


Sorry, I misread. When I hover over the graphic, I get "External
link" and an instruction to right-click.


Whew, thanks for re-reporting. I was going to check and see if I broke
something when I added Alan's little character arrows, and then I
noticed your followup. <g>

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Nov 23 '05 #21

P: n/a
TC wrote:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website). The following was suggested:

Look at the three links under the third paragraph:
http://www.countryrode.com/sales/vespaline.php
Note the tooltip when hovering the graphic as well.

Personally, I have not seen these. Are they really needed? Do users
care they are being directed off your site?


TC,

Yes, some users will care that they are leaving your site.
- Some users will want to open the link in a new window or tab, so as
to retain a window on your site while they look at the other one.
- Some sites will always open off-site links in a new window (AFAIK
there is no interface for forcing a link to open in a new tab). This is
controversial, but at least if the user can tell which are off-site
links they will be less surprised when it happens.

YOU may care when users leave your site, since you don't want to be held
responsible for what they find at the other end of the link.
Highlighting off-site links is one way to communicate this to the user.
Some sites go as far as to interject a "You are now leaving our site"
page to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding.

The method used to identify off-site links should be accessible and,
since there is no W3C guidance on this matter, should be explained up
front to the user, probably as a note on the home page (along with any
other site-unique conventions).

Chris Beall

Nov 23 '05 #22

P: n/a
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:02:24 GMT, "TC" <no*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website).


a.external-link:after {
content : " \21D2" url(/images/inline-icon-external-link.gif);
text-decoration: none;
}
Nov 23 '05 #23

P: n/a
TC:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website).

Andy: a.external-link:after {
content : " \21D2" url(/images/inline-icon-external-link.gif);
text-decoration: none;
}


Is it possible to make conditional? I mean to apply automaticaly this
class only to absolute links. This is something you can do with XSL (or
eventualy in Javascript or PHP) but I don't know for CSS. IIRC, it is
possible to have conditions in CSS3. And IE accepts javascript
statements in CSS. Any robust solution?

--
My desktop is worth a million of dollars. Put an icon on it.
http://www.milliondollarscreenshot.com/
Nov 23 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Guillaume wrote:
Is it possible to make conditional?


I saw it in action the other day: http://dorward.me.uk/www/css/

But you'll need a capable browser (a recent Mozilla would be fine, it
seems).

Nov 23 '05 #25

P: n/a
In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Guillaume wrote:
Is it possible to make conditional?


I saw it in action the other day: http://dorward.me.uk/www/css/

But you'll need a capable browser (a recent Mozilla would be fine, it
seems).


I see this as how he did it,
a[href ^="http:"]:hover { background: url(/images/remote_a.gif) left
center no-repeat; }
however I don't think I have ever seen [href ^="http:"] used before.
Works in Safari. I wonder what it breaks in. Very neat.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Nov 23 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Eric Lindsay wrote:
however I don't think I have ever seen [href ^="http:"] used before.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-se...ute-substrings
Works in Safari. I wonder what it breaks in.


The idea, like any new CSS construct, is that it harmlessly does
nothing in browsers which don't understand it. The only browser-like
object that I'm aware of which tends to break those requirements is
the one from you-know-who, so I tried it there (at least with a
current IE6), but, even there, it harmlessly did nothing - so, I'd say
it's working as designed.

Nov 23 '05 #27

P: n/a
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:13:59 +0100, Guillaume <no****@nospam.com> wrote:
TC:
I'm looking for opinions on ways to show visitors, your links will send
them off-site (to another website).


Andy:
a.external-link:after {
content : " \21D2" url(/images/inline-icon-external-link.gif);
text-decoration: none;
}


Is it possible to make conditional?


Yes, it requires the external-link class to be coded in the HTML, so you
can just do this in the authoring process.

<a href="http://example.com" class="external-link" >foo</a>

It's also the case that all non-absolute links can be assumed to point
to the current site, but it's not necessarily the case that any absolute
links are always exernal sites. You could easily code internal links as
absolute URLs too, and some CMS will produce these by default.

Nov 23 '05 #28

P: n/a
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Eric Lindsay wrote:
however I don't think I have ever seen [href ^="http:"] used before.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-se...ute-substrings


Thanks Alan. For compatibility and browser support reasons I had been
trying to avoid using anything beyond CSS1 (and a few bits from CSS2
that seemed common), so I hadn't read CSS3 at all. Guess that can be my
headache inducing read for tomorrow.

It has been particularly annoying to avoid these nice features when the
current Safari so often supports them just fine (as does Firefox and
often Opera), and my big worry is whether IE (which I don't have) will
break.
The idea, like any new CSS construct, is that it harmlessly does
nothing in browsers which don't understand it. The only browser-like
object that I'm aware of which tends to break those requirements is
the one from you-know-who, so I tried it there (at least with a
current IE6), but, even there, it harmlessly did nothing - so, I'd say
it's working as designed.


That sounds great. I'll add that to my snippets file.

I think I am coming around to the view that I should use anything new in
CSS that doesn't involve positioning (which seems totally broken in IE)
if it looks good in some browser. In the past I have been totally
avoiding anything new for fear it wouldn't work in IE. Now I think I'll
just let IE fail to work with the new stuff, as long as the web page is
still able to be used. I am really tired of having conservative pages
(drop shadows on headings, here we come!)

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Nov 23 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Eric Lindsay wrote:
I think I am coming around to the view that I should use anything
new in CSS that doesn't involve positioning (which seems totally
broken in IE) if it looks good in some browser. In the past I have
been totally avoiding anything new for fear it wouldn't work in IE.
Now I think I'll just let IE fail to work with the new stuff, as
long as the web page is still able to be used. I am really tired of
having conservative pages


That sounds about right - as long as you aren't working for some
misguided sponsors who insist that everything that you use has to show
up on "all" browsers (by which they usually mean IE and "Netscape" -
they've never heard of IBM HPR, nor Lynx).

As long as you're allowed to design for advanced browsers, I'd say do
it, as long as the design also has graceful fallback.
The way that I see it with CSS: from the browser point of view
there are four possible outcomes -

1. The construct is supported and implemented correctly.

2. The construct is understood, but the implementation is buggy. This
*could* happen with any browser, of course, but things are much better
nowadays than they used to be.

3. The construct is not understood, and is harmlessly ignored.
*This is the behaviour which the specification calls for when
a browser meets a new construct which it doesn't understand.*

4. The browser does not understand the new construct, but assumes it
is a user error and tries to guess what the user could have meant.
This behaviour is basically forbidden by the CSS specification, so no
www-compatible browser can do this. However, the browser-like object
from hell has been deliberately doing this - ever since IE3.* with an
experimental pre-CSS1 implementation that *should* have served as a
cautionary lesson[1], but unfortunately didn't.

That's the browser side of things. From the designer's point of view,
the key is to design so that the CSS properties used are basically
optional, i.e related groups of properties can be harmlessly ignored
without wrecking the user's access to the content. Which is what is
summarised by the term "graceful fallback".

cheers

[1] IE3 didn't understand em units, and when it saw a text size of
2em, it seems as if it guessed it might be a typo for 2px, with
deplorable consequences. That's an example of why the CSS spec
requires things that are not understood to be ignored!
Nov 23 '05 #30

P: n/a
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Eric Lindsay wrote:
I think I am coming around to the view that I should use anything
new in CSS that doesn't involve positioning (which seems totally
broken in IE) if it looks good in some browser. In the past I have
been totally avoiding anything new for fear it wouldn't work in IE.
Now I think I'll just let IE fail to work with the new stuff, as
long as the web page is still able to be used. I am really tired of
having conservative pages
That sounds about right - as long as you aren't working for some
misguided sponsors who insist that everything that you use has to show
up on "all" browsers (by which they usually mean IE and "Netscape" -
they've never heard of IBM HPR, nor Lynx).


I am working to educate a couple of people with the idea that they can't
control what their page looks like. Between demonstrating different
browsers using different window sizes, with different text zooms,
graphics on and off, scripting on and off, and user font size and
stylesheets overriding stuff, I've managed to back them into a state of
shell shock. Luckily web pages are not central to their businesses,
they just have the idea that maybe they should have one.

If they want it to look identical, that is what PDF is for. When they
ask for PDF, I tell them to see the guys who would design flyers for
them, if they were willing to pay that sort of money. That seems to
eliminate that problem. Not sure what I'll do if they ever do get some
posters made - tell them more about search engine placement, I guess.
As long as you're allowed to design for advanced browsers, I'd say do
it, as long as the design also has graceful fallback.
Being retired and doing this for fun gives me lots more options. That
is why I am taking the time to learn to do it right.

Thank you for your comments on browser reactions to CSS. I should have
thought that through long ago.
[1] IE3 didn't understand em units, and when it saw a text size of
2em, it seems as if it guessed it might be a typo for 2px, with
deplorable consequences. That's an example of why the CSS spec
requires things that are not understood to be ignored!


Ouch! Px for em. At least that explains some of those pages I recall
not being able to read years and years ago. Luckily site stats seem to
indicate I can ignore IE3.

I am not willing to go to the length of telling people they should
change their browser (seems way too rude, and not productive at all).
However when I get somewhere with learning to do decent web pages, I may
put a page on my site explaining why it looks better in standards based
browsers than it does in a certain other one. Maybe stuff every trick I
find in that page, and include a jpg of what it should look like.

Thanks.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Nov 23 '05 #31

P: n/a
Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:02:01 +1000 from Eric Lindsay <NOSPAmar2005
@ericlindsay.com>:
I am working to educate a couple of people with the idea that they can't
control what their page looks like. Between demonstrating different
browsers using different window sizes, with different text zooms,
graphics on and off, scripting on and off, and user font size and
stylesheets overriding stuff, I've managed to back them into a state of
shell shock.


Good for you, Eric!

I wonder if somewhere there's a set of ready-made images of a single
Web page with that sort of variation. It would be a great labor-
saving device for those of us who, like you, are trying to educate
people about the limits (and consequent benefits) of Web authorship.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Nov 23 '05 #32

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.