SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 124
  1. #76
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have read a couple of books that deal with website usability and I think its all valid but it depends who you are designing a site for.

    if you are designing the new work and pensions website for the government you would have to make it acessable for the blind and for people with other disabilities, in fact you could be in hot water if you didnt.

    if you are designing a website for a music shop you probably woudl only have to worry about good usability more than accessability.

  2. #77
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tailslide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AnotherDimension View Post

    if you are designing a website for a music shop you probably woudl only have to worry about good usability more than accessability.
    Why? Do blind or physically disabled people not like music?

    All sites should be as accessible as you can make them (within our capabilities and knowledge).
    Little Blue Plane Web Design
    Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project

  3. #78
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,702
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AnotherDimension
    if you are designing a website for a music shop you probably woudl only have to worry about good usability more than accessability.
    What makes you think visually impaired people doesn't listen to music?
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  4. #79
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailslide View Post
    I find that there are always a lot of people who think that building accessibility into a site is some arduous task and that they must be convinced it will pay off for them financially before they bother at all.

    We're not talking about making websites ugly or impossibly difficult and slow to build. We're talking about simple, easy additions (useful alt text, useful link texts, labels on form elements for instance) and a little fore-thought when designing.

    I for one doubt I'll ever get it 100% "right" BUT there's no reason not to try to do what you can.
    EXACTLY! Taking the time to learn proper semantic structure for markup and good accessibility design practices can actually help one write cleaner code that is more efficient to write, loads faster and is easier to make work on different browsers than the broken markup they used to write. The only accessibility consideration I have ever found the slightest bit tedious was properly using the header= and abbr= attributes properly within <TD> and <TH> tags of tables. On complex tables this can require forethought. Beyond this one thing, most things that make for good accessibility can also help improve usability of a site for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnotherDimension View Post
    I have read a couple of books that deal with website usability and I think its all valid but it depends who you are designing a site for.

    if you are designing the new work and pensions website for the government you would have to make it acessable for the blind and for people with other disabilities, in fact you could be in hot water if you didnt.

    if you are designing a website for a music shop you probably woudl only have to worry about good usability more than accessability.
    Did you not read AutisticCuckoo's last post about the blind music teacher? We all need to worry about accessibility for ALL of our sites. As the remark I quoted above stated, we may not get to 100% with our accessibility, but we should strive to do the best we can. This isn't even an extra cost issue. If one is good at their trade craft, as anyone who is paid to create webpages should be, building accessible sites should come by second nature. It simply requires good design and coding practices that actually help speed up the overall development process.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  5. #80
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailslide View Post
    We're not talking about making websites ugly or impossibly difficult and slow to build. We're talking about simple, easy additions (useful alt text, useful link texts, labels on form elements for instance) and a little fore-thought when designing.
    It's even better that than: these are not really additions. They are things that should be used anyway, as a matter of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnotherDimension View Post
    if you are designing a website for a music shop you probably woudl only have to worry about good usability more than accessability.
    I would very much like to hear your rationale for this statement, because, frankly, I'm baffled.

    Why wouldn't people with disabilties want to buy from a music shop? Don't you think a blind person enjoys music as much as her sighted neighbour? Does losing your right arm in an industrial accident make you suddenly stop appreciating music? Does dyslexia in some way affect hearing?

    Your statement isn't even valid for deaf users. Someone who is deaf may want to buy a CD as a birthday present for their niece, for instance.

    There really is only one type of site that doesn't 'need' to be accessible: a site built for a small, specific audience where you know that none in the target audience has a disability. Even then it would be appropriate to build it as accessibly as possible, because anyone of us could become disabled in a matter of seconds. All it takes is an accident, a sudden illness, a stroke, etc.

    So, AnotherDimension, please explain why you think that an online music shop doesn't need to be accessible. I'm not being sarcastic, in case it comes across that way. I would really like to understand how you are thinking, because I know you are not alone.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  6. #81
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tailslide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    It's even better that than: these are not really additions. They are things that should be used anyway, as a matter of course.
    You're right of course - however the people that usually raise these sorts of arguments quite often don't bother with these sorts of things anyway.
    Little Blue Plane Web Design
    Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project

  7. #82
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    During some testing I was doing, I discovered that MSIE7 now zooms webpages in the exact same way Opera has been doing for years. This means that the entire page zooms in lock step instead of just the text size changing. Oh happy days. Soon the majority of users will be using a web browser that doesn't break page layout when making text larger. I think I read that Firefox3 might behave the same way when it is released. Consistency in this behavior and the following of Opera's lead in this case will make designing for accessibility so much easier.

    --Correction--
    MSIE7 behaves in both ways. From the toolbar one can either zoom the page or just change the text size. The Ctrl & +/- keys now are tied to the zoom behavior as is the left hand edge of my touch pad, which used to be tied to the text-size behavior. So there is no guarantee that MSIE users will be zooming instead of just changing text size.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  8. #83
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight, UK
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This might interest some of you. I was at a Business Link seminar on Friday and the issue of Usability came up. The speaker was adamant that this was the most important aspect of any web site, the "3 click rule" and ensuring that customers knew where they were.
    Then one attendee mentioned the possible rise in the number of large companies that had failed to adhere to new accessibility guidelines and that the RNIB were now seriously thinking about taking designers to court for failing to ensure sites they produced for businesses were compliant.
    The speaker basically said that it shouldn't be down to design companies to ensure that sites were accessible. I couldn't believe what I heard, and reminded him that as designers surely it was down to us to ensure anything we produced met the WC3 rules.
    I also said that it wasn't rocket science and the bottom line was that as a designer the buck stops with us. This met with a rather negative response, but if we are going to educate the public and our customers it must be with in our interests to make sure we do our job correctly at all times.
    I don't want to become a total Zealot, but I want to ensure I never end up in court because I haven't done my job properly, because I just couldn't be bothered.

  9. #84
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tyssen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD
    Posts
    4,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KLB View Post
    During some testing I was doing, I discovered that MSIE7 now zooms webpages in the exact same way Opera has been doing for years.
    Not exactly the same way, no. IE7's zoom produces a horizontal scrollbar at higher zoom values, whereas Opera's reformats the contents to fit within the window, making IE7's implementation far from satisfactory in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodofeve View Post
    The speaker was adamant that this was the most important aspect of any web site, the "3 click rule" and ensuring that customers knew where they were.
    Here's another myth - users will leave a site if they don't find what they want after three clicks. In fact, on every site we have tested in the last three years, it takes more than three clicks (except for featured content) to reach any content at all. Not a single user has left any of these sites within three clicks, and only a handful chose featured content links. "Three clicks" turns out to be a false constraint, focusing designers on objectives that will not necessarily benefit users or improve the site.
    From: http://www.uie.com/articles/usability_myths/

  10. #85
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyssen View Post
    Not exactly the same way, no. IE7's zoom produces a horizontal scrollbar at higher zoom values, whereas Opera's reformats the contents to fit within the window, making IE7's implementation far from satisfactory in my opinion.
    Interesting difference. Personally I like MSIE's method better than Opera's method based on your description. The real question is how do those people who have to use the zoom feature on a regular basis feel about it? I wonder if MSFT or Opera did any extensive testing with visually impaired users?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyssen View Post
    The three click thing is very interesting. I'll have to read the entire report when I get a chance. From the very early days of my site I have always tried to keep navigation as shallow as possible. In fact one could probably get to almost all ~15,000 pages in three clicks or less. Actually, I can't think of a page that one could not get to in three clicks or less clicks regardless of where they start (even with JavaScript turned off).

    Of course if one decided to take the "scenic" route they could be clicking away for years on my site. Hmm, that could be an interesting test. What is the maximum number of pages one could visit via my static HTML links without visiting any page twice? Oh and NO I don't want anyone to try it.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  11. #86
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tailslide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KLB View Post
    I discovered that MSIE7 now zooms webpages in the exact same way Opera has been doing for years.
    It also has a really irritating bug where it won't zoom a background image on the body element - so everything else zooms except that - it can look very ugly.
    Little Blue Plane Web Design
    Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project

  12. #87
    Always learning kigoobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, after reading the posts, here is what I see ...

    1. Our websites should work in IE, FF, Opera, Netscape, Safari (any other important) ?

    2. Our websites should work in previous versions of the above browsers as well, IE 4.01 for example.

    3. Our websites should work in different resolutions as well. from 800 x 600 to 1440 x 900 (I missed a resolution?)

    4. Our websites should work when one zooms in, upto 400&#37;.

    5. We should have a high contrast version (white text in red background?).

    6. We should make sure that this looks after the disabled person's needs (as per Tommy's first post).

    Now all these are going to interesting ... I mean, tough. Using table could be the easier way to achieve some of those goals ( for layaout) but here we are speaking about table less design, right? I have noticed that SP is following the above standards, though.

  13. #88
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Kiqoobe,

    You are overstating what is required. Working in legacy browsers is different from rendering as we might desire. My site for instance is perfectly usable in Netscape 4.72. I tested it the other day just for grins. None of my styling intentions are there and it is not pretty, but one can still fully use my site. It is what is known as degrading gracefully. You only need to make sure your website "looks" perfect in modern browsers. With older browsers you accept that things won't look perfectly and that some features won't work as long as one can still archive the objective. How well older browsers are supported also depends upon how many users use the older browsers. Almost nobody really use any version of MSIE older than 5.5 (from this I mean a small fraction of a percent of users) and the same is true for legacy versions of Netscape. There is no real need to sacrifice the use of state of the art design techniques just so that one can support the obsolete and virtually unused older browsers.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  14. #89
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight, UK
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kigoobe View Post
    So, after reading the posts, here is what I see ...

    1. Our websites should work in IE, FF, Opera, Netscape, Safari (any other important) ?

    2. Our websites should work in previous versions of the above browsers as well, IE 4.01 for example.

    3. Our websites should work in different resolutions as well. from 800 x 600 to 1440 x 900 (I missed a resolution?)

    4. Our websites should work when one zooms in, upto 400%.

    5. We should have a high contrast version (white text in red background?).

    6. We should make sure that this looks after the disabled person's needs (as per Tommy's first post).

    Now all these are going to interesting ... I mean, tough. Using table could be the easier way to achieve some of those goals ( for layaout) but here we are speaking about table less design, right? I have noticed that SP is following the above standards, though.
    Ok your list sums up many of the things we should be doing, but just one question why tables?? Do we really need them any more?? (except for Excel)

    All my sites are designed without tables, I haven't actually used that method of site design for over 3 years now, DIV's, layers and well thought out CSS seem to do everything I need, although sometimes even when coded right my high contrast and high visibility switchers don't always play ball (thats something else to discuss later) I love the fluidity that CSS brings to page styling and it isn't always necessary to constrain the page size with CSS, although it can be a choice if wanted. I have found that stylish design doesn't have to go out of the door with CSS it adds that new dimension which I love so much.

  15. #90
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodofeve View Post
    Ok your list sums up many of the things we should be doing, but just one question why tables?? Do we really need them any more?? (except for Excel)
    Tables are ONLY supposed to be used for data sets. They are not intended to be used for layout. Tables are perfectly acceptable when used properly. I eliminated the use of tables years ago and it has really freed up my design and have allowed me to do things I could never do when tables controlled my layout.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  16. #91
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodofeve View Post
    Ok your list sums up many of the things we should be doing, but just one question why tables?? Do we really need them any more?? (except for Excel)
    A table is the semantically correct and appropriate element type for marking up tabular data.

    Layout tables are deprecated, tables as such are not.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  17. #92
    Always learning kigoobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree. I am doing my first 'CSSed' tableless website at this moment, and I am really appreciating it, though I am having troubles here and there, this being the first time I am doing things 'out of the table'. But I know that once I know, I know.

    In this regard, now I am making sure that my websites should have valid xHTML (though as text/html in IE), valid CSS, and now I am coming across the term AAA. Is there a validator as the two previous to make sure that my sites are agreeing with the AAA standard, or it's just a guessing thing?

  18. #93
    Always learning kigoobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KLB View Post
    You are overstating what is required.
    Actually, I was just trying to see what exactly one needs to do to be the most perfect possible.

    For example, now I am having two style sheets, one for modern browsers and one for IE6 and less.

  19. #94
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,702
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kigoobe
    now I am making sure that my websites should have valid xHTML (though as text/html in IE)
    I'd suggest sticking with HTML 4.01, unless you really need some of the features of XHTML.

    As for AAA, it isn't possible to validate this automatically, and strictly speaking, it is impossible to obtain, since it requires that your site is available in any language your user would like (including e.g. Klingon and languages your users have made up themselves).
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  20. #95
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kigoobe View Post
    now I am coming across the term AAA. Is there a validator as the two previous to make sure that my sites are agreeing with the AAA standard, or it's just a guessing thing?
    There are tools that can help you by pointing out the more obvious errors, but there is no tool that can fully validate the accessibility of a site.

    For instance, a tool can detect that you have forgotten the alt attribute of an image, but it cannot detect whether a text equivalent you specified is appropriate.

    WCAG 1.0 AAA-compliance is almost unattainable. Even if you don't employ the strictest of interpretations, like Christian did, it requires skills and resources that go far beyond what a normal web developer/designer is likely to possess.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  21. #96
    Always learning kigoobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually Christian, franckly, I don't know yet what are all the differences between xhtml and html. I see for what I code, both IE and FF are showing equal things though for one it is html and for the other xhtml. One reason why I use xhml is for forward compatibility, if any, and then clients who has studied a little tends to feel better with a site in xhtml compared to html.

    I think I need to dig a bit about this AAA thing ... But Tommy, I thought you guys have pretty sky touching knowledge in these things, even you are telling things like '... skills and resources that go far beyond ...'

  22. #97
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I really believe that "forward compatibility" is a myth. How can we really predict which way the winds will blow five years from now?

    With that said, If one codes to HTML4.01 Strict specifications they will have as much "forward compatibility" as with coding to xHTML specifications. In fact the next set of specifications, which are under development are HTML5 and xHTML5, and will be very similar with the primary difference being having a different purpose. As has been discussed so much in the HTML forum, the reality is most people who are using xHTML are using it incorrectly and really should be using HTML.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  23. #98
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,702
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    kigoobe
    If you don't know the difference between HTML and XHTML, then you should definately not be using XHTML. XHTML isn't HTML at all (it's XML), and is not neither backwards- nor forwards-compatible with HTML. Furthermore, the current draft for XHTML 2 is widely different from XHTML 1, so XHTML 1 isn't forwards compatible with that either. Besides, as long as you write your code according to the specifications (i.e. semantically), your code will be de facto forwards compatible, in that it is very doubtful that any major browsers will drop HTML 4.01-support for at least a decade. Unless you know the benefits of using XHTML over HTML (and need them), then you should stay away from XHTML.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  24. #99
    Always learning kigoobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well, one thing I remember when I first entered this world and bought my first book => http://www.sybex.com/WileyCDA/SybexT...782142095.html

    Among other things, I remember reading that in html we use capitals where as in xhtml we use smalls. We don't leave a tag unclosed and single tags like <br> of html becomes <br /> in xhtml. I have thus never (almost) used capitals in my code and (almost) always closed my tags. That was 2004.

    That's what I meant by forward compatibility. I see even today there are people who are coding in capitals and 'not' closing their tags.

    Also, I am learning every single day since then. And I hope I will 'soon' learn 'all those' as well. What say? Also, I know car is a better vehicle, just because I don't understand all its mechanism, should I keep riding a bicycle till I learn everything about a car?

    I guess there are guys who will vote for html, others for xhtml. I think I will go for using xhtml, while learning its various steps on the way. What's wrong using something unless I 'don't use' or 'don't need' everything of it?

  25. #100
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    kiqoobe, the only difference that matters between HTML and xHTML as far as syntax goes is that in xHTML all tags must be closed (e.g. <br/>). HTML IS NOT case sensitive and I do not believe that xHTML is either in regards to tags. Where case sensitivity matters is with the naming of classes and ids for objects. In HTML, you can use lower case tags (e.g. <br>) if you want and your code will validate

    Also as we have said before, "forward compatibility" is a myth and your concerns about syntax differences between xHTML and HTML are irrelevant. The next version of the specifications will be HTML5 and xHTML5. The only significant difference between these two specifications in regards to tags will be whether all tags have to be explicitly closed or not. Any page that validates in HTML 4.01 Strict should validate in HTML5. What HTML5 will be adding are more options to allow web developers provide a better semantic structure to their mark up. It should also be noted that MSIE does not and probably never will truly support XHTML as Microsoft has decided to go down a different path in regards to XML. The reason MSIE is able to support XHTML and will be able to support XHTML5 is because it simply treats XHTML as tag soup and applies HTML rules.

    It isn't a matter of "voting" for one specification or another when it comes to deciding to use HTML or XHTML. They serve different purposes and are intended to do different things. If one does not need the extra features of XHTML (and 99&#37; of sites don't need them) then one should stick with HTML and if one wants to be an absolute purest they can validate their code to HTML4.01 Strict with the self imposed requirement of closing optional tags (e.g. <option>, <td>, etc.).

    The people who are arguing the merits of XHTML vs. HTML would probably be better served by spending more time worrying about the proper use of semantic structure like blockquotes, whether to use <I> or <EM> and the proper use of <Hx> tags.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •