WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Layout Stability


From: Gunlaug Sørtun
Date: Nov 6, 2007 7:00AM


> ... I noticed that you have used CDATA in your css files added to the
> html code, which I beleive you are preventing an XML parser from
> producing errors. Why do you see a necessity of adding CDATA in this
> case? Is there any other reason for it?

I see no point in "XHTML" that'll only work when served as 'text/html',
which means I have to add some "redundant" stuff here and there. It's
part of creating somewhat 'robust' solutions.

Examples on how I work:

A well-tuned Tidy adds what's necessary - if I forget.

> In regards to older browsers and that IE6 has held up the web for too
> long and as we move on we will have more standard compliant browsers
> i do agree with you. However providing a correct code considering
> layout stability to prevent readability and usability problems is
> necessary even when coding for standard compliant browsers.

I don't think it is possible to prevent problems altogether - only
minimize them. Everything on the web can be turned into "a problem", and
I'm sure someone will - just for the sake of doing it.

If you by 'correct code' mean 'semantic use of MarkUp', then we're on
the same track. However, "semantics" in HTML is somewhat limited and
technical, and I don't aim for perfection since it can't be achieved.

If you mean 'proper use of CSS', then there are some solutions to that.
1: don't rely on CSS to "fix" anything.
2: test to well beyond breaking-point and see if the final solution can
take enough to be "acceptable" - usually a matter of opinion.

> In other words it is possible to code in a way that standard
> compliant browsers will have readability and usability problems,
> which is what made me to invite for considering coding for layout
> stability.

The web is full of bad examples, and most good ones are limited by
opinions on what's "good" and/or "good enough". There's always a limit,
and I always look for and usually push to the technical limit.

> I have provided a solution to prevent the loss in quality of pictures
> when they are browsed within an html file in different resolutions (
> When the browser's window expanding or compressing) simply by
> creating a picture with a width of 735px and filling the rest of the
> veiwport for higher resolutions with a background color which is
> presented in the header of my portfolio. May I have your opinion
> about it please?

It is a working solution, used by many.
Here's my take on some of the issues with images on the web...

> I also visited your main page at: http://www.gunlaug.no/main-en.html
> . ...

As mentioned: one has to draw the line somewhere, and there's a limit to
what can be done for old browser-versions and extreme cases. Someone
somewhere will break whatever we release, no matter what.

The use of 'position: fixed' is in itself a limitation on that and other
pages, and there's no way around that. It won't stop me from using 'p:f'

Generally: browser-developers should fix their software, and users
should update often enough to at least make use of major improvements.
Otherwise there isn't much point in progress across browser-land.
I usually wait at least one year after a major upgrade of a browser, and
then I stop checking the old versions.

> As I mentioned there are other keywords that my portfolio ranks
> number one to 10 , however I am not going to bother you with
> mentioning in here. I was wondering if we can exchange a front page
> (main page) link please?

I don't "do" SEO. I don't think you'll find 'keywords' anywhere on my
site, and none will be added. I also don't have a page dedicated to
linking to other sites.

I'll have a look at your site and see if some of it fits in somewhere,
but I won't promise anything since I only link to pages/sites that are
relevant to whatever I write about so I don't have to copy/steal stuff
from others. That's all the "SEO" you'll find on my site, and none of it
is aimed at search engines. I get listed though :-)