Multiple linked stylesheets

"Lauri Raittila" <lauri (AT) raittila (DOT) cjb.net> wrote

Try setting persistant style after preferred.

Actually, I believe persistant sheets should always be linked before
alternates.

Nope, that's *exactly* what's supposed to happen, according to the
spec -
and that's my problem as well. =(

Persistant stylesheets should always be added. Maybe you are confusing
them with preferred stylesheets?

Sorry, yes, I misread her post. You're right. (It's too early in the
morning.)

-- Richard

In article <MPG.1980e0a42357a1b9989b38 (AT) news (DOT) cis.dfn.de>,
lauri (AT) raittila (DOT) cjb.net says...

In article <PayRa.10618$OL.3046703197 (AT) newssvr10 (DOT) news.prodigy.com>,
Richard Barnet wrote:

"Jacqui or (maybe) Pete" <porjes (AT) spamcop (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19806e2556dbac9d989c51 (AT) news (DOT) CIS.DFN.DE...

Hmmm. Except that the persistent stylesheets aren't being applied when
the alternate ones are active. Presumably I've made a mistake
somewhere?

No, I think that is OK. Works OK on O7.2b1. What browser is the problem?

You're right, it's OK in 7.2b. Mozilla 1.5b and IE6 got it wrong.

Try setting persistant style after preferred.

Yep - that fixes it for Mozilla (web page updated).

Mozilla's also pretty stupid about reloading pages, or going to another
page and coming back, which makes alternate sheets largely useless
unless some scripting is used to allow the user to set permanent
preferences.

....

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:10:41 -0700, "Richard Barnet"
<rbarnet (AT) csaNOSPAMreno (DOT) org> wrote:

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoley (AT) xs4all (DOT) nl> wrote in message
news:9emchvkm4hsdcjk5g6oh59sqj6vqd0l6q5 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

May I suggest that anyone who has impaired vision (or a monitor with a
tiny dot pitch) has probably already set their font size to something
they can read, and that your largefonts stylesheet is superfluous? If
you think the user might need some help setting his/her text size, you
might like to have a look at my solution (see sig).

That's a great idea, actually - and from experience I tend to agree.
This doesn't however, cover all the bases, though. If the user is at
their own computer, you're probably right. What happens if they go to
someone else's computer, though, like the library or a friend's house
that doesn't want all the fonts 'messed up'

Normally speaking it would only be a moment to change the settings, and
then change them back again at the end. And unless they are only going
to look at *your* site (and a perhaps a handful like it) they would need
to do that anyway.

(or like the library - has
the settings disabled so people can't change them)?

Is that an actual situation? I haven't met that one before. But
presumably they wouldn't then allow stylesheet selection either? (Well,
unless you go the Javascript route - but is Javascript enabled in that
situation?)

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

"Brian" <usenet1 (AT) mangymutt (DOT) com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:LbXRa.92147$Ph3.10917 (AT) sccrnsc04 (DOT) ..

(or like the library - has the settings disabled so people can't
change them)?

Is that an actual situation?

Yes. Libraries sometimes disable the prefs menu to avoid having
people muck about too much. I'd prefer if they had a log-on routine
that copied a config from a safe location, overwriting any changes
done previously.

But presumably they wouldn't then allow stylesheet selection
either?

Likely.

(Well, unless you go the Javascript route - but is Javascript
enabled in that situation?)

Oddly enough, on the library computers I've used, js was enabled (to
the best of my recollection).

While JS and/or cookies being enabled is not always guaranteed, I still
prefer to add a few simple JS and cookie functions to pages to give the
user choices *right on the site*, since you can't always rely on the
browser environment in all situations. I know it's no guarantee, but
it's "better" than only relying on one method and not having a backup
method (and even using JS and cookies doesn't interfere with the
'normal' browser interface functions in a 'normal' computing
environment - it's only enhances the site and give the user even more
options).

Giving the user more options can only mean a site is more flexible (and
accessible) than those sites that don't. A all-too-typical example are
just regular old alternate stylesheets. Since I primarily use IE6 in
everyday use (and only use the others for testing - personal
preference), I've run into way too many sites that extol the virtues of
switching stylesheets (but only for "modern" browsers [i.e., Mozilla,
Firebird, Safari, Opera]. That's nice, but they've just rendered their
site(s) inaccessible to about 90% of web users (and probably confused
quite a few people that know they have the latest updates). Dumb.

I know why they do it - it's supposed to be an educational tool - to
'inform' the general masses that IE sucks and doesn't adhere to the
standards. Woo hoo - like that's news. It's just not the right way to
go about it - write an article for heaven's sake - don't exclude content
based upon a user's browser preference. This is exactly the opposite of
the very accessibility they're trying to preach.

The simple solution is to provide a cross-browser JS or server-side
routine (both have their strengths and weaknesses) that allow users to
switch stylesheets directly from the page. You've just please the IE
folks because now their supposedly antiquated browser now does the same
thing that the 'modern' ones do, and you've also just made it easier for
Moz/Opera/Safari users to quickly switch sheets without going into the
menus - thus eliminating the well-documented Moz bugs and (if setting
cookies) allows for cross-site preferences to be set and retained, not
just page-by-page settings.

[stepping down off of soapbox]

-- Richard