UK: HTML/CSS Training

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:20:47 +0000 (UTC), axlq (AT) spamcop (DOT) net (axlq) wrote:

It's a good argument if much of your audience consists of people in
3rd-world countries who have pre-2001 browsers.

No, it isn't - because old hardware doesn't imply old software.

On 2006-03-24, axlq <axlq (AT) spamcop (DOT) net> wrote:

In article <1143210875.326610.70980 (AT) g10g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:
axlq wrote:
At least the table layout
is compatible with MORE browsers than the CSS layout.

No it isn't. This hasn't been true since around 2001 (and it
wasn't a particularly good argument even then).

It's a good argument if much of your audience consists of people in
3rd-world countries who have pre-2001 browsers.

Why are they doing that? what are they running them on?

Bye.
Jasen

In article <44248fa1$0$16322$892e7fe2 (AT) authen (DOT) yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Johannes Koch <koch (AT) w3development (DOT) de> wrote:

axlq wrote:
Ahem... that said, are there any published guidelines for making
a web page more accessible and easy for these phone browsers?

http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/

Thanks. Hmm... looks like most of the web currently violates those
guidelines. 20 kb page weight including graphics?

Anybody know of a web site that people use with their phones, so I can
see what it looks like in a "normal" browser?

-A

Fleeing from the madness of the "a2i network" jungle
axlq <axlq (AT) spamcop (DOT) net> stumbled into
news:alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...ng.stylesheets
and said:

...
Anybody know of a web site that people use with their phones, so I can
see what it looks like in a "normal" browser?

any web-mail interface?

--
William Tasso

whither a trophy?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:29:23 +0100, Johannes Koch
<koch (AT) w3development (DOT) de> wrote:

http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/

Obsolete before it was even written.

axlq wrote:

Thanks. Hmm... looks like most of the web currently violates those
guidelines. 20 kb page weight including graphics?

There are workarounds for that. Like proxies that reduce content
size specifically for mobile phones.

Anybody know of a web site that people use with their phones, so I can
see what it looks like in a "normal" browser?

Any site you'd like to see. When I was developing such a proxy,
the Client had a huge list of test sites of all kind. I recollect
one or two news sites as being quite challenging, for instance.

--
Nick Kew

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:14:54 +0000, Mark Goodge
<usenet (AT) listmail (DOT) good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

The "killer app" for mobile phone browsing is directory services.
Yellow Pages, that kind of thing - the sort of thing you look for when
you're in a strange town, it's 1.00am and you need a taxi now. In
other words, it's all about information.

Except of course such a thing is very well solved by phoning someone,
so that use case is already fulfilled, indeed the web attempt is
nearly always considerably slower - many taking the same amount of
time to even establish a data connection as it is to have been put
through to a taxi service and ordered the taxi.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:19:56 +0000 (UTC), axlq (AT) spamcop (DOT) net (axlq)
wrote:

But then I don't understand the appeal of internet messaging; typing
messages back and forth in real time seem such a time-wasting
inefficient way to communicate electronically. I mean, if you want
a real time conversation with me, pick up the damn phone and call
me. Those who need to converse in real time have my phone number.

I think you're missing the advantage of almost immediate non invasive
discussion, which is what instant messenging and sms are - they are
things you can do at the same time as other things, so they are not
invasive - I can contact you whilst you are also talking to other
people or ... which is not possible with invasive technologies like
phone calls.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

In article <hudff3-u67.ln1 (AT) ophelia (DOT) g5n.co.uk>,
Toby Inkster <usenet200603 (AT) tobyinkster (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

axlq wrote:

It's a good argument if much of your audience consists of people in
3rd-world countries who have pre-2001 browsers.

No -- it's a bad argument.

I've got Cello, UdiWWW, several copies of Mosaic (different versions from
0.6 beta to 3.x) and various other very old browsers. Pure CSS designs,
properly separating content from style, almost invariably look better in
these older browsers than table-based layouts do.

Do they preserve the layout?

It's no problem for me to convert to CSS layout. For me it's a
matter of merely eliminating a 2-column table.

-A

In article <57v822dutpovg05jmon680spthr22jlmrg (AT) news (DOT) markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet (AT) listmail (DOT) good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:19:56 +0000 (UTC), axlq wrote:
Well, that's interesting. Makes me wonder what the attraction is;
nothing on the web is so important that I need to use my phone to
access it. I can't imagine a more unpleasant way to browse.

The "killer app" for mobile phone browsing is directory services.
Yellow Pages, that kind of thing - the sort of thing you look for when
you're in a strange town, it's 1.00am and you need a taxi now. In
other words, it's all about information.

....for which I can simply dial 411 on my cell phone to get a number
for a taxi, hotel, restaurant, or whatnot. Frankly, I still don't
see the attraction to mobile phone web browsing. I guess it can be
a convenience in some cases, but most of the time I think it would
be more efficient to get information other ways.

-A