[OT-ish] Style sheet critique

Unfortunately there is no alt.css.critique, but I know that you guys are
perfectly capable of critiquing CSS.

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/set...fault&return=0

Anyone got any suggestions? I am mainly after usability/accessibility
comments.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS | mailto:tobyink (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk | pgp:0x6A2A7D39
aim:inka80 | icq:6622880 | yahoo:tobyink | jabber:tai (AT) jabber (DOT) linux.it
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/ | "You've got spam!"
playing://matchbox_twenty/yourself_or_someone_like_you/05_girl_like_that.ogg

Toby A Inkster wrote:

critiquing CSS.

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/set...fault&return=0

Anyone got any suggestions? I am mainly after usability/accessibility
comments.

If cookies are disabled, the stylesheet switcher does not work. I
kept trying different styles, and wondering why it always looked the
same. I guess you use js to switch them, which requires a reload of
the page. Might be worth a link in the list style box to a document
explaining how they work.

Better still, why don't you put alternate stylesheets in the head of
the document, via the link element? That way, Moz and Opera users
could get them even w/out cookies. And everyone who has cookies
enabled can use the style switcher if they want to.

The navigation links in certain styles -- chocolate and blue ice --
are difficult to read; small italic font is just not that easy for me.
In fact, the font size in general is a bit hard on blue ice.

I know you're not looking for aesthetic critiques, but I cannot help
myself.
The default style, black and white, is actually quite nice. I'd make
the heading at the top (your name) a bit larger, or make it otherwise
stick out a bit more. It is even less noticeable Clean Look. I like
the "negative" box headers you use (white on black header, black on
white content). Nice site.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:22:03 -0500, kathy painter wrote:

Your CSS has many many warnings. Yes, it does validate but you have an
extreme amount of warnings which should be fixed.

Four is extreme?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS | mailto:tobyink (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk | pgp:0x6A2A7D39
aim:inka80 | icq:6622880 | yahoo:tobyink | jabber:tai (AT) jabber (DOT) linux.it
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/ | "You've got spam!"
playing://(nothing)

Toby A Inkster wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:27:34 +0000, Brian wrote:

Better still, why don't you put alternate stylesheets in the head of
the document, via the link element? That way, Moz and Opera users
could get them even w/out cookies.

In XHTML, stylesheets are linked to via a processing instruction, not by
the <link/> element. I'm not aware of a way to define alternate style
sheets with PIs.

Just add alternate="yes":

ie.

<?xml-stylesheet alternate="yes" href="otherstyle.css" title="Another
Stylesheet" type="text/css"?>

<http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/>

Regards,
Geoff

--
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Geoff_Ball
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Web_Core_References
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote

Unfortunately there is no alt.css.critique, but I know that you guys are
perfectly capable of critiquing CSS.

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/set...fault&return=0

Anyone got any suggestions? I am mainly after usability/accessibility
comments.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS | mailto:tobyink (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk |
pgp:0x6A2A7D39
aim:inka80 | icq:6622880 | yahoo:tobyink | jabber:tai (AT) jabber (DOT) linux.it
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/ | "You've got spam!"

playing://matchbox_twenty/yourself_or_someone_like_you/05_girl_like_that.ogg

Left side of text in main area is too close to left column. Put a bit 'o
space in there.


--
___________________________________
Bonnie Granat
Granat Editorial Services
http://www.editors-writers.info

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:35:24 +0000, Brian wrote:

Four?! I count four pages of them!

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...e.php%3Fid%3D0

Ahh... probably because I always use:

&warning=1&profile=css2

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS | mailto:tobyink (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk | pgp:0x6A2A7D39
aim:inka80 | icq:6622880 | yahoo:tobyink | jabber:tai (AT) jabber (DOT) linux.it
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/ | "You've got spam!"
playing://(nothing)

Geoff Ball wrote:

There are 4 Level 1 warnings. The level 2 warnings are dinky,
pointless ones (redefinitions).

Ah! I did not break them down by level.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Toby A Inkster wrote:

Four?! I count four pages of them!

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...e.php%3Fid%3D0

Ahh... probably because I always use:

&warning=1&profile=css2

Whereas, as you know, I don't! So, 4 warnings is more manageable.
Still, it is best to set color and background at every level of
specificity, or set neither. Avoids clashes with user stylesheets.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:11:44 -0600, Geoff Ball wrote:

?xml-stylesheet alternate="yes" href="otherstyle.css" title="Another
Stylesheet" type="text/css"?

Thanking you.

Have implemented this, although it does rather highlight a shortcoming of
both Opera's and Mozilla's stylesheet switching: when you move to another
page, it goes straight back to the default style sheet. So the cookie
method is still preferred. :-)

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS | mailto:tobyink (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk | pgp:0x6A2A7D39
aim:inka80 | icq:6622880 | yahoo:tobyink | jabber:tai (AT) jabber (DOT) linux.it
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/ | "You've got spam!"
playing://(nothing)