Re: [NH] ID/Target # => will not work in FF 2.0.9
- At 04:26 AM 11/8/2007 , you wrote:
> > Weird. I must have some gremlins in my connection!
>Both FF and Opera do the same thing here, they choose the anchor and
>place it right at the top of the window. As you have anchored the
>description beneath the image that image is not shown. Are you sure
>that's what you want?
>Today my IE 5.5 works as advertised, you're right loro. But it *only*
>does so the first time. Scrolling to the top and clicking "Go" will
>*not* go to the right place again.
>Opera works as expected. It starts with the top of the page, waits until
>everything is loaded, and then jumps to the anchor.
>And I think I have found the problem with Firefox:
>On opening the page it jumps right to the anchor. But when all those
>images near the top without specified sizes are loaded the focus shifts
>and is not restored. This behaviour can't be reproduced once the images
>are cached which must be why we all could not see anything wrong. It
>only happens once on an empty cache.
>I believe, but am not sure, that some of these faults do not occur when
>using a name="" instead of ID="". Axel
I added the image dimensions, but I see now I missed a few. I will go back
and fix these and then see what happens.
To be on the safe side I will use both ID and NAME hence forth.
Thanks for the feedback.
- WV-Mike wrote:
> To be on the safe side I will use both ID and NAME hence forth.I wouldn't if it was me. The decided advantage of the ID is, that you
can add it to any existing semantic tag, while the <a name needs to be a
separate unsemantic element. So a very good case can be made for getting
rid of it. Once you value backwards compatibility enough to retain it, I
can see no advatage whatever of an additional ID, unless you address it
through CSS or script.
- At 06:39 AM 11/8/2007 , Axel Berger wrote:
>WV-Mike wrote:Hi Axel,
> > To be on the safe side I will use both ID and NAME hence forth.
>I wouldn't if it was me. The decided advantage of the ID is, that you
>can add it to any existing semantic tag, while the <a name needs to be a
>separate unsemantic element. So a very good case can be made for getting
>rid of it. Once you value backwards compatibility enough to retain it, I
>can see no advatage whatever of an additional ID, unless you address it
>through CSS or script.
To be sure I know what you mean:
A semantic tag would be <p>, etc and
unsemantic element would be <img and ???
If I am understanding you correctly you are saying ID is the one to use in
"all cases" since it can be using "anywhere".
Please excuse my generalizations.
- At 11:33 AM 11/7/2007 , you wrote:
>N.B: Your page is terrible with graphics turned off and there are no ALTI wanted to revisit the necessity of using ALT "tags".
>tags. I get 28 validation errors and 3 warnings.
"Alternative text is especially useful in the following situations:
* For people with low bandwidth connections, who may opt not to load
* For people using handheld devices
* For people with disabilities who use assistive technology, such as
refreshable braille displays or screen readers
* For people using a pay per transferred data connection
* Search engine optimization: most search engines interpret the
meaning of objects by analysing their alt attribute"
"Why should authors bother with ALT texts?
Well, from the fact that you're reading this article, I hope you already
think it's a good idea, but I have written some notes  on this topic.
Some of the biggest "casualties" on the information dirt-track are
documents whose authors didn't take the indexing robots seriously. Every
step that you take towards text-mode accessibility is, at the same time, a
step towards being friendly to those indexing robots, so (whether or not
you care about minority audiences such as the blind or users of text mode
terminals) I'd say it's in your own interest to keep text-mode
accessibility in mind. "
These gave me some food for thought about not using ALT text in my pages.
My previous post on this was a justification for not using them because I
felt all the info needed was in the text comments, quotes and links.
This seemed to me to make using ALT text superfluous.
But, search engine optimization does seem to be reason enough to use ALT text.
I wish I had a better idea how useful sight impaired users find ALT tag info.
I can't end this without stating another reason I stopped using ALT text.
All my pages have lots of images and I just never seemed to get around to
adding the ALT text because it was too much trouble and slowed the already
sluggish pace at which I work.
p.s. Is the "N.B:" above an abbreviation for nota bene, a latin expression
meaning "note well"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NB
I confess to being ignorant as to it's meaning.
- WV-Mike wrote:
> A semantic tag would be <p>, etc andNo, a semantic element is one, that tells you something about the
> unsemantic element would be <img and ???
content and must or should be there irrespective of layout like:
this is a paragraph
this is a heading
this is an image
this is a table (of tabular data)
this is a list
and also this is a link to something else
Unsemantic are all elements that are there for reasons of layout rather
than content, i.e. all DIVs and SPANs, tables if they're there for
layout, and of course all deprecated nonsense like FONT or CENTER (I
sometimes use the latter to cater for browsers without styleshets).
Internal anchors are a borderline case, but no doubt an ID attribute
inside a tag, that needs to be there anyway, makes for cleaner code.
In HTML I'm often pulled both ways by the two important rules I try to
1) Always write totally standards conformant code and shun anything
deprecated or proprietary.
2) Never use anything newer than you absolutely have to to achieve your
goal. Always be compatible to the oldest version of anything that your