bobby approved?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by mark | r, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
    complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
    gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

    i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
    shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
    version viewable by using the lynx viewer

    mark
     
    mark | r, Jun 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mark | r wrote:
    > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
    > complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
    > gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).
    >
    > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
    > shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
    > version viewable by using the lynx viewer


    And your question is?


    Matthias
     
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Jun 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    "Matthias Gutfeldt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > mark | r wrote:
    > > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

    its
    > > complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit

    of
    > > gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).
    > >
    > > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the

    ones
    > > shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text

    only
    > > version viewable by using the lynx viewer

    >
    > And your question is?


    do these online validation errors matter? could i still be justified in
    proclaiming AA approval as the guideline alerts dont impeed the
    functionality of the design?

    mark
     
    mark | r, Jun 18, 2004
    #3
  4. "mark | r" <> wrote:

    > do these online validation errors matter?


    No, but the inaccessability matters. Ignore Bobby. Or, at most, when you
    understand accessibility well, use Bobby as a coarse tool to check a few
    things at times.

    Bobby is not just grossly overrated; it is seriously misleading, see e.g.
    the problems descibed at
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html

    > could i still be justified in
    > proclaiming AA approval


    Of course not. You are not justified in claiming conformance to some
    criteria if you don't actually conform to them (there's an ugly word for
    such claims), no matter what we think about the criteria themselves. The
    same applies to claiming conformance to "approval" by a particular
    program, even when that program misleadingly describes its "approval" in
    terms that make people believe that it coincides with the WAI criteria.

    > as the guideline alerts dont impeed the
    > functionality of the design?


    The alerts do not affect the functionality the least.

    Some of them may _reveal_ some problems in the functionality.

    http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the
    majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
    is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria, still less run some
    purported accessibility checkers. If you don't see at once that the page
    is inaccessible and cannot be made accessible, except in the sense of
    total redesign, the messages from checkers will at most confuse you more
    and make you add some additional problems.

    So try and find some accessibility primer and read it. Or attend some
    crash course in accessibility.

    Final hint: if you start presenting excuses for inaccessible solutions,
    then you know you are wrong. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 18, 2004
    #4
  5. mark | r

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote:

    >im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.


    Presumably the version up there at the moment hasn't seen the benefits
    of this work as it doesn't even come close to Level A.

    >its
    >complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
    >gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).


    Does the tooltip contain useful information? If it does then denying
    it to users who don't use a mouse and/or JavaScript is an
    accessibility problem. Make sure that the information in the tooltip
    is available when JavaScript is switched off and make sure that it's
    available to users when JavaScript is switched on but a mouse is not
    being used (for starters you can look at the onfocus event as well as
    the onmouseover one).

    >i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
    >shown are being replaced by flash versions,


    Have you tested the flash version with a screenreader?

    >in any event theres a text only
    >version viewable by using the lynx viewer


    Why should users with minor visual difficulties need to resort to a
    text only version? The problems with text as images are largely not
    found by totally blind users (the alt attribute should help them out)
    but by users with colour blindness (text and background must contrast
    sufficiently) and with users with some visual impairment (text must be
    enlargeable).

    If you are forced to resort to a text only version (and it should be a
    last resort) then make sure that a user landing on random page X of
    your site can reach the text only version of page X straight away.

    Bobby is just a tool, it has been known to pass inaccessible pages and
    fail accessible ones. Close studying and understanding of the WCAG
    guidelines is more important than getting a pat on the back from
    Bobby.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Jun 18, 2004
    #5
  6. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    > http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the
    > majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
    > is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria,


    you're not on about text resizing or text as graphics are you?

    mark
     
    mark | r, Jun 18, 2004
    #6
  7. mark | r

    rf Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:40d2cc40$0$241$...
    > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.


    Why? Does your viewer care or even know about AA approval?

    > its
    > complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
    > gloss (some border colour changes


    The border changes could be done quite happily with CSS, no javascript
    required.

    > and a tooltip).


    The tooltip is a bloody nuisance, it gets in the way of the content. Then
    again I supose you have to have it there to negate your mystery meat
    navigation. ( http://webpagesthatsuck.com )

    If you want a tooltip use the title attribute, it works much better then the
    square wheel you have invented.

    > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text,


    Absolutely. If you know I am going to complain about them then why are they
    there?

    > the ones
    > shown are being replaced by flash versions,


    Oh my &deity. Replace something that only annoys a few people with something
    that annoys a whole lot more?

    If you are going to use flash for your navigation then your site will be
    totally unusable for a lot of people and will be totally invisible (after
    the first page) to search engine bots.

    Also, If you insist that I have flash enabled then you have lost me, at
    least, as a viewer.

    > in any event theres a text only
    > version viewable by using the lynx viewer


    What if I want the text only version on the browsers I have open at the
    moment? Can't I have it?

    BTW have you viewed the page with a canvas width of:

    700
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/700.jpg

    1200
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1200.jpg

    1500
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1500.jpg

    I must admit it starts to get better at 2000, in an odd sort of way :)
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/2000.jpg

    You must have some creative CSS in there to achieve these results :)

    I would forget about bobby for the moment and just make the site usable.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jun 18, 2004
    #7
  8. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "mark | r" <> wrote:
    >
    > >im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

    >
    > Presumably the version up there at the moment hasn't seen the benefits
    > of this work as it doesn't even come close to Level A.


    according to the online checker it does!

    > >its
    > >complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit

    of
    > >gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

    >
    > Does the tooltip contain useful information? If it does then denying
    > it to users who don't use a mouse and/or JavaScript is an
    > accessibility problem. Make sure that the information in the tooltip
    > is available when JavaScript is switched off and make sure that it's
    > available to users when JavaScript is switched on but a mouse is not
    > being used (for starters you can look at the onfocus event as well as
    > the onmouseover one).


    no its just a bit of fancy, nothing important. please allow my indulgences.

    > >i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the

    ones
    > >shown are being replaced by flash versions,

    >
    > Have you tested the flash version with a screenreader?


    you can substitute flash for non flash version, which is probably whet ill
    do.

    > >in any event theres a text only
    > >version viewable by using the lynx viewer

    >
    > Why should users with minor visual difficulties need to resort to a
    > text only version? The problems with text as images are largely not
    > found by totally blind users (the alt attribute should help them out)
    > but by users with colour blindness (text and background must contrast
    > sufficiently) and with users with some visual impairment (text must be
    > enlargeable).
    >
    > If you are forced to resort to a text only version (and it should be a
    > last resort) then make sure that a user landing on random page X of
    > your site can reach the text only version of page X straight away.


    its text replacement for non flash, not a text version of the site.

    > Bobby is just a tool, it has been known to pass inaccessible pages and
    > fail accessible ones. Close studying and understanding of the WCAG
    > guidelines is more important than getting a pat on the back from
    > Bobby.


    but people look got the logos!

    > --
    > "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    > I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
    >
    > Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    mark | r, Jun 18, 2004
    #8
  9. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:2QAAc.33401$...
    >
    > "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    > news:40d2cc40$0$241$...
    > > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

    >
    > Why? Does your viewer care or even know about AA approval?


    its s selling point.

    > > its
    > > complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit

    of
    > > gloss (some border colour changes

    >
    > The border changes could be done quite happily with CSS, no javascript
    > required.


    im working on it

    > > and a tooltip).


    but would the tool tip work with the mouse motion?

    > The tooltip is a bloody nuisance, it gets in the way of the content. Then
    > again I supose you have to have it there to negate your mystery meat
    > navigation. ( http://webpagesthatsuck.com )


    Jacob is his own worst enemy. been listed before, got 1000 hits in an hour,
    got 3 jobs from it :)

    > If you want a tooltip use the title attribute, it works much better then

    the
    > square wheel you have invented.
    >
    > > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text,

    >
    > Absolutely. If you know I am going to complain about them then why are

    they
    > there?


    because you lot ALWAYS complain about text as graphics, ive made the
    relevant text as big as i can so even at stupid resolutions, you should be
    able to read it.

    > > the ones
    > > shown are being replaced by flash versions,

    >
    > Oh my &deity. Replace something that only annoys a few people with

    something
    > that annoys a whole lot more?


    We'll find it dificult to sell to customers if we dont show at least SOME
    bells and whistles.

    > If you are going to use flash for your navigation then your site will be
    > totally unusable for a lot of people and will be totally invisible (after
    > the first page) to search engine bots.


    not for navigation.

    > Also, If you insist that I have flash enabled then you have lost me, at
    > least, as a viewer.
    >
    > > in any event theres a text only
    > > version viewable by using the lynx viewer

    >
    > What if I want the text only version on the browsers I have open at the
    > moment? Can't I have it?


    if you're going into that argument, then all sites should be bright yellow
    or green text on black background.

    > BTW have you viewed the page with a canvas width of:
    >
    > 700
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/700.jpg
    >
    > 1200
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1200.jpg
    >
    > 1500
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1500.jpg
    >
    > I must admit it starts to get better at 2000, in an odd sort of way :)
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/2000.jpg



    lol no thanks, i need to stuff it into a wrapper then :), i like some of the
    results tho :)


    > You must have some creative CSS in there to achieve these results :)
    >
    > I would forget about bobby for the moment and just make the site usable.
    >


    thanks Mark
     
    mark | r, Jun 18, 2004
    #9
  10. mark | r

    rf Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:40d2e607$0$237$...
    > > http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the
    > > majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
    > > is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria,

    >
    > you're not on about text resizing or text as graphics are you?


    Accessibility means, amongst other things:
    Accessible to people with a disability.
    Certain people have poor eyesight, a disability.
    People with poor eyesight need larger text.
    Text as graphics is not resizable.
    People with poor eyesight can not read text as graphics.
    Your site uses test as graphics.
    Your site is not accessible to people with poor eyesight.
    Ergo, your site is not accessible.

    Pretty bloody obvious I would think...

    No matter what bobby thinks.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jun 18, 2004
    #10
  11. mark | r

    rf Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:40d2eabf$0$237$...
    >
    > "rf" <> wrote in message
    > news:2QAAc.33401$...
    > >
    > > "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    > > news:40d2cc40$0$241$...
    > > > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA

    approved.
    > >
    > > Why? Does your viewer care or even know about AA approval?

    >
    > its s selling point.


    To whom?

    The eventual viewers of the material? No.

    Your customers? No, if they know enough about web design to know what the
    approval means then they know enough to do it themselves and not hire you.
    If the know a little bit more they will know that bobby approval is not
    worth the canvas real estate it's pixeled on :)

    > > The tooltip is a bloody nuisance, it gets in the way of the content.

    Then
    > > again I supose you have to have it there to negate your mystery meat
    > > navigation. ( http://webpagesthatsuck.com )

    >
    > Jacob is his own worst enemy. been listed before, got 1000 hits in an

    hour,
    > got 3 jobs from it :)


    I mentioned Jacob's site not for its own worth but for its discussion of
    mystery meat navigation, which you don't really use but imply with that
    tooltip, especially since the tooltop overlays the text describing the link.

    Think, when I consider a link what do I do? I subcounciously mouse over it.
    Then I look at the text describing the link. What have you done? Whacked a
    blob of a tooltip over that text. I have to move my mouse *off* the link to
    be able to read where the link will take me. Where is my mouse now? Not in a
    position to fire that link!

    > > > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text,

    > >
    > > Absolutely. If you know I am going to complain about them then why are

    > they
    > > there?

    >
    > because you lot ALWAYS complain about text as graphics,


    So, WHY DID YOU USE TEXT AS GRAPHICS and expect us to not complain?

    > ive made the
    > relevant text as big as i can so even at stupid resolutions, you should be
    > able to read it.


    True,I can, with difficulty given that some of it is grey on off white.
    However a partially sighted (and dyslexic) friend of mine likes her text to
    be about 30 pixels high. Your pictures of text would be unreadable to her.

    > > > in any event theres a text only
    > > > version viewable by using the lynx viewer

    > >
    > > What if I want the text only version on the browsers I have open at the
    > > moment? Can't I have it?

    >
    > if you're going into that argument, then all sites should be bright yellow
    > or green text on black background.


    ? Where did I mention green on black? Oh, you mean the dark ages before
    colour screens. Yep, I lived through that :)

    You did not answer the question. You said "text only version viewable by
    using lynx", I implied "I want to view it using Mozilla, without all the
    text as images and the flash". So, where is my text version?

    > > BTW have you viewed the page with a canvas width of:


    <snip shots>

    > lol no thanks, i need to stuff it into a wrapper then :)


    A wrapper? Oh, you mean you are going to throw more div's and CSS at it to
    make it behave? Why not just KISS it. It'l probably behave much better all
    round then.

    > i like some of the results tho :)


    Yeah. the wide one is actuallly quite good.

    Hmmm, I'm having an argument with a bloke in another thread who wants to
    make the font size and the image sizes proportional to the canvas size
    <shudder/>. Your layout, expecially at 2000+ pixels, might just work for
    him. Wonder if he's reading this thread :)

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jun 18, 2004
    #11
  12. mark | r

    Richard Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:40d2cc40$0$241$...
    > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

    its
    > complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
    > gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).
    >
    > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
    > shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text

    only
    > version viewable by using the lynx viewer
    >
    > mark
    >
    >


    My personal take on validation is to ensure that I don't have any serious
    coding problems.
    Other than that, as long as it works the way I want it to, fine by me.
     
    Richard, Jun 18, 2004
    #12
  13. "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:40d2eabe$0$237$...
    >
    > "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "mark | r" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA

    approved.
    > >
    > > Presumably the version up there at the moment hasn't seen the benefits
    > > of this work as it doesn't even come close to Level A.

    >
    > according to the online checker it does!


    As Steve said its not even close, sorry 8o(

    > > >its
    > > >complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit

    > of
    > > >gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).


    Good use of colours would be a good place to start, i.e. NOT
    using white text on a light green background as that would be a
    big problem to people with visability problems.

    > > Does the tooltip contain useful information? If it does then denying
    > > it to users who don't use a mouse and/or JavaScript is an
    > > accessibility problem. Make sure that the information in the tooltip
    > > is available when JavaScript is switched off and make sure that it's
    > > available to users when JavaScript is switched on but a mouse is not
    > > being used (for starters you can look at the onfocus event as well as
    > > the onmouseover one).

    >
    > no its just a bit of fancy, nothing important. please allow my

    indulgences.

    I love the irony, your image with "Creativity that works, etc etc"
    has no alt tags so with images off it shows nothing, I guess that
    should be "creativity that might work"

    > > >in any event theres a text only
    > > >version viewable by using the lynx viewer

    > >
    > > Why should users with minor visual difficulties need to resort to a
    > > text only version? The problems with text as images are largely not
    > > found by totally blind users (the alt attribute should help them out)
    > > but by users with colour blindness (text and background must contrast
    > > sufficiently) and with users with some visual impairment (text must be
    > > enlargeable).
    > >
    > > If you are forced to resort to a text only version (and it should be a
    > > last resort) then make sure that a user landing on random page X of
    > > your site can reach the text only version of page X straight away.

    >
    > its text replacement for non flash, not a text version of the site.


    Then you must make sure all pages are accessible.

    > > Bobby is just a tool, it has been known to pass inaccessible pages and
    > > fail accessible ones. Close studying and understanding of the WCAG
    > > guidelines is more important than getting a pat on the back from
    > > Bobby.

    >
    > but people look got the logos!


    The test is crap, the logos are worthless without a real
    understanding of how to create a accessible site.

    Your site says:
    Web Accessibility Section 805, WAI & Bobby Approved.
    Its not, so that should be removed!

    --
    Dean
    www.aspexdesign.co.uk
    (Not perfect, as its just my personal site)
     
    Psyonicdreams, Jun 18, 2004
    #13
  14. mark | r

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:00:55 +0100, "mark | r" <>
    wrote:

    >im working on aarrss.com


    This sort of s(h)ite makes me reminiscent for the dear old days of
    '99. You clearly do not have the first basic clue about
    accessibility. Instead of _thinking_ about _why_ you're doing
    something, you're fiddling about with the trivial details and looking
    for a Bobby logo.

    It's not the worst site I've seen. But it's probably the worst that
    has struggled through XHTML Strict compliance etc., and all to such
    negligible benefit.


    Please leave this site exactly as it is. Why misrepresent yourselves ?

    --
    Smert' spamionam
     
    Andy Dingley, Jun 18, 2004
    #14
  15. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    even the royal national institute for the blind has text as images!

    mark
     
    mark | r, Jun 19, 2004
    #15
  16. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    its all somethign tim working towards, im trying to blend a strong sense of
    design and solid development,

    its hard to cut this unchatred teritory

    mark
     
    mark | r, Jun 19, 2004
    #16
  17. mark | r

    mark | r Guest

    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:00:55 +0100, "mark | r" <>
    > wrote:
    > >im working on aarrss.com

    >
    > This sort of s(h)ite makes me reminiscent for the dear old days of
    > '99. You clearly do not have the first basic clue about
    > accessibility. Instead of _thinking_ about _why_ you're doing
    > something, you're fiddling about with the trivial details and looking
    > for a Bobby logo.
    >
    > It's not the worst site I've seen. But it's probably the worst that
    > has struggled through XHTML Strict compliance etc., and all to such
    > negligible benefit.
    >
    > Please leave this site exactly as it is. Why misrepresent yourselves ?


    Im thinking about my target audience and what turns them on... if i have a
    'boring' site, we'll get no customers, what im trying to do is better than
    most "web design sites" as im atleast going part way which should help when
    things evolve a bit more. customers look for icons for stuff theyve heard
    about, they dont know the implications as its usually imposed from high
    above (weve experience of most local government sites as we've pitched for
    it all and despite what we say which would be a strict accessible site, they
    always go for a shiny lookin one with wizzo features - hence my regression
    into glossy design territory)

    customers like to see "design" in some form, taking away the glossy design
    from sites will simply turn off potential customers.

    dispite what you all may think... i do understand accessibility (achieved
    certification) it just needs working around in some instances to meet the
    needs of my customers.

    mark
     
    mark | r, Jun 19, 2004
    #17
  18. mark | r

    rf Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:40d44650$0$1905$...

    > even the royal national institute for the blind has text as images!


    More fool them. One would think they would know better.

    Then again they were probably "helped" by some web dresigner :)

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jun 19, 2004
    #18
  19. mark | r

    rf Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:40d44650$1$1905$...
    > its all somethign tim working towards,


    What would be?

    It would be of extreme benifit to the rest of us if you were to quote the
    bit of the prior post to which your comments apply.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jun 19, 2004
    #19
  20. mark | r

    jake Guest

    In message <40d2cc40$0$241$>, mark | r
    <> writes
    >im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
    >complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
    >gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).
    >
    >i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
    >shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
    >version viewable by using the lynx viewer
    >
    >mark
    >
    >


    (a) You have a basic problem with your design which makes parts of the
    page inaccessible to assistive technologies.

    This is your page as a typical talking browser 'sees it':
    http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/HPR2X.JPG (83k)
    [NOTE:
    Normal text is in black (spoken with a male voice)
    Links are in red (spoken with a female voice)
    Headings are in blue (spoken in a robotics voice) ]

    The parts that are missing are shown here:
    http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/AATOT2X.JPG (124k)

    The problem is caused by using a background image to represent text, and
    marking the actual text up as "display:none;".

    This is a technique used in 'csszengarden', and which now carries a
    'health warning' for the FIR technique:
    http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/replace_text/

    Not only is the text invisible, you effectively have no headings
    anywhere on the page.

    (You might want to invest in a screen-reader, or similar, to test your
    pages.)

    (b) The 508 standard requires that 'a method shall be provided that
    permits users to skip repetitive navigation links'.

    You don't have any -- so it's not 508 compliant ;-)

    (c) Is 'testimonial' really adequate alternative text for the image it's
    substituting for? If not, then it fails WAI-A requirements.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------


    On a personal level, I think it's quite a nice design. The only problem
    that I see is that the body text is too small. If I reset the text to
    'largest' (in IE) it's just about readable. It really shouldn't be that
    small .... any good reason why the font size isn't set to 100%?

    regards


    --
    Jake
     
    jake, Jun 20, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. T.J.

    Bobby approved?

    T.J., Sep 7, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    570
  2. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Bobby or something like that.

    Luigi Donatello Asero, Sep 29, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    406
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    Sep 30, 2003
  3. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Bobby and caption of a table

    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jul 5, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    908
    Psyonicdreams
    Jul 10, 2004
  4. Richard Quick

    xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby

    Richard Quick, May 25, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    7,455
    Spartanicus
    Jun 20, 2005
  5. .:|:.
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    629
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Dec 23, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page