"Jeff" <jeff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Ar-dnbeP8sOTqLfVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> On another note, you can ditch the table layout if you wish and get
>>> nearly the same look. That may help with accessibility, just float
the
>>> image right, is all.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> I tried something similar to that for an earlier version (on my other
>> site), and the text tended to get screwed up when browser windows were
>> small.
>
> How was that?
Users who sized their windows down a bit re****ted that the text would
overlap the image and was hard to read. See:
http://geocities.com/hanks.dudley/index.html
I think the page is still there. I have to shut it down properly yet.
> So,
>> I opted for the table approach as per some other users suggestion.
>>
>> As far as accessability goes, table lay-outs work fine; they are just
a
>> pain to set up when using a screen reader.
>> But, I'm getting better at it.
>>
>> However, I'll re-read my info on positioning images and maybe give it a
>> try again. It will probably get easier when I get into using cascading
>> style sheets, in a few weeks.
>
> Are you taking a course?
No, I'm just scanning a few books I got from the library. Unfortunately,
computer books don't scan all that well -- too many font variations and
weird column alignments -- so I have to do a lot of cross referencing with
web sources -- where possible.
Of course, when I've gone through the previous steps, I take a stab at
it,
post it if I think it's working, and usenet members are kind enough to
fine
tune my code.
Not the most efficient learning environment ever devised, but it works.
Taking an actual course is even tougher. In addition to competing with
sighted students, I have to add in the time it takes to scan the material
and sort through it. While I have a fairly high IQ, I need to work within
the limitations of my disability, which entails taking extra time. When
it's all said-and-done, the credentials won't do me any good anyway, so
I've
opted to just do it myself. Hence, my new site. It's cost me a couple of
hundred bucks, but I can go through the books, try it out, and then
implement something that is more likely to be compatible with my situation
than if I were to try a more traditional approach. Taking a course would
probably cost no less, and I wouldn't learn as much. I can tailor this
project to my own needs, and vary it as I please if things don't work.
Besides, even when I had more sight, I was more apt to go my own way than
follow the main stream.
>
> Screw the wait and do it now. Take a look at the fluid layout site that
> the "Not so Fat Man" did. That's nice work. But you don't need
something
> that complex.
Thanks, I'll check it out. My screen reader will butcher the visual
appeal
but it will be rendered in a nicely linear fa****on. Using hot keys
(provided both by Microsoft and the screen reader company), I can jump
around to major components / objects. It's all very business like, but
not
very conducive to appreciation of the site's finer points.
>
> Your site has a lot of weird white space where you don't need it. I'd
be
> suspicious of anyone who hasn't mentioned that. It's kind of all over
the
> place.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll start keeping closer tabs on my wife....
Just kidding...
As content increases, I'm sure my white space will become more normal.
Also, the amount of white space is probably directly related to monitor
size
and browser window resizing. If someone is running a browser maximized on
a
21" monitor, white space will abound; for a quarter of a 15" monitor,
things might even be a bit cluttered given the size of the image. I have
no
control over layout when viewed in those terms.
>
> BTW, give it a strict doctype, I'm surprised Blinky didn't mention
that.
> You'll need that later when you get more advanced...
With the meager limitations on my last site, I was using a text editor I
compiled myself to edit the html. Now that I've got a more useable site,
I'll try out some of the better editors to see if I can find one that
works
with my reader. Word is fairly compatible, but I would like to find
something that is a bit less Microsoft oriented.
Out of curiosity, does giving it a doc type make that much of a
difference?
If I try maintaining a fairly general level of compatibility with html 3.2
or 4 will I need that particular element?
>
Thanks for the advice. I'll do my best to learn from it.
Take Care,
Dudley
|
