CSS Print Stylesheet: Set Background images to print?

Not sure whether you're asking as user or author. Printing background color or images is strictly a user controlled function. As an author, there is nothing you can do to force backgrounds to print. As a user, you can print them or not regardless of author wishes.

cheers,

gary

You can use divs with absolute positioning and filled with an img, all with a z-index that puts it behind the content. The images will print and look like a background. Background by themselves are under user control and nothing you can do with CSS will change that.

DE

I'm asking as an author, because I use a background of 1 px that repeats vertically for the length of the cell, to create a spacer. Since it's a background image, it doesn't print, but I would like it to. You can make normal images to repeat, can you?

ZOMG

If it is just a line, then it can be stretched by <img src="myline.gif" height="100% width="##px" alt="" />

OMG - I just helped someone with a spacer in a table cell. I gotta go home and say 40 Hail Marys now.

DE

Roffle. Hence the Zohmygod remark I made

all my attempts at converting this site to tableless failed because there would always be some sort of quirk in some browser, and it's important that our site works right for every customer.

. . . can you show us the site?

Sure. http://www.novavisioninc.com

The main problem I had was with relative positioning. I wanted to set the overview div on the left, the spacer div in the middle, and the content div on the right, but browsers kept placing the divs right on top of each other, rather than side by side. I'd welcome any help on fixing them without using absolute positioning... reason being that I want to keep the body centered.

I'm affraid that usinbg tables will in no way make this wish come true. Tables work fine for anyone mainstrteam sure but veer away from that and your site probably collapses in a unsuable heap.

I'm affraid that usinbg tables will in no way make this wish come true. Tables work fine for anyone mainstrteam sure but veer away from that and your site probably collapses in a unsuable heap.

I'd like to know what you or anyone does that isn't mainstream. Then I can decide if anyone visiting our site will be doing the same. Go ahead, I'm curious

That text is a little hard to read, don't you think?

/edit

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.novavisioninc.com/

Many errors

Mostly alt errors that haven't been added, and some syntax (CAPS) that were added by the tech director who doesn't know xhtml. He prolly just cut and pasted code in.

So what did we decide about the tables?

Not mainstream? That'll be me then - ready to accept the challenge on the site as a whole.

Assume I cannot use a mouse: I have to get around the page using the TAB key. It is very difficult to see which link has the focus in the top nav. Then I would have to TAB a very long way to reach those links at the bottom of the page. A logic tabindex would help.

Assume I do not see very well, if at all : I will surf with images turned off and JavaScript turned off because:
a) images are no use to me (I do rely on alt text but some images are smothered in alt text trying to get noticed by search engines and others have no alt text at all)
b) JavaScript can interfere with the functionality of my screen-reader software.

Now I'm visiting your site using IE (because my screen-reading software only works with IE). Images and JavaScript turned off. The page appears to be just one column, but I have just enough vision to see there is a horizontal scroll bar. After a great deal of fiddling with the mouse and it's not at all easy for me, I note there is a second column way over to the right.

Still I'm not mainstream - I have to expect to experience problems on the majority of web sites. I supose the best I can hope for is the site has no frames and that it validates.
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//www.novavisioninc.com/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A//www.novavisioninc.com/

I'll just have to resign myself to not buying any of your products and find another site that I can use, which sells similar stuff.

Oops tph picked up on a bit of this as I was typing.

makes perfect sense to me... however, when I brought these issues up to my boss, he specifically specified that he doesn't care about the "not mainstream" he just wants to be seen on the search engines. So I guess if it means we lose some customers here and there, he doesn't mind.

I guess you can't have everything...

Don't quite understand why you threw out that time-wasting challenge then.

And is he getting all his money's worth? One or other of you might like to indulge in a little knowledge update.
http://www.webpronews.com/ebusiness/smallbusiness/wpn-2-200307126WaysSearchEnginesFindYourWebsite.html
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/6/prwebxml248713.php
http://searchenginewatch.com/

The challenge was for my own indulgement. I'll take all the knowledge I can get. I subscripe to webpronews, and other newsletters. Site map is on my task list for august.

However, there is so much information out there that it's everyone's word vs. each others. Some resourses say avoid doing this or that, while others say to do that exact same thing the others tell you to avoid. So we've just done exactly what we know works for us.

That is the most moronic thing I've heard, sadly I've heard it from many many people.

It's worth baring in mind that search engins are not in fact a mainstream visitor, they are more like someone who uses a text only browser/screen reader so making life hard for one group could indeed also make life hard for the engine spiders.

Jolly good - so your boss is happy with a google page rank as low as 4 out of 10 then :?: See attachment.
I know, I know - "your boss" isn't interested in Google either. :roll:

And, finally!

Check out the law in your own country.
www.section508.gov
Compare your site against:
http://www.webaim.org/standards/508/checklist
Now see how the site actually stacks up - 144 remarks in an automated accessibility audit.
http://www.ocawa.com/faireaudit.htm?lang=en

I know, I know your boss isn't interested in the law either

Lorraine,

Section 508 applies only to US government websites[1]. It does not apply to civil or state gov sites, though state law may apply in the latter. The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not deal specifically with the web. However, in some jurisdictions, in specific cases, it has been applied to web sites based on an equivalency with brick and mortar access[2]. To my knowledge, admittedly limited, there have been no precedent setting judgements.

cheers,

gary

[1] Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer, but I did watch Ally McBeal on TV. Do not take my ramblings as anything more than the blind leading the halt.

[2] ADA cases, being civil, are mostly settled out of court, so the outcome need not be public.

My FF PageRank extension says the site has a PageRank of 5 which I didn't think was too bad. It's what my company's site has anyway. :?

That lays the myth of all those non-US Gov websites out there proudly wearing the 508 badge. Probably just as realistic as the triple A badge Still the ADA people are trying to prosecute albeit they are getting conflicting and overturned verdicts from the learned judiciary.

I don't use FF much (but on v 1.0.6) so I've just downloaded the FF PageRank and the PRGooglebar. Seems like the site is a bit of a yo-yo - back to 4/10 as of about 5mins ago.

I may have been too restrictive in my comment. It probably applies also to companies contracted to provide gov'nt services or those providing goods or services to the gov'nt.

Too, it is an open standard. I'm sure the disabled lobby appreciates any effort at all in that direction.

cheers,

gary

All efforts greatly appreciated. I'm not too sure about IBM's efforts/plans to impose 508 (as is) on the rest of the world, though, a la Microsoft.
http://news.com.com/Accessibility+could+take+a+step+backward/2010-1071_3-5794513.html?part=rss&tag=5794513&subj=news
The comments are enlightening.

What a cracking article!

In no way does that say to me:

"What, you want us to do MORE than the bare minimum, NO WAY, we've just got used to 508, please don't make us go further, you nasty forign types you"

No way at all... honest... err

You can run a page through http://webxact.watchfire.com/ to get a great deal of feedback on accessibility issues. One thing I would like to point out - accessibility is something that needs to be considered as part of the groundwork for designing a page/site. Too many people regard it as a last step as part of general validation (if they care at all) - BIG mistake. Some of the specifications I don't really agree with because stylistically they can make a page suck (like: "navigational elements should be separated by more than whitespace") and I'm not sure that Link1 | Link2 | Link3 is a whole lot better, but I digress.

I'd like to see some examples of good-looking fully accessible pages sometimes to see all of what people put under the hood to make them work. Any recommendations?

DE

First off, I hate how this turned thread into an argument. All I came here for was suggestions on how to improve my css. Instead I got hounded for using tables, and no help in going table-less.

Also, I have never seen our PR go under 5. Most other business sites like ours are a PR4, and once in a while I'll come across PR5. But nearly every non-index page is a PR4, and that's something good, I'd say.

Now, I have it in me to forgive the flaming, but I'd like to continue a decent conversation on here without flaming, otherwise we might as well close the topic because we wouldn't be getting anywhere. Screaming out your thoughts (which is what it seems like) is not an effective way of getting your point across.

So does anyone actually want to provide help on how to get my css to go table-less?

Edit: this post in response to DE

Well... as long as you promise not to mention WebXact ever again :roll:
Try these for starters:
http://www.abilitynet.co.uk
Stupid validator error and some would question the triple A badge. Please ignore the My Computer My Way, mini site. That is supported by Microsoft and was designed and developed by Microsoft staff :twisted:
http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com
TAB into the page to get an idea of how skips are handled. Too much else to go into here, but feel free to poke around.
http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/blog.php
Another TAB into page technique. Honest assessment of the level of accessibility on the site and explanations in accessibility policy. Mime-type sniffing. Max and Min width supported by IE. Scalable header graphics. AND he likes JEEPS

ps time to split the thread DE?

purefusion:
It seems to me your original question was more than adequately answered in the first two responses.

The reason the thread went down the road it has, is largely to do with your (for your indulgement sic.) challenge about "not mainstream".

Why not start a new topic about your CSS problems - showing a page you have tried to position in CSS rather than tables. That will give the gurus a fighting chance to see where they can help you or direct you to appropriate resources as they consider appropriate. And if you don't want to accept their advice, that is entirely up to you.

I believe my challenge has been answered. And I thank you. Now where's a good tutorial on how to do something like tabbing? These guys aren't using tabindexes. It looks like it's all css based.

TABs are to links that are in the html. These guys don't need to use tab-index because they are able to set out their pages so that the links follow a logical order. To index those links as well would merely be duplication. However, if a developer cannot set out the page to provide a logical link order, then tab-indexing could be used.

ok, so how is the "jump to navigation" deal performed?

Each site handles skip links differently a visit to the code might answer your question.

An example of the need for tabindexing would be with multiply nested tables where the logical nested order is quite different from the visual display order - a frequent case with table-based layout.

I agree with purefusion regarding this thread getting totally sidetracked and I felt a bit sorry for the poor guy as he got whacked on a number of issues not necessarily directly related to the original question. I actually thought of splitting of the accessibility part of the thread but unfortunately there is too much interleaving of on and "off-topic" content to do so. Accessibility issues are important, though, and the hijack is in a good cause. You will have to excuse us, purefusion, rattle the tree branches here and all the nuts fall out.

DE

Not all of them

I was going to chip in and split the thread earlier, but like David could see no clear point to split and maintain coherence.

Purefusion the thread did indeed get highjacked to a certain extent but I don't think that anyone was intentionally flaming you but rather picking up on some of the points your "Boss" was limiting you to. In many respects people were siding with you even though things went slightly off at a tangent.

You have to forgive the forum, but it is rather passionate at times about certain subjects.
As Lorraine suggested if you'd care to repost one of us will maintain a watch and keep things on track.

Hugo.

Just to add to Hugo's sentiment, at no point were any comments/flames directed at you, just your boss and the limitations he's forcing upon you.

But yes guilty of a minor hijacking and rather embarrased for that - sorry :oops:

Apologies perefusion, at risk of continuing the highjack of the thread....

Lorraine I know of you distaste for http://webxact.watchfire.com/ from making the error in the past of mentioning it's name, but would you indulge in explaining what it is that you dislike about it's service ?

I understand that the automatic checks do not equal an accessible page and that there is no absolute guide for checks, the best we have is to follow the WCAG level 1 priority 1 & 2 checklist points whilst ignoring priority 3 as many dispute it's worth and aren't impressed with it, citing Checkpoint 4.2 as a case in point of a confused guideline.

So what is the problem with a quick check of a page with webxact as long as one understands the real accessibility issues and the problems with adhering to a set of guidelines that are far from fully established .

Hugo.

As long as you understand accessibility issues, a quick foray onto an automated checker does no harm, but someone who does understand and has built accessibility into the site from the earliest design stage, would/should not have to depend on the checker.

My real concern is with the level of general understanding of what any of the automated checkers do. There is a tendency to assume that because, say all the alt tags etc are there and the html and css validate, it must be accessible. Whereas, once a page gets past the things that are definitely wrong as highlighted by the auto-check, it is down to the *judgement* of the developer/site owner whether that page rates one, two or three stars. That is, does the page in your honest and self-critical opinion (and it can only be an opinion) meet all manual checkpoint requirements within the level of accessibility you *think* the page deserves.

I have put up an attachment of a WebXact (it could have been any auto-checker) report on a site that the *owner* has judged to be triple A and which bears the badge.

One of the Priority 1 (A) warnings is to provide an alternative to JavaScript - there is JS on the page, but no alternative.

It has passed the Priority 2 (AA) automated check also, but there are a number of warnings and the guidelines have not been complied with in a number of instances. Not least of which are:

2.2 Check that the foreground and background colors contrast sufficiently with each other.
6.4 If objects use event handlers, make sure they do not require use of a mouse.
10.1 Inform the user that clicking on certain links or areas of a window will open pop-up windows or change the active window.
10.2 Make sure that labels of all form controls are properly placed.

Whilst ignoring Priority 3, I feel I should say that single error under the automated checkpoints is not 4.2. It is another of the hotly debated ones. But, that is beside the point because, in my opinion the page has not reached A.

It is only my opinion but it may be a little more independent than this site's developer on whom the site owner has to rely completely.

I understand. I make efforts at improving the site without him knowing on some occasions. You may continue to hijack because I'm definately interested.

I'm going to do some more investigation on skip links. I use pc at home, and mac at work and mac's are so limiting as far as accessibility goes. Can't even do the tabbing on links from firefox on mac...

Happy to try to help if you get stuck (only have PC, though) but suggest you post any accessibility probs. in the Off Topic Forum.

I think anyone may have a valid law suit against apple for their unaccessibility issues. You can't click out of dialog boxes without using the mouse. Can't jump from links in browser without mouse. Can even find your way through folders, or even execute files without a mouse. It's annoying.

Whoa there, Tiger.
MAC is not inherently inaccessible. My credit card has just bought me a Powerbook (sadly back at Apple for hardware issues). I got it to test several accessibility-type apps and the bundled VoiceOver (screen-reader and magnifier) in V10.4 (I think :? ). I will be testing specifically in the belief I can recommend Mac technology to "disabled" people as an alternative to the PC.

You can get a user's manual on-line that should point you to tabbing/keystroke combinations etc.

But... beware there are a lot of Mac lovers on the forum :whistle: .

...and I'm one of them! You're way off here purefusion. You just don't know the key strokes involved. I'm guessing you're not all that familiar with the Mac OS even though you use it at work.

We have the same opinion of the automated checkers really; they have a use in the hands of someone who has an understanding of the wider issues in this regard and that it mainly rests around an honest self appraisal as to whether a page passes the WCAG checkpoints.

In truth I find little help from them as most of the points should be known and designed into the site from the off. The checklist is useful as a memory jogger, but ultimately one uses ones own judgement alongside the checklist checkpoints.

My reference to priority 3 checkpoint 4.2 was as an indication of one of the reasons that priority 3 triple A is considered not reachable and if were to take lists such as this seriously they need to ensure that these points are clear or not publish them at all.

Are Macs really so reliant on mouse input, sounds like a terrible drawback, are there no keyboard shortcuts?

Hugo.

Wolfcry picked that up at the bottom of the previous page.
What I can tell you is the chap who will be the main beta tester for one of the Mac apps. is totally blind. He has used a PC for many years, but only had a little trouble getting around his Mac once he realised the keystroke combinations were not the same i.e. he stopped looking for the "control key" and the "any key"

I appologize for looking like an inexperienced mac user/mac hater. Although I must say OSX is a great improvement from where I started on macs. Though I wouldn't own one, they're nice. It's true, though, that I may not know all shortcuts/keystrokes. And I learn new things often by just stumbling on them. But I can never find any keystrokes for making dialog boxes go away without having to click on them.

Would this "user manual" explain all these keystroke?

Should do - or you can get a book if you can't find the company's manual.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/resources/
The one at the bottom left has a pull-out card with the keystroke combinations on it.

Well we've brought this thread back on focus - now that we're into MacOSX.

That's about the use of it, a brief memory aid to people who know what they are doing.

However, I would still rather than all naffed off for one simple reason. Clients and Managers.

Ok that looks like two reasons but it's the same reason honest. The problem is they make people with no knowledge at all think they can do my job (well a bit of it) at the click of a button. They click the button, see no "errors" and think that all is fine and dandy to insist on implementing sub standard sites cause "it passes the test, stop fideling with it".

Heaven forbid that they might listen to a lowly developer who might suggest they actually READING the report. Hmph!

Sorry to interupt everyone, back to Mac OSX