May 2005 Archives

Link Titles Shmink Titles

You don't need to use the title attribute on every link to aid accessibility. The attribute is there to convey what the link is (or rather what's at the destination of the link target) if the link text doesn't describe it itself. It might be helpful on link text such as "more" or "click here" (urgh! why would you have links that say that?!), but it isn't usually necessary on descriptive text. You certainly don't need it if you're simply repeating the link text in the title attribute value.

When you probably don't need it:
<p>Website x will teach you <a href="wherever.html">how to peel an orange</a><p>

When you might:
<p>Website X will teach you how to peel an orange. <a href="wherever.html" title="how to peel an orange">Click here for more</a></p>

The first example's clearly better anyway. It keeps with the flow of language, it's better for scannability, it's more suitable when it comes to being printed and you can't rely on the link title attribute anyway.

Sometimes there are legitimate uses, even when you're not using the bad habit of "click here", but in most cases, if you're writing good link content, you won't need the title attribute.

Monday 23 May, 2005 (11:13 PM GMT) | Comments (18) / Permanent Link

Dog Blog 100

So this'll be the 100th post on the Dog Blog then. Woo-hoo!

This little blog isn't half as prolific as some (I remember Scrivs celebrating his 100th post when Whitespace was about 3 days old!), and in trying to keep my personal life out of it (sorry, I dropped the musical baton) and focussing on HTML and CSS (well, at least web design) issues in keeping with the rest of the site, I'm not sure if I'm doing myself any favours or not. Still, it's been fun, and hopefully as interesting to others as it has been to me (well, a fair amount of people read it, so I must be doing something right!).

After a quick flick through, here's a selection of some of my favourite posts from the past 18 months or so:

Suckerfish™, has fast become my favourite, having quickly turned in to a mix of riotous humour and nipple-hating outrage (you won't find much about web design here!).
Tables, My Ass was not intended to be particularly controversial, and it was knocked out in good humour. It got a lot of attention and the responses (some quite emotional) were extremely interesting.
Son of Suckerfish Dropdowns, if only because there are 264 comments (at the time of writing), amuses me no end. Bloody bane of my existence those things.
Mystical Yellow Form Fields is an entry of particularly surprising interest, due to the number of people who find the website after trying to find out why the hell their form fields are turning yellow for no apparent reason.
All CSS Sites Look the Same. Dispelling the myth that somehow, by using a certain technology, you're bound to certain design styles. Some interesting comments.
Watch Your Language. Don't say "hell" or you'll go there, and should you swear on your site?
Bad Tags holds the comments to the article of the same name. Interesting and emotional comments.
Against my better judgement... is it going to far when you start to make up CSS jokes? Probably.

So. There you go. Happy anniversary me. Will the Dog Blog make it to another 100?

Wednesday 18 May, 2005 ( 4:11 PM GMT) | Comments (5) / Permanent Link

CSS Specificity

I have added a short article about specificity to the HTML Dog guides.

Back in the days when I was first getting to grips with CSS, now and then I would come across the strange situation of a browser ignoring my explicit rules. "I want that text to be yellow, so why are you insisting on making it white? Look! I've told you I want it in yellow! Damn you! I hate technology!"

What was happening was that my selectors weren't specific enough – there was a conflicting, more specific rule in the stylesheet that was taking precedence.

It's not an obvious system, and often doesn't come in to play, but understanding specificity can prevent a lot of head scratching and give you a bit more control over what you want to do.

Monday 16 May, 2005 (10:14 AM GMT) | Comments (13) / Permanent Link

@media 2005 Sold Out

It's amazing what a well-timed blog posting can do. With over a month to go, the last of the spots for the @media 2005 conference have now been snapped up.

I'm tickled pink. The response has been overwhelming and it's evidence that there's a massive commercial appetite for learning about web standards and accessibility. Over 300 real, professional people laying down real, hard-earned money to hear about cutting-edge web design.

Oh, by the way, if you're miffed because you missed out, there still might be a chance to attend by joining the special waiting list.

Saturday 7 May, 2005 ( 5:04 PM GMT) | Comments (suspended) / Permanent Link

25 Places Left

There are just 25 places left for @media 2005. To add a little bit of perspective, more than 25 places were taken in the last week alone, so if you've still not registered, and you intend to, now's the time to do it!

Conferences are good. They're great. Lovely. Wonderful. You learn loads of interesting stuff, you meet lots of cool people and you generally can't fail to have a good time. If you wish you could make it to @media 2005 but your boss won't let you go because you live, say, somewhere near Australia, either have a tantrum and threaten to quit, or try out Web Essentials '05. I've got a lot of respect for the guys (and gals) behind this, and they've put together a fantastic programme for their second year.