<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: It&#8217;s the little things&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/</link>
	<description>WordPress, web development, and world domination.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:29:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4-alpha-19719</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Browser-Makers Seek Clickjacking Fix</title>
		<link>http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/#comment-164515</link>
		<dc:creator>Browser-Makers Seek Clickjacking Fix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:24:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">//?p=#comment-164515</guid>
		<description>..]Hansen and Grossman were slated to expound on the threat and its implications at last week&#039;s OWASP NYC AppSec 2008 Conference. They postponed their conference talk on the vulnerability at the request of Adobe and other &quot;affected vendors,&quot; which wanted to wait until a systemic workaround or hotfix could be applied...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>..]Hansen and Grossman were slated to expound on the threat and its implications at last week&#8217;s OWASP NYC AppSec 2008 Conference. They postponed their conference talk on the vulnerability at the request of Adobe and other &#8220;affected vendors,&#8221; which wanted to wait until a systemic workaround or hotfix could be applied&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jen</title>
		<link>http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/#comment-23477</link>
		<dc:creator>jen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:29:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">//?p=#comment-23477</guid>
		<description>Just want to say thanks - you have inadvertantly solved a problem for a first-time web-builder..........and saved my sanity in the process!

Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just want to say thanks &#8211; you have inadvertantly solved a problem for a first-time web-builder&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.and saved my sanity in the process!</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Francis</title>
		<link>http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/#comment-368</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Francis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">//?p=#comment-368</guid>
		<description>As the W3 says, &quot;If you set one colour, set them all&quot;. Not doing so is irresponsible. If you specify a foreground colour but not a background colour, the idea of CASCADING preferences is lost.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the W3 says, &#8220;If you set one colour, set them all&#8221;. Not doing so is irresponsible. If you specify a foreground colour but not a background colour, the idea of CASCADING preferences is lost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dougal</title>
		<link>http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/#comment-367</link>
		<dc:creator>Dougal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">//?p=#comment-367</guid>
		<description>But as Mike pointed out, if a site is incorporating images that &lt;em&gt;depend&lt;/em&gt; on a particular background color in order to look correct, they should go to the effort to ensure that the intended effect is achieved.

I don&#039;t really have a problem with a site not setting a background color in general. It&#039;s mostly the cases where it&#039;s obvious that they designed around an expectation that wasn&#039;t true that bugs me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But as Mike pointed out, if a site is incorporating images that <em>depend</em> on a particular background color in order to look correct, they should go to the effort to ensure that the intended effect is achieved.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t really have a problem with a site not setting a background color in general. It&#8217;s mostly the cases where it&#8217;s obvious that they designed around an expectation that wasn&#8217;t true that bugs me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/#comment-366</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">//?p=#comment-366</guid>
		<description>But by setting yourself up to be annoyed when people don&#039;t set a background color, don&#039;t you lose the right tc complain when people don&#039;t? Setting a background color for your browser is a sign of &lt;em&gt;user preference&lt;/em&gt; and so a funky background showing up for you is simply a sign of a website respecting your preferences instead of trying to do everything for itself.

If anything more sites should stop using background colors. It&#039;d be better for people like Mike who prefer the lower contrast. It&#039;s a lot less work than creating a user stylesheet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But by setting yourself up to be annoyed when people don&#8217;t set a background color, don&#8217;t you lose the right tc complain when people don&#8217;t? Setting a background color for your browser is a sign of <em>user preference</em> and so a funky background showing up for you is simply a sign of a website respecting your preferences instead of trying to do everything for itself.</p>
<p>If anything more sites should stop using background colors. It&#8217;d be better for people like Mike who prefer the lower contrast. It&#8217;s a lot less work than creating a user stylesheet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2004/02/18/its-the-little-things/#comment-365</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">//?p=#comment-365</guid>
		<description>Dougal, on my Windows machines I have the general window background set to light grey. I prefer the lower contrast it gives me.
It also allows me to spot when designers fail to set the default background colour.
I&#039;m also surprised at the number of times I see a page full of images with a mixture of white and transparent backgrounds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dougal, on my Windows machines I have the general window background set to light grey. I prefer the lower contrast it gives me.<br />
It also allows me to spot when designers fail to set the default background colour.<br />
I&#8217;m also surprised at the number of times I see a page full of images with a mixture of white and transparent backgrounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: dougal.gunters.org @ 2012-02-11 22:37:12 by W3 Total Cache -->
