Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Web site critique

Reply
Thread Tools

Web site critique

 
 
Oli Filth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005
Neo Geshel wrote:
> Gazza wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Travis Newbury mumbled the following on 16/05/2005 09:49:
>>
>>> Neo Geshel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well the only people that will appreciate this:
>>>
>>> " This site makes use of standards-compliant xhtml and css.
>>> It is also Section 508 compliant, and conforms to Level Triple-A of
>>> the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
>>> And finally, this site uses no GIF�s in its design. Nada. None. PNG
>>> or JPEG images only, folks!"
>>>
>>> Are people here. Your visitors will have no idea what you are
>>> talking about.

>>
>>
>>
>> Nor does the OP apparently:
>> Fails CSS validation.

>
>
> Really?
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...css/global.css
>
> Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get “Failed” from
> “Congratulations! Valid CSS! This document validates as CSS! ”.
>


However:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...nentalkit.com/

Although the CSS itself *is* correct. You need to check your MIME types
etc. if you're going to use XHTML and the <?xml ... ?> directive.

--
Oli
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
kchayka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005
Neo Geshel wrote:
> Gazza wrote:
>>
>> Fails Automated WAI Level A, let alone Level AAA.

>
> I dont know what you used to do the validation on these, but this site:
> http://webxact.watchfire.com/


Are you using this to determine that a site is accessible? <rolls eyes>

Following the WAI guidelines blindly does not mean the site is
accessible, not by a long shot.

If you're only interested in pleasing some automated checker, then say
so. If you're truly interested in creating accessible sites, then don't
depend on some tool telling you it's good or not. Use your brain.

Just don't claim the site is accessible coz some automated checker says
it is.

> But my main thrust of support is for TTS readers. Not ppl
> with images turned off or CSS disabled.


Accessibility is a heck of a lot more than just accommodating blind
users. If you really had a clue about this subject, you would know that.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neo Geshel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005
kchayka wrote:
> Neo Geshel wrote:
>
>>Gazza wrote:
>>
>>>Fails Automated WAI Level A, let alone Level AAA.

>>
>>I don�t know what you used to do the validation on these, but this site:
>>http://webxact.watchfire.com/

>
>
> Are you using this to determine that a site is accessible? <rolls eyes>
>
> Following the WAI guidelines blindly does not mean the site is
> accessible, not by a long shot.
>
> If you're only interested in pleasing some automated checker, then say
> so. If you're truly interested in creating accessible sites, then don't
> depend on some tool telling you it's good or not. Use your brain.
>
> Just don't claim the site is accessible coz some automated checker says
> it is.


Did I ever say I did? No. That’s why the 508 and AAA links at thebottom
of the page don’t lead to any automated checker (unlike the XHTMLand
CSS links). It’s easy enough to do, but I don’t do it because I don’t
DEPEND on the checkers. I simply use them as a “minimum guideline” and
go from there.

>>But my main thrust of support is for TTS readers. Not ppl
>>with images turned off or CSS disabled.

>
>
> Accessibility is a heck of a lot more than just accommodating blind
> users. If you really had a clue about this subject, you would know that.


Of course I know that. But show me a peer-reviewed research paper that
indicates the usage of browsers that have images or css turned off as
being larger than the number of TTS readers, and I’ll gladly change my tune.

IMHO, I don’t know of any study that puts no-images and no-css users as
being anywhere even on the map. eight to ten years ago, this would have
been an issue. Eight to ten years ago, people still used 9,800 and
14,400 baud modems (I did!) and often turned off images (so did I!) in
order to get faster page loads. Not anymore.

Sure, you might get the odd hermetic geek in his parent’s dank basement
that has images and css turned off, but that’s bound to be the exception
rather than the rule. And I highly doubt that he’s looking for
Continental Kits. But a blind spouse looking for a Kit for her Husband’s
birthday, now THAT is a potential scenario that I can believe in.

Let’s get logical, let’s get reasonable. Let’s NOT get into a
nit-picking debate over the Emperor’s new clothes.

...Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005
Neo Geshel wrote:

> But show me a peer-reviewed research paper that indicates the usage of
> browsers that have images or css turned off as being larger than the
> number of TTS readers, and I’ll gladly change my tune.


Most mobile user-agents don't support CSS.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

 
Reply With Quote
 
Neo Geshel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005
Oli Filth wrote:
> Neo Geshel wrote:
>> Gazza wrote:
>>> Travis Newbury mumbled the following on 16/05/2005 09:49:
>>>> Neo Geshel wrote:
>>>>> Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:
>>>>
>>>> Well the only people that will appreciate this:
>>>>
>>>> " This site makes use of standards-compliant xhtml and css.
>>>> It is also Section 508 compliant, and conforms to Level Triple-A of
>>>> the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
>>>> And finally, this site uses no GIF�s in its design. Nada. None. PNG
>>>> or JPEG images only, folks!"
>>>>
>>>> Are people here. Your visitors will have no idea what you are
>>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> Nor does the OP apparently:
>>> Fails CSS validation.

>>
>> Really?
>> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...css/global.css
>>
>> Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get “Failed” from
>> “Congratulations! Valid CSS! This document validates as CSS! ”.
>>

>
> However:
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...nentalkit.com/
>
> Although the CSS itself *is* correct. You need to check your MIME types
> etc. if you're going to use XHTML and the <?xml ... ?> directive.
>

Yes, but I have no control over the mime-type that the server puts out
(the site isn’t hosted with us), and a quick search of google hasn’t
turned up anything that I can use in PHP (without throwing an error,
that is). If you have any links that show me how I can get the server to
modify a normal page’s mime-type through PHP (before the page is sent to
the user), I'd be glad to implement it. So far, most everything that I
have come across is related to setting the mime-type of an upload to the
server.

...Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************
 
Reply With Quote
 
Oli Filth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005
Neo Geshel wrote:
> Oli Filth wrote:
>
>> Neo Geshel wrote:
>>
>>> Gazza wrote:
>>>> Fails CSS validation.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...css/global.css
>>>
>>> Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get “Failed” from
>>> “Congratulations! Valid CSS! This document validates as CSS! ”.
>>>

>>
>> However:
>> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...nentalkit.com/
>>
>> Although the CSS itself *is* correct. You need to check your MIME
>> types etc. if you're going to use XHTML and the <?xml ... ?> directive.
>>

> Yes, but I have no control over the mime-type that the server puts out
> (the site isn’t hosted with us), and a quick search of google hasn’t
> turned up anything that I can use in PHP (without throwing an error,
> that is). If you have any links that show me how I can get the server to
> modify a normal page’s mime-type through PHP (before the page is sent to
> the user), I'd be glad to implement it. So far, most everything that I
> have come across is related to setting the mime-type of an upload to the
> server.
>

header("Content-Type: ...");

Before any script output. However, there are issues with XHTML MIME
types and Internet Explorer (cos it's lame). Do a Google search for
"xhtml mime explorer" to find your options.

--
Oli
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2005
> From: "nice.guy.nige" <(E-Mail Removed)>

> Consider a "designed for accessibility" style
> comment with a link to a page describing how you approached the design and
> development to produce an accessible site (and why that is important).


What a good idea! I feel like a jackal prowling around the edges of a kill
and getting what morsels I can. But, again, this is sensible, well said.

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
> From: kchayka <(E-Mail Removed)>

> If you're only interested in pleasing some automated checker, then say
> so.


Of course the OP should! But if he finds it a bit hard to admit to others or
even to himself such a silliness, how about a shrink or the ultimate
repository for the hardest of confessions, a priest?

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Sundberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:26:36 GMT, Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:
>
>http://continentalkit.com/
>
>Looking for several things:
>
> =E2=80=A2 Why does IE ignore the other stylesheets? Both Mozilla and Op=
>era see=20
>the print and handheld stylesheets, but IE ignores them. When one does a =
>
>print preview in Mozilla or Opera, the print preview comes out=20
>correctly, but in IE it does not. Same with viewing the site on a=20
>cellphone or a handheld device.


This may or may not help. For your "print.css," you've got to go
through and, basically, create a duplicate of your "screen.css" file
but use "display: none" for those classes and IDs you do not want
showing in a printed page. IE may be confused by some of the
directions it is trying to interpret from both the screen.css and
print.css files. IIRC, your print.css file has to account for
everything in the screen.css file. Remember, too, that the proper
measurement for print typefaces is "point," not "pixel".

> =E2=80=A2 How is the header image coming out at the very top? Are IE pp=
>l able=20
>to see the full alpha-transparency? (Notice how the background slides=20
>behind the blur when you scroll)


In IE 6.02, it is NOT displaying the transparency.

What's wrong with using a GIF transparency? Or, if you were to
absolutely position your IDs, simply using your existing background
tile as the background for the banner?

And why use Flash for a simple slide show? At 56k, with a great
majority of people still use in the US (~70%), it took over three
minutes for the file to load with no indication in Firefox that a
Flash file was loading. An impatient visitor will just stop loading
the page after xx number of seconds if it otherwise appears that the
page has loaded. As an alternative, a properly optimized GIF animation
would get the same job done for fewer bytes. Overall, without the
Flash file, your page still took ~22 seconds to load at 56K -- about
twice the recommended speed.

Your title header is way too large (~60k) for the purpose it serves.
Your visitors would be better served if you at least incorporated the
image as a background-image in css so as to greatly speed up the
loading of subsequent pages.

Hopefully this will all be helpful to you.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2005
Steve Sundberg wrote:

> This may or may not help. For your "print.css," you've got to go
> through and, basically, create a duplicate of your "screen.css" file
> but use "display: none" for those classes and IDs you do not want
> showing in a printed page.


No you don't. Typically, for a print style sheet, I'll start with a new,
blank file, set something like:

BODY {
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: "Georgia", "Times New Roman", serif;
color: black;
background: white;
}
H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 {
font-family: "Swis721 BT", "Helvetica", "Arial", sans-serif;
}
#menu {
display: none;
}

and that's it. Let the rest be unstyled.

> IE may be confused by some of the directions it is trying to interpret
> from both the screen.css and print.css files.


When it is printing, IE should (and indeed does) ignore the screen CSS
file entirely. When it is displaying, IE should (and indeed does) ignore
the print CSS file entirely. IE shouldn't (and indeed doesn't) have any
problems with confusion between print and screen styles.

> IIRC, your print.css file has to account for everything in the
> screen.css file.


You don't RC.

> What's wrong with using a GIF transparency?


GIF can't handle alpha-blending, so would look ugly as hell.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber XML 1 12-25-2007 11:48 PM
Free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber HTML 0 12-24-2007 04:26 PM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber HTML 0 12-21-2007 03:47 PM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsweb sites cyber HTML 1 12-19-2007 09:07 AM
Re: Critique my company's revised web site. Spartanicus HTML 0 09-16-2004 12:04 PM



Advertisments