Site Ratings & Reviews - Single page website critique

Author

Single page website critique

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

please!
any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.

http://portfolio.dejkam.com

Thanks in advance,
Arash

Ben Measures

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> please!
> any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.
>
> http://portfolio.dejkam.com

Personally, I'd split the page into several smaller segments.

My first impression is "information overload". It took me some time to
get oriented (probably exasperated by the diverse appearance of the
different headings). If it wasn't for the address of the site, i don't
think I'd have got that it was a portfolio - I think you need to make
more prominent the information about yourself.

The only apparent bug I saw was that the contact form overflows the
column width for me:
http://ben.measures.org.uk/tmp/port....screenshot.png

The thin columns also have the unfortunate side effect of causing some
lines to only contain 3-4 words, and this can be a great source of
irritation to users. If users enlarge the text it can become very
unpleasant to read.

I think you could make some improvements in the area of search engines.
Your keywords meta-tag has /far/ too many keywords (iirc these get
ignored anyways by google.com), and there isn't enough text in your
h1,..,h6 tags (which is the main source of keywords for google
searches). I also find strange certain tags seqences like:
<h2><img alt="Development" src="devel_title.jpg" width="117" height="36"
/></h2>
(with this not being the only example).

Looking at the sourcecode, I saw some tag missuse and minor
technicalities such as:
1. paragraph tags being used where a bulletless list would better serve;
2. the strong tag is misused (as a presentational tag - I can see
correct usage in all of two places); and
3. some images have alt="" (which seems to be a workaround to make it
validate. Put some alternative text in there!)

I hope that helps. Sorry if I sound a bit terse but I've had a tiresome day.

--
Ben M.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

> If it wasn't for the address of the site, i don't
> think I'd have got that it was a portfolio

Actually it is not a portfolio it is a personal homepage (kind of
promotional)
which may contain anything. I'm going to move it to www.dejkam.com
portfolio.dejkam.com is temporary.

> The only apparent bug I saw was that the contact form overflows the
> column width for me:
> http://ben.measures.org.uk/tmp/port....screenshot.png
>

Oh! that makes me mad too, IE and Opera do change the font-size of
text inputs but Mozilla (as well as your browser) don't. do you know a work
around for this ?

> I think you could make some improvements in the area of search engines.
> Your keywords meta-tag has /far/ too many keywords (iirc these get
> ignored anyways by google.com)

Ignore that, I just copy pasted those keywords from my older website, will
optimize it later.

> and there isn't enough text in your
> h1,..,h6 tags (which is the main source of keywords for google

What more can I write in them? do you have any opinion?

> I also find strange certain tags seqences like:
> <h2><img alt="Development" src="devel_title.jpg" width="117" height="36"
> /></h2>
> (with this not being the only example).

Why is it strange? it is an image representing text which is also a heading,
text-only browsers
like lynx understand that.

> 1. paragraph tags being used where a bulletless list would better serve;

Oh thanks for that, actually I've started writing XHTML after about a year
gap,
I forgot that lists can be bulletless, I'll correct that, I think I know
which parts of
the code you are referring to.

> 2. the strong tag is misused (as a presentational tag - I can see
> correct usage in all of two places); and

I know that too :) again can you suggest a workaround for that without
changing the appearance?

> 3. some images have alt="" (which seems to be a workaround to make it
> validate. Put some alternative text in there!)

Well, that is intentional and not to fool the validator. All those images
with alt="" are decorative, in other words they don't have any meaning, like
those photos in my photography column. if I write something
in the alt attribute, for example for the first photo write alt="picture of
apples"
text-only browsers would render that column like this:

Photography
picture of apples it is my first passion these days....

I don't want this to happen.

> I hope that helps. Sorry if I sound a bit terse but I've had a tiresome
day.
> --
> Ben M.

Thanks alot for your close inspection :)

Arash

Neal

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:47:14 +0330, Arash Dejkam <dejkam@softhome.net>
wrote:

>
> I know that too :) again can you suggest a workaround for that without
> changing the appearance?

I'd span the text and style it. There's no semantic reason for it to be
stressed, so boldong with CSS is correct.

jake

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

In message <2m7l46FjojkcU1@uni-berlin.de>, Arash Dejkam
<dejkam@softhome.net> writes
>please!
>any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.
>
>http://portfolio.dejkam.com
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Arash
>
>

The first thing I notice is that the text is waaaay too small for me to
read comfortably, which means I have to enlarge the text. Why not set it
to 100%? That's 100% of what the viewer wants to see.

It's a non-fluid design which can't make full use of the browser
viewport; that's especially noticeable as the page is left justified,
with a lot of 'white space' on the right-hand side.

I have a minimum text size set in Opera -- this causes a layout problem
with Opera 7.51:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/AJ01X.JPG (70k)

You have various typos (which I'm sure you can find).

Overall, it's quite a nice looking page -- although in its current
incarnation it looks somewhat cramped.

regards.

--
Jake

Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

Ben Measures wrote:

> Arash Dejkam wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I also find strange certain tags seqences like:
> <h2><img alt="Development" src="devel_title.jpg" width="117" height="36"
> /></h2>
> (with this not being the only example).

No, that's not strange, it's smart! Turn off
images and see how the headings are still there!

--
Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen
http://home.online.no/~ingerfaj/

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

>
> I have a minimum text size set in Opera -- this causes a layout problem
> with Opera 7.51:
> http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/AJ01X.JPG (70k)
>

I think I found the workaround for that, and will correct it. thanks.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-21, 7:17 pm

"Arash Dejkam" <dejkam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:2m7l46FjojkcU1@uni-berlin.de...
> please!
> any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.
>
> http://portfolio.dejkam.com
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Arash
>
>

By the way, I'm not a native english speaker, so I would be glad if you also
search for grammer errors, and let me know.

thanks again.

Edwin van der Vaart

2004-07-21, 11:16 pm

jake wrote:

> In message <2m7l46FjojkcU1@uni-berlin.de>, Arash Dejkam
> <dejkam@softhome.net> writes
>
>
> The first thing I notice is that the text is waaaay too small for me to
> read comfortably, which means I have to enlarge the text. Why not set it
> to 100%? That's 100% of what the viewer wants to see.

Why not setting no font and font size for this site?
Why not letting the visitor deceide what kind of font and font size they
like best to read with their screen resolution with their window side?
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Under construction

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-21, 11:16 pm

Well, I made some changes based on Ben's suggestions.
But still can't solve the overflowing text inputs problem when text is
enlarged in mozilla.

"Arash Dejkam" <dejkam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:2m7l46FjojkcU1@uni-berlin.de...
> please!
> any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.
>
> http://portfolio.dejkam.com
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Arash
>
>

2004-07-21, 11:16 pm

"Arash Dejkam" <dejkam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:2m7l46FjojkcU1@uni-berlin.de...
> please!
> any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.
>
> http://portfolio.dejkam.com

Font is far too small.

When the way to small default is ignored and the users font made larger the
fixed sized nature of the page causes too few words per line.

Why is it fixed width?

There is now attention flow, the eye does not have a point of reference,
just floats over the page looking for something to start with. There is just
a bunch of information, divided up into three columns, on a fixed width
page. Reminds me of the peices of paper people stuff in my mail box.

--
Cheers
Richard.

kchayka

2004-07-22, 4:16 am

Arash Dejkam wrote:
[color=darkred]
> But still can't solve the overflowing text inputs problem when text is
> enlarged in mozilla.

input, textarea, select, option { max-width: 100%; }

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 7:15 am

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:2m8n8gFkf6krU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
>
> input, textarea, select, option { max-width: 100%; }
>

Thanks! I corrected that.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

Oh Richard! good news you have not given up yet :)

>
> Why is it fixed width?
>

Ok! I added an expand button just for you to appreciate your persistence,
please click ctrl+F5 to let external css and js refresh too, they don't
refresh automatically in Mozilla :( why?
but...

> Reminds me of the peices of paper people stuff in my mail box.
>

That's exactly how I want it to look.

Regards,
Arash

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote

> Oh Richard! good news you have not given up yet :)

What? This is a different newsgroup, with a different emphasis. This is a
new thread. I *have* given up on you in that other thread over at ah :-\

[color=darkred]
> Ok! I added an expand button just for you to appreciate your persistence,

Finally some sanity. It looks real good when I press that button :-) But,
why should I have to press a button to make your site fill my canvas. Why
does it not do so to start with. It looks MUCH better when it does fill my
canvas. I really think you have the standard head-in-sand-desktop-publishing
attitude.

[color=darkred]
> That's exactly how I want it to look.

Then why don't you print it on peices of paper and stuff it in everybodys
mail box, or make it into a pdf and post that to the web because if "that's
exactly how you want it to look" then it most certainly ain't a modern well
designed web site as we know them, Jim.

What about the poor bastard who wants to read it on his telephone?

BTW did you notice that just about every other reply in this thread also
complained about your stupidly small font? You are losing ground rapidly
here :-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

> I really think you have the standard head-in-sand-desktop-publishing
> attitude.

Do you really think like that?! then why did I put all that time to make my
page a well-formed and valid XHTML and make it compatible even with text and
aural browsers?!

> Then why don't you print it on peices of paper and stuff it in everybodys
> mail box, or make it into a pdf and post that to the web

for the same reason that these websites don't, and all other hundred
thousands of websites with fixed width pages:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/
http://www.cnet.com
http://www.photo.net/
http://www.dpreview.com/

Why are you trying to induce that "fixed-width" is a cursed thing?
fixed-width pages have more impact on ordinary people (those who most likely
don't even know how HTML works) because it reminds them of their habits
(reading a magazine, looking at a poster & flyers...). and I think more than
90% of web visitors are ordinary people.
So in my opinion fixed-width is more appropriate for websites which have
kind of promotional and
advertising nature (like my website).
For more practical websites full-width is definitely more appropriate.

Arash

Ben Measures

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote:
>
>
> Oh! that makes me mad too, IE and Opera do change the font-size of
> text inputs but Mozilla (as well as your browser) don't. do you know a work
> around for this ?

No (and I wouldn't like you to do such a thing to my textareas \o/ ).
Strangely enough, forms don't have a section in the CSS 2.1 spec. I
never really noticed that before \o/ .

>
> What more can I write in them? do you have any opinion?
>
>
> Why is it strange? it is an image representing text which is also a heading,
> text-only browsers
> like lynx understand that.

I was kind of on the same subject in those two sentences (about SEO).
Although I'm by no means certain, google may not see it as heading text
but as alt text, which has less weight to it (if any). It's all pretty
much guesswork as to whether google is using the alt property for
keywords in any given month.

Personally, I'd simply use
<h2 id="header_development">Development</h2>
and use CSS to replace it with a graphic.

>
> I know that too :) again can you suggest a workaround for that without
> changing the appearance?

It's missuse of the markup tag. The strong tag is basically a stronger
emphasis tag, and is grouped as a "phrase element" in the standards.
It's not being used as such most of the time.

I can best show by example. Here's an example of good use:
Please remember to <strong>enter a valid email address</strong> in the
field below or...
Here, you really do mean a strong emphasis.

Of bad use:
<strong><a href="char8.avi">AVI cinepak codec</a></strong>
This is abusing strong as a presentational tag - if you want to change
the appearance of the link you should use CSS.

And of questionable use:
<p><strong class="alert">FOR SALE!</strong> I have decided to...
I would argue that you really want a header tag (made inline with CSS)
or a bold tag.

It's a subtle difference I know but personally I like to be strict with
my useage of tags (and guess you might too, seeing as you're using XHTML).

>
> Well, that is intentional and not to fool the validator. All those images
> with alt="" are decorative, in other words they don't have any meaning, like
> those photos in my photography column.

I agree that alt text for decorative images should replace it's
function, and if it has no function then an empty alt attribute is
correct. However, I would have thought that photographs in a photography
column would've been more than decorative - they'd be the subject!

Alt text isn't simply about the "meaning" of an image. I think the best
method I've found of writing alt text is to first question why the image
is there. Is it functional (such as bullet images or frilly horizontal
rules)? Is it a picture or illustration (such as a sunset scene)? Is it
purely decorative (ie. there just to "jazz" up the page)?

Once you know the category can you think of your users:

1. Those with image loading enabled
It can be argued that their needs on alt text should be given the least
weighting, since they can see the image.

2. Those browsing in text mode but have the ability to view images
These users may have simply selected not to download images, or they may
be using Lynx with a helper application, for example.

If the image is functional, the alt text should replace the function
(eg, "*" to replace a graphic bullet).

If it's a picture or illustration then a description will be helpful in
their decision to take the extra step of viewing it.

If it's a graphical representation of some text, that should be the alt
text. If it's a suppliment to text already there or some frilly
decoration in the corner they probably don't want to know about it and
the alt text should be empty.

3. Those browsing in text mode and cannot view images
This includes the blind and partial-sighted who are likely be using a
reader of some sort. Here, alt text that describes pictures or
illustrations are of vital importance, as is alt text for text-as-graphics.

A good example of something I'd change would be your picture:
<img alt="[A striking young Arash in a black and white pose wearing a
red tie]" src="menew.jpg" width="100" height="190" class="photo" />

This would give group 2 an incentive to view the image, and group 3 a
clear mental image.

> if I write something
> in the alt attribute, for example for the first photo write alt="picture of
> apples"
> text-only browsers would render that column like this:
>
> Photography
> picture of apples it is my first passion these days....
>
> I don't want this to happen.

A lot of useability experts recommend that if it is a textual
description of the image you should enclose the alt text in square brackets.

> <h2>Photography</h2>
> <div class="container">
> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=314920">
> <img alt="[Green apples backlit by a warm orange light]" src="ph1.jpg" width="100" height="75" />
> <img alt="[Wine droplets being poured into a crystal glass, frozen in time]" src="ph2.jpg" width="100" height="78" />
> <img alt="[Closeup of the bottom of a glass beer mug]" src="ph3.jpg" width="100" height="78" />
> </a><br />
> </div>

Something like this would nicely satisfy (and render well for) all three
groups.

Hth,
--
Ben M.

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote
rf wrote:

>
> Do you really think like that?!

Yes. If you did not have your metaphorical head in the sand then you would
listen to reason.

> then why did I put all that time to make my
> page a well-formed and valid XHTML and make it compatible even with text
and
> aural browsers?!

I don't know. I also don't know why you made your web page compatible with
only one canvas size.

Hint: Every web page starts out completely accessible and usable on all user
agents. Web page authors work very hard to reduce this.

You still haven't said anything about the poor bastard trying to view your
page using a telephone.

everybody's[color=darkred]
>
> for the same reason that these websites don't, and all other hundred
> thousands of websites with fixed width pages:

Hundreds of thousands of lemmings jump of cliffs. Do you? No? You prefer to
just mill around amongst all the other sheep? What about doing something
<shudder> different </shudder> for a change? No, I rather thnk you prefer to
mill with the other <head style="position: sand"> ostriches </head>.

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/
> http://www.cnet.com
> http://www.photo.net/
> http://www.dpreview.com/

Have you actually looked inside any of these sites? They use 1990's
technology and 1990's ideas. They are out of date. It's just that the size
of the companies involved preclude them from entering this century. Do you
want to be just another one of the "last century" sites? If so then you are
succeeding admirably :-)

> Why are you trying to induce that "fixed-width" is a cursed thing?

Because it is. It might have been valid last century when almost everybody
had 800 pixel wide desktop PCs. It is not now valid.

Less than half your viewers have a 800 pixel wide screen. Some of them even
have screens up to 2000 pixels wide (of course their canvas won't be that
wide, it will be as wide as they like, which will not be as wide as your
page).

Many of them have screens that are 200 pixels or less wide. These ones are
usually wealthy enough to afford such "toys" and so wealthy enough to be
sitting around in a first class airport lounge somewhere surfing for someone
who might just be able to build them a web page or design an icon or some
animation for them, in exchange for large amounts of money.

These are the people you have just alienated with your draconian attitude.

> fixed-width pages have more impact on ordinary people (those who most
likely
> don't even know how HTML works)

99% of the "ordinary people" out there have no bloody idea what HTML *is*,
let alone how it works, just as they have no idea how a printing press
works. They are not interested in the methods, they just look at the
results. The web page. If they are using a 1175 wide screen and your page
(as it does) only fills the left 800 pixels they might wonder just how good
your design skills are, don't you know how to utilize all of their computer?
Would you not be equally suspicious of a shop that only sold rulers that are
8 inches long?

> because it reminds them of their habits
> (reading a magazine, looking at a poster & flyers...). and I think more
than
> 90% of web visitors are ordinary people.

Please cite the references you used to come to these conclusions. Please
point me to one article written this century that states that fixed width
design for a web page is a good thing because it "reminds people of a
magazine".

> So in my opinion fixed-width is more appropriate for websites which have
> kind of promotional and
> advertising nature (like my website).

"In your opinion" is the operative thing. Everything you have said to date
about font size and content width has been "your opinion". What about mine,
your viewer. You blithely discount my opinion as being different to what
"you like me to look at". You said that earlier. Your page is designed as it
is because *you* want me to look at it *that* way. Just who did you build
the page for anyway? You, or me,your viewer and potential client?

I am still waiting for your to cite some reliable *modern* references that
suggest that fixed with, and 800 pixels of it at that, is recommended.
Please also cite where font-size: 11px is recommended.

> For more practical websites full-width is definitely more appropriate.

More practical meaning what? One that more people can view at their desired
size?

Hmmm. I think we also have you here. "More practical"... leads me to believe
that your page is somewhat less then practical. You freely admit that there
are pages out there that are "more practical" :-)

Oh, I know, you will also discount this by saying "my site is an advert and
not a reference site" or something of that nature, not a "practical" site at
all :-)

I'm still waiting for those citations.

--
Cheers
Richard.

kchayka

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> fixed-width pages have more impact on ordinary people

Please show the research that supports this claim, coz I think you just
made it up. ;) If I recall, actual studies show just the opposite.
According to Nielsen, it remains one of the top 10 good design
violations, more than 70% of all web sites suffer from it.
<URL:http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html>
I don't always agree with Nielsen, but on this point he is right.

None of those other fixed-width sites you listed are exactly stellar
examples of good web design, you know. They suffer the same ills as your
page - too small text combined with fixed width that makes for a rather
sub-optimal user experience for those of us who have a different
browsing environment than the author.

Don't be a lemming, eh?

BTW, I like your photos. :)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

> According to Nielsen, it remains one of the top 10 good design
> violations, more than 70% of all web sites suffer from it.
> <URL:http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html>

So funny! 70% of people think Coca-Cola tastes better than Pepsi, a
researcher comes up and says Pepsi tastes better, all those 70%
of people are fools :))

Web Design is all about trade off between attractiveness and
usability, In my opinion you are the kind of person who is standing
at the usability end, I try to stand in the middle slightly biased to
usability.
I have enough customers who also stand at my place and perhaps you
have enough customers on your side too. so take it easy.

Arash

Ben Measures

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> Why are you trying to induce that "fixed-width" is a cursed thing?

Your users have a variety of screen resolutions and sizes. If you fix
the size in pixels you make it such that your site varies in physical
dimensions.

To show you what I'm seeing here, I've captured a screenshot and scaled
it so that it'll give the same physical dimensions (1 inch on mine will
be 1 inch on yours). Make sure you don't let IE resize to fit.

If you have a 17" CRT (16" viewable) at 800x600:
http://ben.measures.org.uk/tmp/port...t_scaled_for_17"_800x600.png
(252 KB)

If you have a 15" CRT (14" viewable) at 800x600:
http://ben.measures.org.uk/tmp/port...t_scaled_for_15"_800x600.png
(321 KB)

If you have something else, let me know and I can make one up for you.

--
Ben M.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 12:18 pm

> Personally, I'd simply use
> <h2 id="header_development">Development</h2>
> and use CSS to replace it with a graphic.
>

Good Idea, I did it. but not your way (how can you hide the text)?
what I did is something like this:
<h2><span>Development</span></h2>
h2 span { visibility:hidden; }
h2 { background-image: ... }

sincerely,
Arash

kchayka

2004-07-22, 7:17 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> what I did is something like this:
> <h2><span>Development</span></h2>
> h2 span { visibility:hidden; }
> h2 { background-image: ... }

This is commonly referred to as FIR (Fahrner Image Replacement).
Please don't do this, it creates an accessibility problem.

There is nothing wrong with using the <img> within the heading like you
had it before. But if you feel you must put the image in some style
rule, then first read:
<URL:http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?pag...eaderVisibility>

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

kchayka

2004-07-22, 7:17 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> kchayka wrote:
>
> So funny! 70% of people think Coca-Cola tastes better than Pepsi, a
> researcher comes up and says Pepsi tastes better, all those 70%
> of people are fools :))

Pepsi - yuck! It's sickly sweet, I don't know how anyone can stomach the
stuff! In this case, the majority are right! :-)

> Web Design is all about trade off between attractiveness and
> usability,

It's a common myth that web site aesthetics and usability/accessibility
are mutually exclusive. That is a strawman argument, and false.

> I try to stand in the middle slightly biased to usability.

Sorry, I see no evidence of this. You have pretty much ignored all the
advice given to you that would improve usability. Why you resist it
escapes me.

BTW, please don't trim all the attributions ("somebody wrote:") when you
reply - it makes it hard to follow who said what when.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Ben Measures

2004-07-22, 7:17 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> kchayka wrote:
>
>
> So funny! 70% of people think Coca-Cola tastes better than Pepsi, a
> researcher comes up and says Pepsi tastes better, all those 70%
> of people are fools :))

Not quite:

Somebody claims 70% of people think Cola tastes better than Pepsi. A
researcher publishes a study showing that people actually think Pepsi
tastes better. If it's revealed that the 70% statistic has nothing to
back it up, that first somebody is a fool.

If you want to know about something, there's no substitute for research
and studies. Neilsen is somebody who does both professionally
(http://www.useit.com/jakob/).

> Web Design is all about trade off between attractiveness and
> usability,

That's assuming usability is ugly.

> In my opinion you are the kind of person who is standing
> at the usability end, I try to stand in the middle slightly biased to
> usability.

I don't mean this as a knock but I don't find your website particularly
attractive nor useable.

I suspect you might be unaware that, whilst related, accessibility is a
different thing to useability. On your site I see commendable efforts
for accessibility but no evidence of consideration for useability.

--
Ben M.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 7:17 pm

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:2ma4ucFksp1fU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> This is commonly referred to as FIR (Fahrner Image Replacement).
> Please don't do this, it creates an accessibility problem.
>
> There is nothing wrong with using the <img> within the heading like you
> had it before. But if you feel you must put the image in some style
> rule, then first read:
> <URL:http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?pag...eaderVisibility>
>
> --
> Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
> Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Thanks for the link. eye-opening info ;)
the off-left technique described there is interesting but what about this
which is neater:

<h2><span>Development</span></h2>
h2 span { height:0px; overflow:hidden }
h2 { background-image: ... }

I tried it and it worked in IE, Mozilla and Opera. and perhaps doesn't make
any accessiblity issue.

What do you think ?

Regards,
Arash

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 7:17 pm

>
>
> It's a common myth that web site aesthetics and usability/accessibility
> are mutually exclusive. That is a strawman argument, and false.
>

But I think it is true!
This simple example shows that accessibility/aesthetics are mutually
exclusive in web design, at least
until our browsers behave like this: http://portfolio.dejkam.com/example.gif

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rNQLc.5526$UH7.54898819@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> Your users have a variety of screen resolutions and sizes. If you fix
> the size in pixels you make it such that your site varies in physical
> dimensions.
>
> To show you what I'm seeing here, I've captured a screenshot and scaled
> it so that it'll give the same physical dimensions (1 inch on mine will
> be 1 inch on yours). Make sure you don't let IE resize to fit.
>
> If you have a 17" CRT (16" viewable) at 800x600:
>
http://ben.measures.org.uk/tmp/port...t_scaled_for_17
"_800x600.png
> (252 KB)
>
> If you have a 15" CRT (14" viewable) at 800x600:
>
http://ben.measures.org.uk/tmp/port...t_scaled_for_15
"_800x600.png
> (321 KB)
>
> If you have something else, let me know and I can make one up for you.
>
> --
> Ben M.

Ben, please read my reply to kchayka and see the image. In my opinion
resolution should be set reasonably regarding the size of the monitor. and
reasonable in my opinion is that you should be
able to easily read normal size fonts without the need to zoom or change the
default settings.

Arash

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

> >>I also find strange certain tags seqences like:
heading,[color=darkred]
>
> I was kind of on the same subject in those two sentences (about SEO).
> Although I'm by no means certain, google may not see it as heading text
> but as alt text, which has less weight to it (if any). It's all pretty
> much guesswork as to whether google is using the alt property for
> keywords in any given month.
>

Well, I did some research about that and found interesting results:
I searched for "Arash Dejkam" in google, portfolio.dejkam.com was the
first record as expected BUT! look at the record:

Arash Dejkam: Web Designer, Animator, Photographer
Arash Dejkam (Iranian Animator, Programmer, web designer, Photographer)
- PORTFOLIO & CV - Tehran, Iran. Programming: C, C++, Java ...
portfolio.dejkam.com/ - 11k - 20 Jul 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

my 'description' meta tag ends with ...Tehran,Iran. after that is the
content of the body: Programming: C, C++, Java ...

my body is like this in google's cache:
<body>
<h1><img alt="Arash Dejkam: Web designer, Animator, Photographer"
src="main_title.gif" width="744" height="104" /></h1>
<div class="column">
<div class="pane">
<h2><img alt="Development" src="devel_title.jpg" width="117" height="36"
/></h2>
<p>
<strong>Programming:</strong> C, C++, Java,...
....
so as you see google has totally ignored the text in alt attributes!!

Arash

C.W.

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:28:25 +0330, "Arash Dejkam"
<dejkam@softhome.net> wrote:

>so as you see google has totally ignored the text in alt attributes!!

Google has done that for a while now - along with Yahoo, too, I think.
The alt="" attribute info is used for their image search sections.

If the image is linked then the alt="' attribute may be taken into
consideration but I don't think it is heavily weighted in comparison
to the other text shared on the page. title="" attribute, linked or
not, seems to be skipped over by search engine spiders or given very
low weight.

Carol

kchayka

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:

> "kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
> news:2ma4ucFksp1fU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Thanks for the link. eye-opening info ;)

You're welcome. :)

> the off-left technique described there is interesting but what about this
> which is neater:
>
> <h2><span>Development</span></h2>
> h2 span { height:0px; overflow:hidden }
> h2 { background-image: ... }

The height property is invalid for inline elements like span. If you add
display:block to this rule, it becomes valid.

> I tried it and it worked in IE, Mozilla and Opera. and perhaps doesn't make
> any accessiblity issue.

Actually, it didn't work for me in mozilla until I added display:block
to the span rule. Maybe it's a quirks/standards mode thing, I dunno.
Anyway, I next checked it in the IBM screen reader. It read the text
within the span just fine. This isn't a complete test, of course,
because different readers may behave differently, but so far so good. :)

Then I took a look in MacIE. Thumbs down - it shows both the image and
the text. MacIE has very buggy rendering of overflow, as do some other
browsers.

Nice try, though.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

kchayka

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> kchayka wrote:
>
> But I think it is true!
> This simple example shows that accessibility/aesthetics are mutually
> exclusive in web design, at least
> until our browsers behave like this: http://portfolio.dejkam.com/example.gif

I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of those screen shots. You are
overly concerned about unimportant things. That happens a lot with
graphics people - they don't understand how web pages are _supposed_ to
work and fall into the trap of trying to force a web page into behaving
like a piece of paper. That only leads to frustration for both the
designer and user. Different media has different rules, strengths and
weaknesses, you know. web != print.

Do you think all your visitors have to conform to your environment to
use your site, because that's what you're implying. If so, stop now
because it isn't going to happen. If your only concern is looks, not
readability or usability, then don't bother with HTML at all and put
your stuff in a PDF file. Then your visitors won't be able to mess up
your lovely design with their dirty, non-standard browsing habits.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Ben Measures

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> "kchayka" wrote:
>
> Thanks for the link. eye-opening info ;)
> the off-left technique described there is interesting but what about this
> which is neater:
>
> <h2><span>Development</span></h2>
> h2 span { height:0px; overflow:hidden }
> h2 { background-image: ... }
>
> I tried it and it worked in IE, Mozilla and Opera. and perhaps doesn't make
> any accessiblity issue.
>
> What do you think ?

I'm quite impressed - that's a very commendable try! You paid good
attention to the problems highlighted by kchayka's article.
Unfortunately the solution isn't complete because the height property
doesn't apply to (non-replaced) inline elements.

You might want to take a look at the following article which provides a
couple of methods overcoming FIR's problems:
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/he...mages-css-xhtml

However, my personal favourite method can be found at
http://www.moronicbajebus.com/playg...ge-replacement/ . I
like it because it keeps the XHTML clean (and easily upgradable when
browsers finally support the CSS3 content: property). As it turns out,
this uses the exact same property your try does :D .

Hth,
--
Ben M.

kchayka

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> In my opinion
> resolution should be set reasonably regarding the size of the monitor. and
> reasonable in my opinion is that you should be
> able to easily read normal size fonts without the need to zoom or change the
> default settings.

ROTFLMAO. You *are* funny!

My screen resolution is set perfectly for *my* needs. You have no
business telling me that it is wrong in any way.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Ben Measures

2004-07-22, 7:18 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> "Ben Measures" wrote:
>
> Ben, please read my reply to kchayka and see the image.

I'm not sure as how that answers my point. If you fix lengths in terms
of pixels, those lengths will vary in physical size because different
users have a different number of pixels per inch (or dpi).

What looks "right" on your screen may be tiny or large on others. On my
screen, your 245px columns are 2.72" but for the 17" CRT at 800x600 they
are a more comfortable 4.22".

> In my opinion resolution should be set reasonably regarding the size of
> the monitor. and reasonable in my opinion is that you should be
> able to easily read normal size fonts without the need to zoom or change the
> default settings.

I have a 19" monitor at 1280x1024. My OS knows my dpi so fonts appear
clear and readable. Except in the case of your website where you make
them smaller (with body { font-size: x-small }). If I make them normal
sized again, I get between 6 and 2 words-per-line in your small, fixed
width columns. See what I'm getting at?

With my screenshots, I half expected you to get the ruler out and
actually measure the width of the columns, and the widths of particular
words. You'd soon realise just how little inch-space your website takes
up on my screen.

PS. I just had another look at your website and found your expansion
button! It's really encouraging to see that you're taking into
consideration concerns voiced by this newsgroup - I'm impressed at your
efforts yet again :D . (However I still have to resize the text :-( ).

--
Ben M.

kate.simpson

2004-07-23, 4:15 am

wow!
I like it...even down to your photo in the middle of the layout...it's just
a *tad* too busy for me, otherwise...nice job!

Ginae
http://www.ginae.us

"Arash Dejkam" <dejkam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:2m7l46FjojkcU1@uni-berlin.de...
> please!
> any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.
>
> http://portfolio.dejkam.com
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Arash
>
>

Karl Groves

2004-07-23, 4:15 am

"kate.simpson" <kate.simpson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7h0Mc.4925$a71.3514@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...

> Ginae
> http://www.ginae.us

please stop top-posting

--
Karl Core
http://www.karlcore.com
http://www.usabilityinfo.com
http://www.murderthestupid.com

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 7:14 am

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:2man3rFkjn4hU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
http://portfolio.dejkam.com/example.gif[color=darkred]
>
> I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of those screen shots. You are
> overly concerned about unimportant things.

It's unimportant for you because as I said before you are standing at the
usability/accessibility end. it is important for me because aesthetics is
equally essential in my opinion.

> That happens a lot with
> graphics people - they don't understand how web pages are _supposed_ to
> work and fall into the trap of trying to force a web page into behaving
> like a piece of paper. That only leads to frustration for both the
> designer and user. Different media has different rules, strengths and
> weaknesses, you know. web != print.
>
> Do you think all your visitors have to conform to your environment to
> use your site, because that's what you're implying. If so, stop now
> because it isn't going to happen. If your only concern is looks, not
> readability or usability, then don't bother with HTML at all and put
> your stuff in a PDF file. Then your visitors won't be able to mess up
> your lovely design with their dirty, non-standard browsing habits.
>

You are mixing things up and forgot the main point in this thread which
was accessibility and aesthetics being mutually exclusive in web design.

Arash

2004-07-23, 7:14 am

Arash Dejkam wrote

> accessibility and aesthetics being mutually exclusive in web design.

Bullshit!

You probably think this because *you* can not marry the two up.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 7:14 am

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:2malk5Fks2f4U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
>
> You're welcome. :)
>
this[color=darkred]
>
> The height property is invalid for inline elements like span. If you add
> display:block to this rule, it becomes valid.
>
make[color=darkred]
>
> Actually, it didn't work for me in mozilla until I added display:block
> to the span rule.

OH! actually I had added display:block too but forgot to mention it in
previous post, sorry for that :)

Arash

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:_q4Mc.12645$K53.11325@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Arash Dejkam wrote
>
>
> Bullshit!
>
> You probably think this because *you* can not marry the two up.
>
>

Would please marry them in the example I posted and show your talent ?

Arash

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

Ok, Now the site has major changes, font size increase (WOW!!!) :)) and lots
of
other changes, If you check again and tell me your opinion I would be
greatful :)
http://portfolio.dejkam.com

Thanks for all your help so far,
Arash

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

> You might want to take a look at the following article which provides a
> couple of methods overcoming FIR's problems:
> http://www.sitepoint.com/article/he...mages-css-xhtml
>
I don't think using those methods is much practical now. no browser supports
CSS3

>
> However, my personal favourite method can be found at
> http://www.moronicbajebus.com/playg...ge-replacement/ . I
> like it because it keeps the XHTML clean (and easily upgradable when
> browsers finally support the CSS3 content: property). As it turns out,
> this uses the exact same property your try does :D .
>

Yes! I moved to that method, seem to be quite reliable, thanks for the link.
but I'm a little concerned about IE5, I don't have it installed and am not
sure
how my page looks on that (as I remember) buggy browser ;)

Arash

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote

> Ok, Now the site has major changes, font size increase (WOW!!!) :)) and
lots
> of
> other changes, If you check again and tell me your opinion I would be
> greatful :)
> http://portfolio.dejkam.com

Why do you specify a font size that is 70% of what I have my preferences set
to? It really pisses me off when I have to reset my preferences to put the
*actual* size back to my preferred 110%. just to read a page. Then when I am
finished with it I have to reset my preferences to be able to read the more
normal pages without having giant letters all over the place.

What the bloody hell is wrong with specifying 100%?

Why do you specify font size in pixels for those input elements in your
form, and why 11 of them. Don't you want me to use the form? I simply *can
not* read it!

Why is the page fixed in width. Your page will only fit on canvases that are
exactly 800 pixels wide. Narrower and we get a horizontal scroll bar. Wider
and we get wasted space. You don't even centre the page on the wider canvas,
like most of the other idiots who have fixed width designs do.

It is too busy. There is no focus point, no entry point to start reading. I
just see a bunch of information splatterd all over the page.

Three column designs *may* work in the printed media but they do not work on
web pages IMHO.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Ben Measures

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> I don't think using those methods is much practical now. no browser supports
> CSS3

LOL, I think you need to take another look at that article.

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:
> Ben Measures wrote:
>
>
> Yes! I moved to that method, seem to be quite reliable, thanks for the link.
> but I'm a little concerned about IE5, I don't have it installed and am not
> sure how my page looks on that (as I remember) buggy browser ;)

They specifically mentioned IE5, take another read.

--
Ben M.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:GE7Mc.12919$K53.4528@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Arash Dejkam wrote
>
> lots
>
> Why do you specify a font size that is 70% of what I have my preferences
set
> to? It really pisses me off when I have to reset my preferences to put the
> *actual* size back to my preferred 110%. just to read a page. Then when I
am
> finished with it I have to reset my preferences to be able to read the
more
> normal pages without having giant letters all over the place.
>
> What the bloody hell is wrong with specifying 100%?
>
> Why do you specify font size in pixels for those input elements in your
> form, and why 11 of them. Don't you want me to use the form? I simply
*can
> not* read it!
>
> Why is the page fixed in width. Your page will only fit on canvases that
are
> exactly 800 pixels wide. Narrower and we get a horizontal scroll bar.
Wider
> and we get wasted space.
> It is too busy. There is no focus point, no entry point to start reading.
I
> just see a bunch of information splatterd all over the page.
>
> Three column designs *may* work in the printed media but they do not work
on
> web pages IMHO.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Richard.
>
>

Richard! I think you have repeated all these words several time in my two
threads, I exactly know your opinion with details and know how much you hate
my website. there is no need for repeating again and again.

> You don't even centre the page on the wider canvas,
> like most of the other IDIOTS who have fixed width designs do.

Never try to argue with an IDIOT about your valuable ideas. it's just a
waste of time! isn't it?

Arash

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

"Arash Dejkam" <dejkam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:2mc84iFlnj79U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
> news:_q4Mc.12645$K53.11325@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Would please marry them in the example I posted and show your talent ?
>
> Arash
>
>

Oh sorry for the typo, Would you please...

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote
> "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
> news:GE7Mc.12919$K53.4528@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Richard! I think you have repeated all these words several time in my two
> threads, I exactly know your opinion with details and know how much you
hate
> my website. there is no need for repeating again and again.

If you continue to serve up this rubbish for review then I will continue to
review it as I just have. Every time. Until you fix it.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m88Mc.6184$TA2.63235230@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
supports[color=darkred]
>
> LOL, I think you need to take another look at that article.
>
> --
> Ben M.

ROTFLMAO :))) ! sorry.
Now I think I like this method better, I'm going to change my method for the
fourth time !! :)

Arash

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U98Mc.6185$TA2.63235230@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
link.[color=darkred]
not[color=darkred]
>
> They specifically mentioned IE5, take another read.
>

I DID notice that, but I don't beleive anything until I see it working :)

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-23, 12:16 pm

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:Tv8Mc.13010$K53.9990@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Arash Dejkam wrote
>
two[color=darkred]
> hate
>
> If you continue to serve up this rubbish for review then I will continue
to
> review it as I just have. Every time. Until you fix it.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Richard.
>

Some advice: with the rude language you use, no one will fix anything based
on your
suggestions even if you are absolutely right.
From the tone of your messages I'm almost beleiving you're the owner of
internet :))

Arash

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2004-07-23, 7:17 pm

Quoth the raven Arash Dejkam:

> "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Tv8Mc.13010$K53.9990@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> Some advice: with the rude language you use, no one will fix
> anything based on your suggestions even if you are absolutely
> right. From the tone of your messages I'm almost beleiving you're
> the owner of internet :))

Please, please, oh pretty please, change your font size to 100%!

Your style sheet:

body {
background:#f4f4f4;
font-family:verdana,sans-serif;
font-size:0.7em;

Please experiment, and change the above to:

body {
background:#f4f4f4;
font-family: sans-serif;
font-size:100%;

One of the reasons you think you need to reduce my default size, is
the Verdana, which is larger than need be.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

2004-07-23, 7:17 pm

kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message news:<2mandmFhk4fnU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Arash Dejkam wrote:
>
> ROTFLMAO. You *are* funny!
>
> My screen resolution is set perfectly for *my* needs. You have no
> business telling me that it is wrong in any way.

Hey,

Read a lot of magazines or watch a lot tv that let you change the font size?

oj

Toby Inkster

2004-07-23, 7:17 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:

> From the tone of your messages I'm almost beleiving you're the owner of
> internet :))

Didn't you hear? Richard bought a 51% share of the Internet for (AUD) $8.1
billion back in April. At the time, the Internet's stock value had just
plummeted after another IE vulnerability had been found -- it looks like
Richard's stocks are still falling though.

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

Toby Inkster

2004-07-23, 7:17 pm

Arash Dejkam wrote:

> no browser supports CSS3

Opera and Gecko support various small parts of CSS3 (though the overlap
between them is small).

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

kchayka

2004-07-23, 7:17 pm

OJ wrote:
> kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message news:<2mandmFhk4fnU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> Read a lot of magazines or watch a lot tv that let you change the font size?

You're comparing apples and oranges. A web page is neither print nor TV.

Think for a moment - why would there even be system screen display
options if no one was ever supposed to change the factory settings, eh?
If you like the way yours came out of the box, good for you. I didn't,
so I changed it to better fit my particular needs.

Works beautifully in *every single app* I use, too. The only exception
is web pages that set absolute font sizes, which are invariably stupidly
small.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Ben Measures

2004-07-23, 7:17 pm

OJ wrote:
>
> Read a lot of magazines or watch a lot tv that let you change the font size?

Do you know how much nonsense that is? Just because I couldn't in the
past doesn't mean I shouldn't in the future.

--
Ben M.

2004-07-24, 4:15 am

kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message news:<2mdel1Flksi0U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> OJ wrote:
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges. A web page is neither print nor TV.
>
> Think for a moment - why would there even be system screen display
> options if no one was ever supposed to change the factory settings, eh?
> If you like the way yours came out of the box, good for you. I didn't,
> so I changed it to better fit my particular needs.
>
> Works beautifully in *every single app* I use, too. The only exception
> is web pages that set absolute font sizes, which are invariably stupidly
> small.

Hey,

You can't fault the OP (and many others) for trying to emulate what we
know and have lived with until about 8 years ago.

oj

Neal

2004-07-24, 4:15 am

On 23 Jul 2004 19:39:24 -0700, OJ <orljustin@aol.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> You can't fault the OP (and many others) for trying to emulate what we
> know and have lived with until about 8 years ago.

No, but we can blame people for failing to change once they've been shown
that this is not your father's Oldsmobile...

Arash Dejkam

2004-07-24, 4:15 am

"Arash Dejkam" <dejkam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:2magvpFl0eqpU1@uni-berlin.de...
height="36"[color=darkred]
> heading,
>
> Well, I did some research about that and found interesting results:
> I searched for "Arash Dejkam" in google, portfolio.dejkam.com was the
> first record as expected BUT! look at the record:
>
> Arash Dejkam: Web Designer, Animator, Photographer
> Arash Dejkam (Iranian Animator, Programmer, web designer, Photographer)
> - PORTFOLIO & CV - Tehran, Iran. Programming: C, C++, Java ...
> portfolio.dejkam.com/ - 11k - 20 Jul 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
>
> my 'description' meta tag ends with ...Tehran,Iran. after that is the
> content of the body: Programming: C, C++, Java ...
>
> my body is like this in google's cache:
> <body>
> <h1><img alt="Arash Dejkam: Web designer, Animator, Photographer"
> src="main_title.gif" width="744" height="104" /></h1>
> <div class="column">
> <div class="pane">
> <h2><img alt="Development" src="devel_title.jpg" width="117" height="36"
> /></h2>
> <p>
> <strong>Programming:</strong> C, C++, Java,...
> ...
> so as you see google has totally ignored the text in alt attributes!!
>
> Arash
>
>

Here comes the follow up! (by the way I don't know why google is visiting my
page so frequently :) )
new query for portfolio.dejkam.com result in:

Arash Dejkam - Web Designer, Animator, Photographer
Arash Dejkam (Iranian Animator, Programmer, web designer, Photographer)
- PORTFOLIO & CV - Tehran, Iran. Arash Dejkam - Web Designer ...
portfolio.dejkam.com/ - 11k - 22 Jul 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

This time my body in google's cache is this:
<body>

<h1><span>Arash Dejkam - Web Designer, Animator, Programmer,
Photographer</span></h1>

<div class="column" id="c1">
<div id="development" class="pane">
<h2><span>Development</span></h2>

This is the second method I used to hide the text and this time google HAS
considered the text in headers.

so the conclusion would be: google totally ignores text in alt attribute.

Arash

Toby Inkster

2004-07-24, 7:14 am

OJ wrote:

> Read a lot of magazines or watch a lot tv that let you change the font size?

That is beside the point -- the technology behind paper and television is
not advanced enough to allow the user to control font sizes. The
technology behind the web is, so don't take it away.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./ryan_adams/love_is_hell_pt1/02_afraid_not_scared.ogg

2004-07-24, 7:14 am

Toby Inkster wrote
> OJ wrote:
>
size?[color=darkred]
>
> That is beside the point -- the technology behind paper and television is
> not advanced enough to allow the user to control font sizes. The
> technology behind the web is, so don't take it away.

In contrast the technology behind paper, as far as pixel size is concerned,
is far in excess of screens (the technology used to view the web). Even the
$200 printer sitting on my desk is capable of 600 pixels per inch. My
screen/video card is state of the art but only allows about 100 pixels per
inch (at 1600x1200).

So, low end print has six times the quality as high end web viewing. Go to
magazines and you get thousands of pixels per inch.

Text printed on paper at one tenth of an inch high (60 pixels) is perfectly
legible to me. All the serifs are there, nicely rounded. The ; looks like a
; and not like a : <grin/>. Text on my screen one tenth of an inch high (10
pixels) is Very Hard To Read.

So, what do I do? I enlarge the text on my screen so I can read it. I do
this because I can. For me 16 pixels is an absolute minimum. When a site
falls apart because I have to make my font larger I move on to the next
google entry, because I can.

As to the TV yes I can change my font size. My "TV" is a data projector. I
can vary the size of the image from about 1 metre wide up to about 4 metres
wide, depending on how big I want the writing on the side of the USS
Enerprise to be. (The pod race on a 4 metre screen in the loungeroom is
<em style="impact: major;">Awesome<em> ).

--
Cheers
Richard.

Toby Inkster

2004-07-25, 12:15 pm

rf wrote:

> <em style="impact: major;">Awesome<em>

Tut, tut. ;-)

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./james/the_best_of_james/11_runaground.ogg

2004-07-25, 12:15 pm

Toby Inkster
> rf wrote:
>
>
> Tut, tut. ;-)

</em>

Hmmm...

Andrew D

2004-08-14, 7:16 pm

In article <2m7l46FjojkcU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Arash Dejkam"
<dejkam@softhome.net> wrote:

> please!
> any opinion is welcome as well as bug and incompatibility report.
>
> http://portfolio.dejkam.com
>

Don't take this the wrong way as I'm no expert in web design but if I were
looking for someone to design my web page, I would view the developer's
own homepage as an example of their very best work. In your case, the page
is overloaded with "stuff" that apparently has little to do with what
you're selling... design. As a potential customer, I would therefore
assume that you would design my homepage with too much information too.

Sit back, take a look at what you've created and try to view it as a
potential customer - do you find the page appealing, navigable,
informative...?
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Andrew D

2004-08-16, 12:16 pm

Andrew D

2004-08-19, 10:38 pm