|
Convenient web based access to our favorite web design Usenet groups
|
 |
This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
| Author |
| Thread |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 10-03-04 - 05:15 PM 
|
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 09:47:02 +0100, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>Paul Burke <webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>
>
Firstly, Thank you for taking time to look and to reply.
>Based on index page only:
>
>Good:
>Looks nice.
>Adapts to my viewport width.
>Good font size.
Tank you. I have tested it in different monitor sizes and browsers
(yet, not all)
>Bad:
>Tables used for layout.
Why ?
What other way do you suggest please ?
Some say tables are good, others say tables are bad, yet it displays
the way I wanted it to.
>Presentational HTML using a Transitional doctype.
what's that in simple english please. And why is that bad. You lost me
on that one, sorry.
with the monitor turned on ......... it was a poke at all the other
web sites telling you how you should view thier sites. Sorry if you
didn't get the joke <G>
> None of your business.
LOL
>Valid HTML & CSS buttons: don't mention the mechanics.
You lost me on that too. What is "mechanics" ?
Sorry if I sound so dumb, But before I can improve, I need to
understand what is wrong.
>The " - A Tribute To Native American Indians" bit of the logo image's
> alt content duplicates what is in the h1.
Is that bad ? I thought it was ok. I didn't want the normal alt="logo"
>Lists of links marked up as a paragraph.
I am going to alter the front page, and I will bear that in mind, I
just wanted a bit more spider food.
thank you
Paul
--
www.FirstPeople.us
Native Clipart, Wallpaper Pictures, Legends, Wisdom, Art, Poems and much, mu
ch more
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-04 - 05:15 PM
|
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:04:22 +1000, Samuël ML Lison
<news@dreamcities.net> wrote:
>Paul Burke wrote:
>
>Well, the blind will have a terrific time taking a look at the clip art
>and what not, if you know what I mean ;o)
ROFL
My next site will be written in braille. You will be able to d/l
bubble wrap and attach it to the monitor screen :P
Seriously, I was trying to complete a few other tests that I cannot
do. eg, AOL browser and/or partially sighted/blind people, as they use
text readers. (and there is a lot of text on the site too)
Thanks for the laugh though
plh
Paul
--
www.FirstPeople.us
Native Clipart, Wallpaper Pictures, Legends, Wisdom, Art, Poems and much, mu
ch more
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-04 - 05:15 PM
|
Paul Burke wrote:
>
> Esp. would like opinions from blind / partially sighted / AOL / mac /
> firefox users.
>
> www.firstpeople.us
Per your stylesheet, the main content area uses:
.crafts { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 120%}
I find the text size rather small. My browser default font size is 20px,
so the text is 70% of what I consider optimal. Plus, I don't have
Verdana installed so it might even look even smaller than what most
other people see. So:
1. Don't use Verdana - it has a larger aspect ratio than most other
sans-serif fonts, so authors tend to set font size smaller than they
otherwise would, to compensate. Those visitors without Verdana will
suffer needlessly.
2. Don't set font-size in px units - absolute font-sizes (px, pt, etc.)
are not resizable by default in WinIE, plus whatever size you choose
will be either too large or too small for some portion of your visitors,
perhaps a significant portion. Use % units instead, per published
accessibility guidelines (em units would also be acceptable, except
WinIE has some quirks with these, so stick to %). Body text should be
left at 100%. Stuff like copyright notices might be a bit smaller, but I
wouldn't go below 85% for anything you expect your visitors to actually
read.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-04 - 05:15 PM
|
Paul Burke <webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>Why ?
As an HTML element, table is for marking up tabular data. Quality web
sites separate markup from styling.
>What other way do you suggest please ?
CSS.
>Some say tables are good, others say tables are bad, yet it displays
>the way I wanted it to.
Tables are good (for tabular data).
>what's that in simple english please. And why is that bad.
As per above.
>You lost me on that too. What is "mechanics" ?
A site should present it's content, not useless information about the
mechanics of the site.
It's comparable to a footer under a letter saying: "check with MegaSpell
for spelling errors". Very few of your visitors will know what
validation is about, those that do don't care. Ergo: they serve no
useful purpose, at best they confuse and annoy (especially in aural
rendering).
>Is that bad ? I thought it was ok. I didn't want the normal alt="logo"
The title of the site is the correct alt content for the logo image,
just chop off the suffix.
>I am going to alter the front page, and I will bear that in mind, I
>just wanted a bit more spider food.
Spiders follow all links, be they in a paragraph or in a list.
--
Spartanicus
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:46 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
