Any chance of some constructive criticism?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by John, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. John

    John Guest

    I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    feedback it would be much appreciated.

    http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk

    Cheers,

    John
    John, Jan 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. While the city slept, John (no@email) feverishly typed...

    > I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc.
    > I've just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards
    > compliant and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and
    > provide a bit of feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >
    > http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk


    From the WAI Guidelines, Checkpoint 13.1;
    "Link text should be meaningful enough to make sense when read out of
    context"
    http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-meaningful-links

    From your "Welcome" page;

    please email us <a href="[...]">here</a>

    How about

    <a href="[...]">please email us</a>

    instead?

    Hope that helps.

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Jan 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John

    Steve Pugh Guest

    John <no@email> wrote:

    >I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    >just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    >and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    >feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >
    >http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk


    Some of you alt attributes could do with amending. alt="image" on a
    lot of the pages is simply useless. If the image is decorative then
    use alt="", if it is functional then replicate the function in the
    alt.

    Steve


    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Jan 19, 2005
    #3
  4. John

    Philip Ronan Guest

    John wrote:

    > I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    > just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    > and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    > feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >
    > http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk


    <rant>
    XHTML 1.1 is a pointless waste of time unless you're using stuff like
    Japanese ruby text or MathML. You should be serving it with a content type
    of "application/xhtml+xml", not "text/html". Take a look at
    <http://www.webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/sep2003.html>, for example.
    </rant>

    But in any case, your site is broken in IE5/Mac -- here's a screen shot:
    <http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/junk/enterprise-systems.jpg>

    What's wrong with HTML 4.01?

    --
    phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
    http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
    Philip Ronan, Jan 19, 2005
    #4
  5. John

    jake Guest

    In message <41ee3475$0$15401$>, John
    <no@email.?.invalid> writes
    >I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    >just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    >and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    >feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >
    >http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >John
    >


    Just a few initial comments/personal preferences:

    (a) A fluid design would be better (i.e. the ability of the user to
    adjust the width of the page as viewed).
    (b) Right-ragged body text would be easier to read than right-justified
    text
    (c) Inconsistent use of <acronym>: definition on one page -- none on
    other pages. (BTW. Shouldn't the <acronym>s be <abbr>s ?)
    (d) A link to bypass the menu and get to the content might be
    appreciated by AT users.
    (e) Disable the link in the menu on each page that points to itself.
    (f) Ensure that the <title></title> contents reflects the contents of
    the page, not the site.
    (g) Warn users (especially AT users) that a link will open a new window.
    (h) Ensure that any image used as a link has suitable alternative text
    to describe it
    (i) Lastly, put all your text through a grammar/spell-checker to lose
    the spelling and punctuation errors.

    ......... otherwise -- looks OK (including old Netscapes)

    regards
    --
    Jake
    jake, Jan 19, 2005
    #5
  6. John

    John Guest

    nice.guy.nige wrote:
    > While the city slept, John (no@email) feverishly typed...
    >
    >
    >>I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc.
    >>I've just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards
    >>compliant and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and
    >>provide a bit of feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >>
    >>http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk

    >
    >
    > From the WAI Guidelines, Checkpoint 13.1;
    > "Link text should be meaningful enough to make sense when read out of
    > context"
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-meaningful-links
    >
    > From your "Welcome" page;
    >
    > please email us <a href="[...]">here</a>
    >
    > How about
    >
    > <a href="[...]">please email us</a>
    >
    > instead?
    >
    > Hope that helps.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nige
    >


    Thanks. Fixed now.
    John, Jan 19, 2005
    #6
  7. John

    John Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    > John <no@email> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    >>just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    >>and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    >>feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >>
    >>http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk

    >
    >
    > Some of you alt attributes could do with amending. alt="image" on a
    > lot of the pages is simply useless. If the image is decorative then
    > use alt="", if it is functional then replicate the function in the
    > alt.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >


    Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed them now. I realised that one
    of the pages wasn't validating in the process.

    John
    John, Jan 19, 2005
    #7
  8. John

    John Guest

    Philip Ronan wrote:

    > John wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    >>just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    >>and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    >>feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >>
    >>http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk

    >
    >
    > <rant>
    > XHTML 1.1 is a pointless waste of time unless you're using stuff like
    > Japanese ruby text or MathML. You should be serving it with a content type
    > of "application/xhtml+xml", not "text/html". Take a look at
    > <http://www.webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/sep2003.html>, for example.
    > </rant>


    Thanks. I've had a read of the link and may put in "content
    negotiation". I'm reluctant to do so though, since it seems a bit messy
    conceptually.

    >
    > But in any case, your site is broken in IE5/Mac -- here's a screen shot:
    > <http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/junk/enterprise-systems.jpg>


    Yes, that does seem to have broken quite nastily. Did you check in any
    other Mac browsers? I reckon it'll work for 90% of users; perhaps I
    should do a different / non-existent style sheet for the rest.

    >
    > What's wrong with HTML 4.01?
    >


    Nothing at all. I like the concept of XHTML, and I use it a lot in
    applications for reports etc that can be easily created and read
    automatically.

    Cheers for your help with this.

    John
    John, Jan 19, 2005
    #8
  9. John

    Philip Ronan Guest

    John wrote:

    > Philip Ronan wrote:
    >
    >> <rant>
    >> XHTML 1.1 is a pointless waste of time unless you're using stuff like
    >> Japanese ruby text or MathML. You should be serving it with a content type
    >> of "application/xhtml+xml", not "text/html". Take a look at
    >> <http://www.webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/sep2003.html>, for example.
    >> </rant>

    >
    > Thanks. I've had a read of the link and may put in "content
    > negotiation". I'm reluctant to do so though, since it seems a bit messy
    > conceptually.


    So use HTML 4.01. It's compatible with more UAs than XHTML.

    >>
    >> But in any case, your site is broken in IE5/Mac -- here's a screen shot:
    >> <http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/junk/enterprise-systems.jpg>

    >
    > Yes, that does seem to have broken quite nastily. Did you check in any
    > other Mac browsers? I reckon it'll work for 90% of users; perhaps I
    > should do a different / non-existent style sheet for the rest.


    Looked OK in Opera. I seem to remember reading somewhere that XHTML 1.1
    tends to put IE into quirks mode, so this might be difficult to fix.

    >>
    >> What's wrong with HTML 4.01?
    >>

    >
    > Nothing at all. I like the concept of XHTML, and I use it a lot in
    > applications for reports etc that can be easily created and read
    > automatically.


    Well I like the concept of delivering content via a network of telepathic
    hamsters, but for the time being I'm sticking with things that actually
    work...

    > Cheers for your help with this.


    You're welcome. Good luck with the site :-D

    --
    phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
    http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
    Philip Ronan, Jan 19, 2005
    #9
  10. John

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:27:35 +0000, John <no@email> wrote:

    >> What's wrong with HTML 4.01?

    >
    >Nothing at all. I like the concept of XHTML


    Why XHTML 1.1 though ?

    Personally I use XHTML 1.0 It has the advantages (such as they are)
    of XHTML, but it can still reasonably be served as text/html. IMHO,
    going to 1.1 is just a step farther than is viable at present and I
    can see _no_ benefit over 1.0.
    Andy Dingley, Jan 19, 2005
    #10
  11. John wrote:
    > I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc.

    I've
    > just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards

    compliant
    > and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit

    of
    > feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >
    > http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk


    It looks like every other validating site in the world. Bland. You
    can be creative and still validate if you really want to.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jan 19, 2005
    #11
  12. On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:27:35 +0000, John wrote:

    > Philip Ronan wrote:
    >
    >> John wrote:


    >> <rant>
    >> XHTML 1.1 is a pointless waste of time unless you're using stuff like
    >> Japanese ruby text or MathML. You should be serving it with a content type
    >> of "application/xhtml+xml", not "text/html". Take a look at
    >> <http://www.webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/sep2003.html>, for example.
    >> </rant>

    >
    > Thanks. I've had a read of the link and may put in "content
    > negotiation". I'm reluctant to do so though, since it seems a bit messy
    > conceptually.


    According to the W3C, XHTML 1.1 should not be served as text/html.
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.xhtml#summary>

    If you're going the XHTML route (which I personally have no problem with,
    though some circles seem to be quite averse to it) and need to support
    Internet Explorer, you should be using XHTML 1.0 and content negotiation.
    All you would need to change is your doctype, your pages will still
    validate just fine.
    Brendan Taylor, Jan 19, 2005
    #12
  13. John

    Guest

    Don't know if that helps, but you can also use a quite simple PHP
    script to use the correct mime-type for each browser (placed at the top
    of every document):


    <?php
    if ( stristr($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"],"application/xhtml+xml") ) {
    header('Content-type: application/xhtml+xml');
    }
    else {
    header('Content-type: text/html');
    }
    ?>
    , Jan 19, 2005
    #13
  14. John

    BJ in Texas Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    || John wrote:
    ||| I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS,
    ||| HTML etc. I've just finished re-doing a site in what I think
    ||| is a standards compliant and presentable fashion. If you
    ||| could have a look and provide a bit of feedback it would be
    ||| much appreciated.
    |||
    ||| http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk
    ||
    || It looks like every other validating site in the world.
    || Bland. You can be creative and still validate if you really
    || want to.
    ||

    Other than not having enough wiz bang widgets flying around and
    kool
    multi-color animations. :)

    It looks pretty good, I would lose the right-justified text and
    make the
    width resizeable.

    BJ
    BJ in Texas, Jan 19, 2005
    #14
  15. John

    Toby Inkster Guest

    floele wrote:

    > <?php
    > if ( stristr($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"],"application/xhtml+xml") ) {
    > header('Content-type: application/xhtml+xml');
    > }
    > else {
    > header('Content-type: text/html');
    > }
    > ?>


    Function goodbrowser() below should give better results. If goodbrowser()
    returns true, then send using an XHTML content-type, and include an XML
    prologue. If goodbrowser() returns false, then use "text/html" and strip
    out the XML prologue.

    # goodbrowser()
    # by Toby Inkster, based on code by Bertilo Wennergren
    function goodbrowser () {

    $ac = strtolower(getenv('HTTP_ACCEPT'));
    $ua = getenv('HTTP_USER_AGENT');

    # Netscape 6 can't properly handle XHTML
    if (substr_count($ua,'Netscape6') > 0 ) { return false; }

    # Wget can (well, it doesn't care!), but doesn't list it
    elseif (substr_count($ua,'Wget') > 0 ) { return true; }

    # Any browsers that don't specificially list XHTML, use HTML
    elseif (substr_count($ac,'application/xhtml+xml') == 0) { return false; }

    # Otherwise we need to compare 'q' values.
    else
    {
    $xhtml_q = 1; $html_q = 1;

    if (preg_match("/application\/xhtml\+xml\s*;[^,]*\bq\s*=\s*([\d\.]+)/",$ac,$m)) { $xhtml_q = $m[1]; }

    if ( preg_match("/text\/html\s*;[^,]*\bq\s*=\s*([\d\.]+)/", $ac, $m)
    || preg_match("/text\/\*\s*;[^,]*\bq\s*=\s*([\d\.]+)/", $ac, $m)
    || preg_match("/\*\/\*\s*;[^,]*\bq\s*=\s*([\d\.]+)/", $ac, $m)
    ) { $html_q = $m[1]; }

    if ($xhtml_q >= $html_q) { return true; }
    else { return false; }
    }
    }


    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jan 19, 2005
    #15
  16. John

    Philip Ronan Guest

    wrote:

    > Don't know if that helps, but you can also use a quite simple PHP
    > script to use the correct mime-type for each browser (placed at the top
    > of every document):
    >
    >
    > <?php
    > if ( stristr($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"],"application/xhtml+xml") ) {
    > header('Content-type: application/xhtml+xml');
    > }
    > else {
    > header('Content-type: text/html');
    > }
    > ?>
    >


    Unfortunately that has the side-effect of knocking out all the other useful
    headers your server would have otherwise added (Content-Length, ETag,
    Last-Modified, etc.).

    Google for "cacheability" if you want to know why this is a Bad Thing.

    --
    phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
    http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
    Philip Ronan, Jan 20, 2005
    #16
  17. BJ in Texas wrote:

    > ||| http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk
    > || It looks like every other validating site in the world.
    > || Bland. You can be creative and still validate if you really
    > || want to.


    > Other than not having enough wiz bang widgets flying around and
    > kool
    > multi-color animations. :)


    You don't need all that to be pleasing to the eye. The current problem
    with (most) CSS is that the techies (most who could not design their way
    out of a paper bag) know how to do i, and the really creative people are
    still clinging to table layout. Slowly as these people learn, they will
    bring with them good (better) design.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jan 20, 2005
    #17
  18. John wrote :
    > I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've just
    > finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant and
    > presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of feedback
    > it would be much appreciated.
    >
    > http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John


    At first look, I would probably do the following....


    Change this.....
    #narrow_layout {
    POSITION: absolute;
    CLEAR: both;
    RIGHT: auto;
    LEFT: 50%;
    MARGIN-LEFT: -390px;
    WIDTH: 780px;
    BOTTOM: auto;
    TOP: 0px;
    }



    .... to this....

    #narrow_layout {
    POSITION: absolute;
    CLEAR: both;
    RIGHT: auto;
    BOTTOM: auto;
    TOP: 0px;
    }

    .... gives more flexability to the screen resolution factor.

    --
    have a bbq with no meat whatsoever at least once
    Disco Octopus, Jan 20, 2005
    #18
  19. John

    Phoenix Guest

    John wrote:
    > I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    > just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    > and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    > feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >
    > http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John
    >


    You should lose the horrible W3C buttons at the bottom. If you really
    need to advertise your validation, just use text, or make your own
    buttons. Those W3C buttons have ruined many a decent design, by
    definitely not fitting in.
    Phoenix, Jan 20, 2005
    #19
  20. John

    Phoenix Guest

    John wrote:
    > I've used this group occasionally with questions on CSS, HTML etc. I've
    > just finished re-doing a site in what I think is a standards compliant
    > and presentable fashion. If you could have a look and provide a bit of
    > feedback it would be much appreciated.
    >
    > http://www.enterprisesystems.co.uk
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > John
    >


    Sorry about posting more than one answer. I just found some new issues.
    Using Lynx, I see the following on the "Existing Customers" page:


    ----
    K & L Ross Ltd.

    K L Ross Logo

    Enterprise Systems provides all IT services for K & L Ross, with the
    ----

    The alt-text on that logo doesn't help much. Reading the words "K L Ross
    Logo" gives me no clue what that is, unless I know what the K L Ross
    Logo looks like already. Besides, it's repeating the header, so I would
    say the logo is only there for "show", so to speak, and can probably do
    very fine with an empty alt-text. Move the link to the header instead.
    Link texts are supposed to be useful, and "K L Ross Logo" as a link text
    certainly isn't useful. Of course you're able to guess where you're
    going, but...

    On the consultancy page, there's also an uneccesary alt-text. Just see
    this output:

    ----
    Sometimes it is necessary to obtain an objective, impartial opinion on
    a software project, on IT strategy, or an a specific technical problem
    that has become bogged down in detail or negotiations. We can provide
    consultancy and audit services at short notice and across a wide
    remit.
    Sequence Diagram

    Our approach to providing advice is not about playing it safe and
    providing non-committal advice; we examine problems and provide
    ----

    That alt-text, "Sequence Diagram", doesn't really fit there, or what do
    you say? ;)

    Last, although you probably won't care, like most people who use it, I'd
    say ditch the XHTML and go with HTML 4 instead. Lot more support for it,
    and there's nothing you need in XHTML that is not present in HTML anyway.
    Phoenix, Jan 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Xah Lee
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    1,565
  2. Xah Lee
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,069
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
  4. Xah Lee
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    437
  5. steven
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    97
    steven
    Dec 30, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page