check site

G

Guest

"Karl Core" ha scritto :
| If you think opening new windows on each new link is "accessible", you
have
| a lot to learn.

thank Karl,
but for me is important that XHTML validator do not give errors.
Howewer thx for your opinion.

regards

Daniel
http://www.gizax.it
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

check my accessible version of http://www.gizax.it

Are you doing this on purpose because you like to get flamed or something?
_on this post of yours_
- multiposting,
- posting in html instead of plain text,

_on your pages_
- the concept of a splash screen at the so called front af a site sucks
and is not user friendly at all (all I get to see[1] are two links; one
leading to the page I was after presumably and another one for a ticker of
some sort)

What so accessible about it? Though not completely bad [2], I see nothing
special. At least the first page after the splash screen validates. But I
see nothing special that should be labeled 'accessible' as if that is the
utmost purpose of the page markup. Love to see what was the inaccessible
version[3].


[1] Either in Lynx or in any browser without graphics (no images and what
ever more)
[2] Except a few unnecessary <br />'s I spotted and the new windows that
you want my browser to open every time I click a link (which is far from
adding to accessibility)
[2] Not really.
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

What so accessible about it? Though not completely bad,

I take that back:
- fixed width design, waisting a lot of my viewport space so I have to
scroll more than necessary had you designed fluid?
- tiny fonts, so I have to enlarge the whole thing (which in Opera leads
to horizontal scrollbar easily, because, hmm, fixed width design, yes)?
- fixed font sizes, so I couldn't enlarge them if viewed with IE?

So, yes, I can access the site, but you make it damned hard to use it.
Better rethink your priorities.
 
K

Karl Core

"Karl Core" ha scritto :
| If you think opening new windows on each new link is "accessible", you
have
| a lot to learn.

thank Karl,
but for me is important that XHTML validator do not give errors.
Howewer thx for your opinion.

You present your site as "accessible", yet it is not. You are a liar.
 
J

Jeffrey Silverman

You present your site as "accessible", yet it is not. You are a liar.

well, he is also Italian. Maybe he is just using the wrong English word.
Something like "viewable" or "visible" might be more like what he (or
she?) meant, rather than accessible, which has a very specific meaning in
English and in a Web context.

Just speculating.
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

well, he is also Italian. Maybe he is just using the wrong English word.
Something like "viewable" or "visible" might be more like what he (or
she?) meant, rather than accessible, which has a very specific meaning in
English and in a Web context.

Dutch doesn't have the word accessible (or any variant of it), but Italian
certainly does. Look at the righthand bottom corner of his blog. It says
'Il tuo sito è accessibile?' which I immagine means something like 'Is
your site accessible?' Why would the Italian word, derived from Latin, be
anything else than the English word, derived from Latin[1]. In this case I
think he thinks too lightly about accessibility. Either that, or he found
a way to spam newsgroups, that is hard to notice as such.
Just speculating.

Me too :)

[1] I know, this is not a very scientific argument.
 
G

Guest

Barbara de Zoete said:
well, he is also Italian. Maybe he is just using the wrong English word.
Something like "viewable" or "visible" might be more like what he (or
she?) meant, rather than accessible, which has a very specific meaning in
English and in a Web context.

Dutch doesn't have the word accessible (or any variant of it), but Italian
certainly does. Look at the righthand bottom corner of his blog. It says
'Il tuo sito è accessibile?' which I immagine means something like 'Is
your site accessible?' Why would the Italian word, derived from Latin, be
anything else than the English word, derived from Latin[1]. In this case I
think he thinks too lightly about accessibility. Either that, or he found
a way to spam newsgroups, that is hard to notice as such.
Just speculating.

Me too :)

[1] I know, this is not a very scientific argument.



Mine is not a spam. If you don't accept my website no problems.
I posted my website to check, I accept all kinds of opinions.
If you don't believe this, excuse me but isn't my problem.

best regards

Daniel
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

<snip: arguments as to understanding of the English word accessibility by
OP who is Italian>
Mine is not a spam.

Ah, no? It certainly triggered you back to life!
If you don't accept my website no problems.

It is not about accepting. You asked for a check of an accessible version
of your site. People here, including me, see no accessible site.
I posted my website to check, I accept all kinds of opinions.

I don't understand. What do you want checked if you regard the critique
you get as just opinions (meaning: I don't bother to do anything with what
you say, because I want to be right in the end, but thanks for saying it
anyway and bye for now?)?
If you don't believe this, excuse me but isn't my problem.

No? But you have another problem. Fix your newsreader. You include the
sig's of posts in your reply's and you shouldn't. The sig separator is to
keep the sig out of the reply's. If you use a broken newsreader, fix it by
hand every reply you make.
 
G

Guest

"Barbara de Zoete" ha scritto
<snip: arguments as to understanding of the English word accessibility by
OP who is Italian>
Ah, no? It certainly triggered you back to life!

boh.... I don't understand. I have only posted my website.
It is not about accepting. You asked for a check of an accessible version
of your site. People here, including me, see no accessible site.

Yes and for this I accept oll critiques
I don't understand. What do you want checked if you regard the critique
you get as just opinions (meaning: I don't bother to do anything with what
you say, because I want to be right in the end, but thanks for saying it
anyway and bye for now?)?

But you are always so nervous with all ??
No? But you have another problem. Fix your newsreader. You include the
sig's of posts in your reply's and you shouldn't. The sig separator is to
keep the sig out of the reply's. If you use a broken newsreader, fix it by
hand every reply you make.

Sorry for this, is my first time that I write in newsgroup and I write with
Outlook Express.
 
D

David Dorward

"Karl Core" ha scritto :
| If you think opening new windows on each new link is "accessible", you
but for me is important that XHTML validator do not give errors.

Not a problem, anything that causes a link to be opened in a new window can
be removed without making the page invalid.
 
G

Guest

"David Dorward" ha scritto
Not a problem, anything that causes a link to be opened in a new window can
be removed without making the page invalid.


Ok I delete target="_blank" in a href. ;))
 
L

Liz

In message <opsh8j56e7x5vgts@zoete_b>
_on your pages_
- the concept of a splash screen at the so called front af a site sucks
and is not user friendly at all (all I get to see[1] are two links; one
leading to the page I was after presumably and another one for a ticker of
some sort)
The only link I see is the small image which leads to presumably his home page.
I don't see the other one at all...
[1] Either in Lynx or in any browser without graphics (no images and what
ever more)
He has a list of allegedly 'accessible' sites on his (presumed) home page.
I followed one of the links and got onto a link-page 'Best of British';
followed one of the links at random and arrived at a site
www.estherfranklin.co.uk whose homepage is just a very big sliced-and-diced
graphic, with no sensible alt-text, and a link which says "Enter Site" "Get
Flash Plug-in."

Predictably, if you click "Enter Site" without Flash, you just get a big
rectangle with 'no plug-in' as the alt.

Accessible?
Not unless they've changed the meaning since I last looked.

Slainte

Liz
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

"Barbara de Zoete" ha scritto
<snip: arguments as to understanding of the English word accessibility by
OP who is Italian>


Yes and for this I accept oll critiques

Okay, that's good.
But you are always so nervous with all ??

Hey, hey. I can do without people projecting all sorts of states on me
unless they are educated and trained psychologists or psychiatrists and I
am their patient.
Sorry for this, is my first time that I write in newsgroup and I write
with Outlook Express.

I saw in another post that you intend to use a real newsreader. That's
good.
 
D

Daniel Florio

in
Okay, that's good.

okay :)
Hey, hey. I can do without people projecting all sorts of states on me
unless they are educated and trained psychologists or psychiatrists
and I am their patient.

okay sorry for your pacience :)
I saw in another post that you intend to use a real newsreader. That's
good.

now I use newsreader.
Thanks to all ;)
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

In message <opsh8j56e7x5vgts@zoete_b>
Barbara de Zoete said:
_on your pages_
- the concept of a splash screen at the so called front af a site
sucks and is not user friendly at all (all I get to see[1] are
two links; one leading to the page I was after presumably and
another one for a ticker of some sort)
The only link I see is the small image which leads to presumably his
home page.
I don't see the other one at all...
[1] Either in Lynx or in any browser without graphics (no images and
what ever more)
He has a list of allegedly 'accessible' sites on his (presumed) home
page.
I followed one of the links and got onto a link-page 'Best of British';
followed one of the links at random and arrived at a site
www.estherfranklin.co.uk whose homepage is just a very big
sliced-and-diced graphic, with no sensible alt-text, and a link which
says "Enter Site" "Get Flash Plug-in."

Predictably, if you click "Enter Site" without Flash, you just get a big
rectangle with 'no plug-in' as the alt.

Accessible?
Not unless they've changed the meaning since I last looked.

I'm guessing that somehow the word 'accessibility' is a buzz word in some
area's of the web and as long as you can sell your site as accessible to
those who know no better, you're ' the boss'.
These people have no clue as to what accessibility is about and who it is
intended for. It's a shame and I don't care :)

I don't know this word. I couldn't find it in any of my dictionairies
either (All English or English->Dutch). What does it mean.
 
L

Liz

In message <opsh8umgrnx5vgts@zoete_b>
I don't know this word. I couldn't find it in any of my dictionairies
either (All English or English->Dutch). What does it mean.
It's (Scots) Gaelic.
(It might also be Irish Gaelic, for all I know.)
It means Health, and is the usual abbreviation for Slainte mhath, meaning
'good health', a traditional Scottish toast, even for us 'lallans' speakers
('lowlands') who know little other Gaelic.
Interpret as: 'best wishes from Scotland'.

It's pronounced something like Slahnge vah (very soft g)

Slainte

Liz
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

In message <opsh8umgrnx5vgts@zoete_b>

It's (Scots) Gaelic.
(It might also be Irish Gaelic, for all I know.)
It means Health, and is the usual abbreviation for Slainte mhath, meaning
'good health', a traditional Scottish toast, even for us 'lallans'
speakers
('lowlands') who know little other Gaelic.
Interpret as: 'best wishes from Scotland'.

It's pronounced something like Slahnge vah (very soft g)

:-D Like I'm ever going to be able to reproduce that correctly

Well, thank you Liz. Both for the wish and the explanation.

'Good health' to you too,
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top