check site

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Guest, Nov 29, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Nov 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Karl Core Guest

    Karl Core, Nov 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:

    > Hi guys,
    > check my accessible version of hxxp://www.gizax.it


    You've multiposted this now to at least three groups. Where would you
    like your answers?

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Guest

    Guest 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
     
    Guest, Nov 29, 2004
    #4
  5. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:40:29 GMT, <> wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 29, 2004
    #5
  6. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:59:56 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
    <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:40:29 GMT, <> wrote:
    >
    >> <http://www.gizax.it/>

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 29, 2004
    #6
  7. Guest

    Karl Core Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:WzIqd.57690$...
    > "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.


    --
    -Karl Core
    Please Support "Project Boneyard":
    http://www.insurgence.net/info.aspx?action=band&item=boneyard
     
    Karl Core, Nov 29, 2004
    #7
  8. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:12:40 -0500, Karl Core wrote:

    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:WzIqd.57690$...
    >> "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.


    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.

    --
    Jeffrey D. Silverman |
    Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

    Drop "PANTS" to reply by email
     
    Jeffrey Silverman, Nov 29, 2004
    #8
  9. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:16:52 -0500, Jeffrey Silverman
    <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:12:40 -0500, Karl Core wrote:
    >
    >> 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.
    >


    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.

    --
    Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 29, 2004
    #9
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "Barbara de Zoete" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:eek:psh8ofqfqx5vgts@zoete_b...
    > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:16:52 -0500, Jeffrey Silverman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:12:40 -0500, Karl Core wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > --
    > Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    > Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    > Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>




    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
     
    Guest, Nov 29, 2004
    #10
  11. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:06:21 GMT, <> wrote:

    > "Barbara de Zoete" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:eek:psh8ofqfqx5vgts@zoete_b...
    >
    >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:16:52 -0500, Jeffrey Silverman
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:12:40 -0500, Karl Core wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> You present your site as "accessible", yet it is not. You are a liar.
    >>>


    <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.

    --
    Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 29, 2004
    #11
  12. Guest

    Guest 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.
     
    Guest, Nov 29, 2004
    #12
  13. wrote:

    > "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.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Nov 29, 2004
    #13
  14. Guest

    Guest 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. ;))
     
    Guest, Nov 29, 2004
    #14
  15. Guest

    Liz Guest

    In message <opsh8j56e7x5vgts@zoete_b>
    "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:


    > _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

    --
    Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
    Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
    "I speak of Africa and golden joys"
     
    Liz, Nov 29, 2004
    #15
  16. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:33:07 GMT, <> wrote:

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


    Okay, that's good.

    >> 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 ??
    >


    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.

    >> 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.
    >


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


    --
    Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 29, 2004
    #16
  17. "Barbara de Zoete" wrote 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 ;)
     
    Daniel Florio, Nov 29, 2004
    #17
  18. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:29:26 GMT, Liz <> wrote:

    > In message <opsh8j56e7x5vgts@zoete_b>
    > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
    >
    >> _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 :)

    > Slainte
    >


    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.

    --
    Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 29, 2004
    #18
  19. Guest

    Liz Guest

    In message <opsh8umgrnx5vgts@zoete_b>
    "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:


    > > Slainte
    > >

    >
    > 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

    --
    Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
    Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
    "I speak of Africa and golden joys"
     
    Liz, Nov 29, 2004
    #19
  20. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:52:31 GMT, Liz <> wrote:

    > In message <opsh8umgrnx5vgts@zoete_b>
    > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Slainte
    >>>

    >>
    >> 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)
    >


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

    > Slainte
    >


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

    'Good health' to you too,

    --
    Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
    Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
    Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 29, 2004
    #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. Davisro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    696
    Michael D. Ober
    Jun 14, 2004
  2. mit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    818
    Ramu Pulipati
    Jan 25, 2006
  3. kris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    518
  4. kris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    484
  5. Replies:
    53
    Views:
    2,155
    John Bokma
    Aug 26, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page