Compatibility

[Kevin Scholl]

Show me one that isn't.

Sadly, since what makes an exciting site is personal choice, you will
not be able to show me such a site, because we obviously have different
thoughts on what makes an exciting fun site. But please feel free to
try, I would be interested in seeing what you or anyone else thinks is a
good site.

You rather hit upon the crux of this aspect of the discussion --
"exciting" and "fun" are subjective, as is general aesthetic appeal. I
find Eric Meyer's site(s) to be fascinating, even exciting if you will.
It's certainly not "plain-jane". Similarly the CSSZenGarden site, though
I recognize its usefulness primarily as a demonstration tool. And I'm
pleased with how my own personal site (URL in sig), which is constructed
of CSS-P, is turning out from both technological and aesthetic
viewpoints. But I recognize that not everyone will agree, particularly
on the latter.

It doesn't take Flash, heavy back-end programming, and/or intense
interactivity to move a site out of the doldrums of "plain-jane and
unexciting". Effective design, solid development skills, and
reasonably-engaging content will do for most people.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Kevin Scholl:

And I'm pleased with how my own personal site (URL in sig), which
is constructed of CSS-P, is turning out from both technological and
aesthetic viewpoints. But I recognize that not everyone will agree,
particularly on the latter.

http://www.ksscholl.com/

Aesthetically, the site is ok, imo. I'm wondering, though, why it is
constrained to the center of my high-resolution monitor, and why you
don't want me to increase your text size for a comfortable read.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Hint: don't use px for font-size, use %, with body at 100% and others
never much smaller, maybe 85-90% for a copyright notice. The pale blue
links are hard to find as well. The underline is missing. At a glance,
I didn't see anything that requires the JavaScript either. A few CSS
rollovers would do.

h1 { display: none; } ???

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Quoth the raven named Kevin Scholl:



http://www.ksscholl.com/

Aesthetically, the site is ok, imo. I'm wondering, though, why it is
constrained to the center of my high-resolution monitor, and why you

I believe (and my usability tests in past experiences support) that long
lines of text are a bigger usability issue than fixed-width layouts.
Educated choice.

don't want me to increase your text size for a comfortable read.

You can increase the text size. Granted, IE/Win requires that you go
into some obscure Options settings, but that's a failure of the browser,
not the site code. Good browsers, adhering to the W3C specification,
allow any defined text to be resized.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Hint: don't use px for font-size, use %, with body at 100% and others
never much smaller, maybe 85-90% for a copyright notice. The pale blue

Arguments abound for what measurements to use (except pt, which is a
print measurement). For some time, the concensus was to avoid px, but
now px seems to be accepted. As I mentioned, a good browser allows
resizing of even px, and I'm not in the business of catering to a single
browser that doesn't. Having evaluated the pros and cons, I don't see an
issue with using px, particularly for a personal site.

At any rate, the body text is 12px, which is a mere 1px smaller than
default 100% (13px).

links are hard to find as well. The underline is missing. At a glance, I

I'm curious as to what your contrast settings are. Or are you on a
laptop, perhaps? Because the links aren't a PALE blue, but #369, a
reasonably deep blue which shows up quite readily on the machines on
which I tested. Also, in the design phase, I set the layout to grayscale
(a useful method to check visibility) for testing, and the links showed
up clear.

Nevertheless, I'll reconsider underlining the links in the body
sections. I don't think that will detract from the visual design.

didn't see anything that requires the JavaScript either. A few CSS
rollovers would do.

The Javascript is primarily for the navigation rollovers (which are
graphical buttons). If Javaqscript is disabled, nothing of significance
is missed there. There are also some additional selection processes in
the Portfolio.

h1 { display: none; } ???

SEO

Appreciate the feedback.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

See the underlining thing is what you think is bad, I don't.

What if I have something I want to present to people on the web. And
there is no way I can present it in the manner that can be accessible to
all.

That's too abstract for me. Give us an URL of something you can't
present in an accessible manner, please.


Matthias

 

[Steve Pugh]

At any rate, the body text is 12px, which is a mere 1px smaller than
default 100% (13px).

On what browser? I don't know any browser where the factory default
font size is 13px. For most Windows browsers and Mac IE5+, Gecko
based, etc. it's 16px. For Safari it's 14px and for old Mac browsers
it's 12px.

For the vast majority of users 12px is 25% smaller than the default.

Steve

 

[Barry Pearson]

Quoth the raven named Kevin Scholl:


http://www.ksscholl.com/

Aesthetically, the site is ok, imo. I'm wondering, though, why it is
constrained to the center of my high-resolution monitor, and why you

[snip]
I'm curious as to what your contrast settings are. Or are you on a
laptop, perhaps? Because the links aren't a PALE blue, but #369, a
reasonably deep blue which shows up quite readily on the machines on
which I tested. Also, in the design phase, I set the layout to
grayscale (a useful method to check visibility) for testing, and the
links showed up clear.

[snip]

The following appears to be a useful check site:
http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp

It suggests your link colour contrast is marginal. (I now use that site to
check my own styles, because my eyesight is better than most and so is not a
good test).

 

[Barry Pearson]

Show me one that isn't.

[snip]

I'm puzzled by that. Are you saying that something in the W3C standards
PREVENTS a site from being exciting?

Or are you making the lesser statement that people who produce compliant sites
just don't make exciting sites? (If so, then it would surely be possible to
achieve both).

 

[Whitecrest]

You rather hit upon the crux of this aspect of the discussion --
"exciting" and "fun" are subjective, as is general aesthetic appeal. I
find Eric Meyer's site(s) to be fascinating, even exciting if you will.
It's certainly not "plain-jane". Similarly the CSSZenGarden site, though
I recognize its usefulness primarily as a demonstration tool. And I'm
pleased with how my own personal site (URL in sig), which is constructed
of CSS-P, is turning out from both technological and aesthetic
viewpoints. But I recognize that not everyone will agree, particularly
on the latter.

Did you notice how all your references are sites that deal with web page
development?

It doesn't take Flash, heavy back-end programming, and/or intense
interactivity to move a site out of the doldrums of "plain-jane and
unexciting".

In your opinion it doesn't, it is that subjective thing again.

Effective design, solid development skills, and
reasonably-engaging content will do for most people.

There is no proof of that. It is totally subjective. THAT is why it is
ok for me to use Flash, DHTML, javascript, or just about anything else I
want to on a site. It is all subjective (something I have been saying
here for the last 2 years.)

 

[Whitecrest]

That's too abstract for me. Give us an URL of something you can't
present in an accessible manner, please.

www.cartoonnetwork.com (also, chose just about any entertainment site)
You must have javascript and flash to fully enjoy the site. You CAN NOT
present the content they want to provide any other way than with Flash
and Javascript. If you think you can, then give me a URL that can
duplicate that site AND be accessible.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

On what browser? I don't know any browser where the factory default
font size is 13px. For most Windows browsers and Mac IE5+, Gecko
based, etc. it's 16px. For Safari it's 14px and for old Mac browsers
it's 12px.

For the vast majority of users 12px is 25% smaller than the default.

Hmm...strange. With IE6, Firebird 0.7, and Mozilla, the default seems to
match up with 13px here.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Whitecrest]

I'm puzzled by that. Are you saying that something in the W3C standards
PREVENTS a site from being exciting?

No, I am saying that an ALL HTML and CSS site is boring to me (and
millions of others out there) Some of us want something more. And I am
saying that it is ok to provide that "something more" EVEN if it means a
blind person can't see it, or someone on a cell phone can't enjoy it.

Or are you making the lesser statement that people who produce compliant sites
just don't make exciting sites? (If so, then it would surely be possible to
achieve both).

I am sure someone finds sites like these fun and exciting. I (and
millions of others) don't. It is a pretty simple concept. Sadly most
people in this forum have blinders on and don't see a need for sites
like this. I tend to disagree.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Did you notice how all your references are sites that deal with web page
development?

Um...so? You asked for examples. You didn't set any criteria. At any
rate, web page development sites or not, to many folks they don't adhere
to your suggestion that compliant sites are "plain-jane".

In your opinion it doesn't, it is that subjective thing again.

So you are firmly of the belief that for a site to be exciting, it MUST
contain such technologies? I dunno, that just seems...narrow-minded.

There is no proof of that. It is totally subjective. THAT is why it is
ok for me to use Flash, DHTML, javascript, or just about anything else I
want to on a site. It is all subjective (something I have been saying
here for the last 2 years.)

And a premise that, in case you never noticed, I've tended to agree with
over those past two years. However, this isn't the discussion here. The
discusson is whether compliant sites can be exciting. And the only thing
that we've really established, really CAN establish, is that "exciting"
is subjective.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[kchayka]

For some time, the concensus was to avoid px, but
now px seems to be accepted.

Um, no it isn't.
You haven't been sucked in by Zeldman and friends, have you?

 

[Whitecrest]

Um...so? You asked for examples. You didn't set any criteria...

I did not say it was a bad thing, I just made a comment on your
selection.

At any
rate, web page development sites or not, to many folks they don't adhere
to your suggestion that compliant sites are "plain-jane".

Sorry, I think ALL the examples you gave are "plain-jane". So in fact,
to me, (remember this is all subjective) they are all very boring sites.

BUT, sites like your examples are there to provide INFORMATION not
EXCITEMENT. The sites you listed have no need to be exciting, they are
pure information. Not all sites on the web are pure information, and
not all should be exciting.

Exactly, it is ALL subjective. And because of that, ALL forms of web
sites ARE acceptable. YOU may not visit it, and YOU may not like what
they do, but that does not mean it is wrong.

So you are firmly of the belief that for a site to be exciting, it MUST
contain such technologies? I dunno, that just seems...narrow-minded.

Never said that. I said they COULD contain such technologies. Never
MUST.

 

[Kris]

You haven't been sucked in by Zeldman and friends, have you?

<http://www.xs4all.nl/~apple77/zeldy.jpg>

 

[Toby A Inkster]

What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that provides all
these browsers?

My advice for any commercial website is to ensure that it works
*perfectly* in:

Internet Explorer 6
Internet Explorer 5.5
Internet Explorer 5
Mozilla 1.4

Almost perfectly in:

Opera 7.x
Konqueror / Safari

And all content and navigation is usable in:

Lynx 2.8.x
Netscape 4.x

Test also in IE5/Mac if you can.

All these browsers can be downloaded from http://browsers.evolt.org/

 

[Whitecrest]

My advice for any commercial website is to ensure that it works
*perfectly* in:...

By commercial, are you saying a site where the main goal of that site is
to physically make money (by orders, or information provided, etc...) I
totally agree with your list of how it should work in browsers. If your
site is there to make money it had better work in every stinking
browsers in the world. (I have never said otherwise)(never say never)

Or are you talking about a commercial site such as www.haunted-
mansion.com Which is commercial site but the intent of the site is to
entertain rather than directly sell. While Disney will make money from
it indirectly because it is in fact advertisement for the movie. I
seriously doubt they would make MORE money if they followed the criteria
listed above. Disney obviously feels the same way or the site would be
in HTML.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Kevin Scholl:

Others have chimed in with good advice, so I'll just add these
observations.

I believe (and my usability tests in past experiences support) that long
lines of text are a bigger usability issue than fixed-width layouts.
Educated choice.

But why not leave the choice to the visitor? Have you looked at your
site with a 640x480 browser window? Eeek! Hence, the advice to design
for any size. Or no size.

You can

can't [ with IE ] at least not easily, as you describe: obscure. How
many average surfers do you know that could find these obscurities?

increase the text size. Granted, IE/Win requires that you go
into some obscure Options settings, but that's a failure of the browser,
not the site code. Good browsers, adhering to the W3C specification,
allow any defined text to be resized.


Arguments abound for what measurements to use (except pt, which is a
print measurement). For some time, the concensus was to avoid px, but
now px seems to be accepted. As I mentioned, a good browser allows
resizing of even px, and I'm not in the business of catering to a single
browser that doesn't.

But why cater to other browsers? Why not go fluid and cater to NO
browsers?

Having evaluated the pros and cons, I don't see an
issue with using px, particularly for a personal site.

Oh, ok. You're not expecting anyone else to visit? <g> Then it's fine.

....

I'm curious as to what your contrast settings are. Or are you on a
laptop, perhaps?

Nope. Garden-variety 17-inch CRT with default settings.

Because the links aren't a PALE blue, but #369, a
reasonably deep blue which shows up quite readily on the machines on

Perhaps it's your smallish text that is the problem. IAC, the links do
not stand out.

which I tested. Also, in the design phase, I set the layout to grayscale
(a useful method to check visibility) for testing, and the links showed
up clear.

Well, sure, in greyscale they probably jump at you.

Nevertheless, I'll reconsider underlining the links in the body
sections. I don't think that will detract from the visual design.
Thanks.


The Javascript is primarily for the navigation rollovers (which are
graphical buttons). If Javaqscript is disabled, nothing of significance
is missed there. There are also some additional selection processes in
the Portfolio.

So if the js is just for a few rollovers, why send visitors to this page?

"HOW DID I GET HERE?

You have been directed to this page because your browser does not
support accepted Web standards used to build the Phoenix Rising site.
Or, your browser does not have Javascript enabled, which is
recommended to fully appreciate all that the site has to offer."

I have a very modern web standard browser, albeit with js usually
disabled. I'd guess your normal visitor (not a web author like those
of us in this group) would simply leave, and never find the "Should
you like to view the site anyway, you may do so by clicking here. "
link way at the bottom of the page. IMO, this page is shooting
yourself in the foot. Not even necessary, as I said, for some
rollovers you could do with CSS quite easily.

SEO
Ok...

Appreciate the feedback.

My pleasure.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

No, I am saying that an ALL HTML and CSS site is boring to me (and
millions of others out there) Some of us want something more. And I am
saying that it is ok to provide that "something more" EVEN if it means a
blind person can't see it, or someone on a cell phone can't enjoy it.




I am sure someone finds sites like these fun and exciting. I (and
millions of others) don't. It is a pretty simple concept. Sadly most
people in this forum have blinders on and don't see a need for sites
like this. I tend to disagree.

I'm not so sure that it's a matter of blinders, Whitecrest. I think the
key is recognizing the purpose and audience of a particular site. For
example, Flash, extensive DHTML, and the other technologies that you
ahrbor on are fine for entertainment sites, personal sites, and the
like. However, their file size, usability, and accessibility issues make
them less acceptable for mainstream, portal-type sites.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Um, no it isn't.
You haven't been sucked in by Zeldman and friends, have you?

No, simple case of looking at what most mainstream sites are using, and
seeing that they are still getting plenty of visits. *shrug*

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)