123Jim said:
Wish someone here would point out some examples from that site
[w3schools] are wrong ..as I find it is concisely written. easy to
search, a > quick reference .. where are the glaring errors?
The problem is the simple and searchable presentation that you describe,
combined with unreliability of content. Glaring errors are less harmful
than less obvious errors. Glaring errors make the novice go away.
The problems of w3schools content are discussed fairly often in relevant
Usenet groups. Stick around...
... but as a simple example, about my pet peeve, the page
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_IMG.asp
basically gets things right, _except_ for its example. And as you may
know, if you give an excellent theoretical and practical presentation
accompanied with a poor example, it is the example that people will
understand and remembed.
When would you say "Angry face" in conversation, or in writing? Wouldn't
you rather say "I'm angry"? Or, more naturally, "You goofed it up again!"
or "You bastards!".
Yet the page gives the example
<img src="angry.gif" alt="Angry face" />
(pointlessly using XHTML syntax, but that's much less serious). They
simple didn't give the issue of ALTernative text the slightest *thought*.
They just wrote a stupid (and, as it happens, a wrong) _description_ of an
image.
And if you look at
http://www.w3schools.com/Css/css_image_transparency.asp
you'll see examples that contain _no_ alt attribute, even though another
pages of theirs (correctly) indicates it as required.
Examples are never "just examples". Examples are what people learn from.
Texts are just casual explanations and annotations, mostly ignored.