Re: finished new design for my website

Discussion in 'HTML' started by rf, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. rf

    rf Guest

    "AC" <> wrote in message
    news:bg9tnk$27f$01$-online.com...
    > Hello
    > I've just finished the new design for my website and I would like some
    > feedback
    > on it please.
    >
    > You can view it at www.audioconverter.info


    Fixed size. Not liquid at all. What happens if my browser canvas is not
    exactly the same as yours?

    Font hard coded at 12 pixels. What if I cannot see text that small? Why do
    you think you know better than I about my font preferences anyway? You force
    me to use my accessibility option to ignore your font size. When I do I find
    that the text flows quite smoothly. This page could be *very* easily changed
    to cater to my browser canvas size.

    Tables. There is no tabular data on this page.

    No doctype. You obviously have not validated this.

    If you are using CSS then what is this <font ...> doing in the HTML. Font
    has been deprecated for years.

    The CSS is, well, a mess. Every single rule mentions font-size, font-family
    et al. These should be specified once, or may be twice in the entire CSS
    file. Have you never heard of inheritance? The CSS should be dramatically
    simplified. The KISS principle applies.

    I see you use SSL for your credit card gathering page. Very good.

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jul 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:04:55 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

    I just checked this site with text size turned off so that I could see
    it in a large font. IT WORKS!

    I also used my own CSS for contrast. IT WORKS!

    It meets 508 & W3Clevel 1 accessability guidelines. -
    www.watchfire.com or www.useablenet.com

    >Fixed size. Not liquid at all. What happens if my browser canvas is not
    >exactly the same as yours?

    If you turn font size off, it works.

    >Font hard coded at 12 pixels. What if I cannot see text that small? Why do
    >you think you know better than I about my font preferences anyway? You force
    >me to use my accessibility option to ignore your font size. When I do I find
    >that the text flows quite smoothly. This page could be *very* easily changed
    >to cater to my browser canvas size.

    PS, the font size is set @ 10px in the HTML anything in the CSS can be
    overridden and is therefore not a problem You and I can set up what we
    want rather than what the author wants.

    >Tables. There is no tabular data on this page.

    Tables for layout are not a problem if they are sumarised as such -
    he/she has not done so.

    >No doctype. You obviously have not validated this.

    There is a doctype.

    >If you are using CSS then what is this <font ...> doing in the HTML. Font
    >has been deprecated for years.

    I agree but it is transitional and can be overridden.

    >The CSS is, well, a mess. Every single rule mentions font-size, font-family
    >et al. These should be specified once, or may be twice in the entire CSS
    >file. Have you never heard of inheritance? The CSS should be dramatically
    >simplified. The KISS principle applies.

    Get off your high horse, use the tools you have for yourself and give
    him/her constructive critisism instead of abuse!

    >I see you use SSL for your credit card gathering page. Very good.

    The only real supportive line.
     
    Titus A Ducksass, Jul 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rf

    rf Guest

    "Titus A Ducksass" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:04:55 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:
    >
    > I just checked this site with text size turned off so that I could see
    > it in a large font. IT WORKS!
    >
    > I also used my own CSS for contrast. IT WORKS!
    >
    > It meets 508 & W3Clevel 1 accessability guidelines. -
    > www.watchfire.com or www.useablenet.com
    >
    > >Fixed size. Not liquid at all. What happens if my browser canvas is not
    > >exactly the same as yours?


    > If you turn font size off, it works.


    No. If I turn off font size the site is still exactly 800 or so pixels wide.
    That is the fixed size to which I was referring. Did you miss the bit there
    about the page "not fitting my browser canvas"?

    > >Font hard coded at 12 pixels. What if I cannot see text that small? Why

    do
    > >you think you know better than I about my font preferences anyway? You

    force
    > >me to use my accessibility option to ignore your font size. When I do I

    find
    > >that the text flows quite smoothly. This page could be *very* easily

    changed
    > >to cater to my browser canvas size.


    > PS, the font size is set @ 10px in the HTML anything in the CSS can be
    > overridden and is therefore not a problem You and I can set up what we
    > want rather than what the author wants.


    Isn't that what I just said? however, I dislike being *forced* to do that.
    Just about every site review here includes a phrase like "do not use font
    size in pixels, use % and if you do use 100%", not just from me but from
    most of the other regulars as well.

    It is totally pointless to specify a font that is smaller than I like. I
    will simply increase the font size at my end to compensate.

    It is even worse to use pixels as the most used browser triggers a bug and
    refuses to resize the text, as we know. If somebody does not know how to use
    the accessibility options (they are reasonably well hidden) and can not see
    the text they will simply buy an audio converter from the *next* site in the
    SE results, the one they can easily read.

    > >Tables. There is no tabular data on this page.

    > Tables for layout are not a problem if they are sumarised as such -
    > he/she has not done so.


    And a bastard to maintain.

    > >No doctype. You obviously have not validated this.


    > There is a doctype.


    There was not when I originally looked at the site. AC has added one since
    then and has attempted to validate it. As a result AC has started a new
    thread about validation where advice about has been received about the
    problems. This, if anything, is a huge leap forward and probably directly
    attributable to my comment above and/or the remarks made by Denise.

    > >If you are using CSS then what is this <font ...> doing in the HTML. Font
    > >has been deprecated for years.


    > I agree but it is transitional and can be overridden.


    Why is it in the HTML when it is clearly specified in AC's CSS. A leftover
    from Frontpage I suspect.

    Font is deprecated. That means that the specifications suggest it should not
    be used for new designs. The fact that it can be overridden is irrelevant.
    It is excess baggage from last century and should never been part of the
    HTML spec from the beginning.

    > >The CSS is, well, a mess. Every single rule mentions font-size,

    font-family
    > >et al. These should be specified once, or may be twice in the entire CSS
    > >file. Have you never heard of inheritance? The CSS should be dramatically
    > >simplified. The KISS principle applies.


    > Get off your high horse, use the tools you have for yourself and give
    > him/her constructive critisism instead of abuse!


    What on earth are you on about? The CSS *is* a mess. That is critisizm.
    Simplify it, keeping in mind inheritance and KISS. That is constructive. And
    what does notepad (the tool I use to produce CSS) have to do with this
    matter?

    The above was not abuse. If I were out to abuse our original poster AC's
    tinfoil hat would be red hot by now. Would you like me to throw in the odd
    smiley perhaps :)

    I not *you* didn't have anything to say about the site or the HTML or the
    CSS, only the fact that "IT WORKS" when you override the authors
    specifications :)

    > >I see you use SSL for your credit card gathering page. Very good.


    > The only real supportive line.


    In... Your... Opinion.

    If you come here for a critique you will get one. The good *and* the bad.
    You will not get a "that's nice".

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jul 31, 2003
    #3
  4. On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:21:43 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Titus A Ducksass" <> wrote in message
    >news:...

    <Snip>
    >
    >> If you turn font size off, it works.


    >No. If I turn off font size the site is still exactly 800 or so pixels wide.
    >That is the fixed size to which I was referring. Did you miss the bit there
    >about the page "not fitting my browser canvas"?

    OK, yes. I missed that point.
    However, if you had been in non agressive mode you may have explicitly
    said do not make the width exactly 800 * x and to use % instead.

    As you may have gathered, the point was to be suggestive rather than
    thou shalt not!!!

    >> >Font hard coded at 12 pixels. What if I cannot see text that small? Why

    >do
    >> >you think you know better than I about my font preferences anyway? You

    >force
    >> >me to use my accessibility option to ignore your font size. When I do I

    >find
    >> >that the text flows quite smoothly. This page could be *very* easily

    >changed
    >> >to cater to my browser canvas size.

    >
    >> PS, the font size is set @ 10px in the HTML anything in the CSS can be
    >> overridden and is therefore not a problem You and I can set up what we
    >> want rather than what the author wants.

    >
    >Isn't that what I just said? however, I dislike being *forced* to do that.
    >Just about every site review here includes a phrase like "do not use font
    >size in pixels, use % and if you do use 100%", not just from me but from
    >most of the other regulars as well.

    I agree we should not be forced into this. However, as someone who
    cannot see 100%, I have to use my own CSS and turn off / on other
    accessability options

    >It is totally pointless to specify a font that is smaller than I like. I
    >will simply increase the font size at my end to compensate.
    >
    >It is even worse to use pixels as the most used browser triggers a bug and
    >refuses to resize the text, as we know. If somebody does not know how to use
    >the accessibility options (they are reasonably well hidden) and can not see
    >the text they will simply buy an audio converter from the *next* site in the
    >SE results, the one they can easily read.

    With a screen reader / magnifier, size does not matter <Grin> I can
    make it any size I want <Big grin>.

    >> >Tables. There is no tabular data on this page.

    >> Tables for layout are not a problem if they are sumarised as such -
    >> he/she has not done so.

    >
    >And a bastard to maintain.

    That is up to the author and as I said is not against the rules just
    not recommended.
    >> >No doctype. You obviously have not validated this.

    >
    >> There is a doctype.

    >
    >There was not when I originally looked at the site. AC has added one since
    >then and has attempted to validate it. As a result AC has started a new
    >thread about validation where advice about has been received about the
    >problems. This, if anything, is a huge leap forward and probably directly
    >attributable to my comment above and/or the remarks made by Denise.

    I did not receive the posting from Denise - must be on a different
    feed.
    >> >If you are using CSS then what is this <font ...> doing in the HTML. Font
    >> >has been deprecated for years.

    >
    >> I agree but it is transitional and can be overridden.

    >
    >Why is it in the HTML when it is clearly specified in AC's CSS. A leftover
    >from Frontpage I suspect.

    Or from Word... Or from bad practice... etc...

    >Font is deprecated. That means that the specifications suggest it should not
    >be used for new designs. The fact that it can be overridden is irrelevant.
    >It is excess baggage from last century and should never been part of the
    >HTML spec from the beginning.
    >
    >> >The CSS is, well, a mess. Every single rule mentions font-size,

    >font-family
    >> >et al. These should be specified once, or may be twice in the entire CSS
    >> >file. Have you never heard of inheritance? The CSS should be dramatically
    >> >simplified. The KISS principle applies.

    Yes...
    >> Get off your high horse, use the tools you have for yourself and give
    >> him/her constructive critisism instead of abuse!

    >
    >What on earth are you on about? The CSS *is* a mess. That is critisizm.
    >Simplify it, keeping in mind inheritance and KISS. That is constructive. And
    >what does notepad (the tool I use to produce CSS) have to do with this
    >matter?

    The CSS may be a mess but the point was it can be turned off and over
    ridden. The tools at your disposal are CSS - you are at liberty to
    set your own.

    >The above was not abuse. If I were out to abuse our original poster AC's
    >tinfoil hat would be red hot by now. Would you like me to throw in the odd
    >smiley perhaps :)

    They can help <Grin>

    >I not *you* didn't have anything to say about the site or the HTML or the
    >CSS, only the fact that "IT WORKS" when you override the authors
    >specifications :)
    >
    >> >I see you use SSL for your credit card gathering page. Very good.

    >
    >> The only real supportive line.

    >
    >In... Your... Opinion.
    >
    >If you come here for a critique you will get one. The good *and* the bad.
    >You will not get a "that's nice".

    Yes, that is what I would expect but abuse of 'Thou shalt ' is not
    appropriate in any language.
    >Cheers
    >Richard.
    >
     
    Titus A Ducksass, Jul 31, 2003
    #4
    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. Denise Enck
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    362
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    578
  3. hitech
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    727
    hitech
    Jul 1, 2008
  4. n00m
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    395
    Nobody
    Mar 11, 2011
  5. sravan kumar
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    sravan kumar
    Jun 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page