Web site critique

[Neo Geshel]

Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:

http://continentalkit.com/

Looking for several things:

• Why does IE ignore the other stylesheets? Both Mozilla and Opera see
the print and handheld stylesheets, but IE ignores them. When one does a
print preview in Mozilla or Opera, the print preview comes out
correctly, but in IE it does not. Same with viewing the site on a
cellphone or a handheld device.
• How is the header image coming out at the very top? Are IE ppl able
to see the full alpha-transparency? (Notice how the background slides
behind the blur when you scroll)
• For those that have Flash disabled (I am not one of them), does the
<object> tag of the flash slideshow gracefully degrade to the internal
<img /> tag? Do you see a static image, or is it only a box with a
“plugin†icon?

That should cover the basics of what I am looking for. A cc to my e-mail
would be appreciated (note sig!).

TIA
...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Travis Newbury]

Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:

Well the only people that will appreciate this:

" This site makes use of standards-compliant xhtml and css.
It is also Section 508 compliant, and conforms to Level Triple-A of the
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
And finally, this site uses no GIF’s in its design. Nada. None. PNG or
JPEG images only, folks!"

Are people here. Your visitors will have no idea what you are talking
about.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Well the only people that will appreciate this:

" This site makes use of standards-compliant xhtml and css.
It is also Section 508 compliant, and conforms to Level Triple-A of the
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
And finally, this site uses no GIF�s in its design. Nada. None.PNG or
JPEG images only, folks!"

Are people here. Your visitors will have no idea what you are talking
about.

<tweaks Newbury’s nose />

That’s why it’s at the bottom, in the footer, and not at the top of the
page! <grin />

In all seriousness, we’ve had other web site / business owners contact
us before asking just what the heck we were talking about. A handful of
them even turned into contracts, after we explained. Which is why we
incorporate it. Confusing to non-techies, but if it grabs the interest
of a web site owner (that either does their own work, and poorly; or has
someone else do the work for them and have never been told about these
standards before) and that owner contacts us to ask questions, so much
the better. And even if all we do is educate them on web standards, so
much the better! Education is always superior to ignorance, even if we
don’t get a contract out of it.



...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Gazza]

Travis Newbury mumbled the following on 16/05/2005 09:49:

Well the only people that will appreciate this:

" This site makes use of standards-compliant xhtml and css.
It is also Section 508 compliant, and conforms to Level Triple-A of the
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
And finally, this site uses no GIF’s in its design. Nada. None. PNG or
JPEG images only, folks!"

Are people here. Your visitors will have no idea what you are talking
about.

Nor does the OP apparently:
Fails CSS validation.
Fails XHTML1.1 validation (right Doctype, wrong MIME type).
Fails Automated Section 508.
Fails Automated WAI Level A, let alone Level AAA.

It's all very well trying to impress people, but to those in the know,
you look a bit silly when you can't back those claims up...

With images disabled, you have no obvious <h1> and with CSS disabled
(but images on), you have it twice. On IE6 I don't see any image, even
with images on.

Your title for the acronym JPEG is wrong, it should be Photographic
Experts, not Photographer’s Expert.

 

[Terry]

Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:

http://continentalkit.com/

Looking for several things:

• Why does IE ignore the other stylesheets? Both Mozilla and Opera see
the print and handheld stylesheets, but IE ignores them. When one does a
print preview in Mozilla or Opera, the print preview comes out
correctly, but in IE it does not. Same with viewing the site on a
cellphone or a handheld device.
• How is the header image coming out at the very top? Are IE ppl able
to see the full alpha-transparency? (Notice how the background slides
behind the blur when you scroll)
• For those that have Flash disabled (I am not one of them), does the
<object> tag of the flash slideshow gracefully degrade to the internal
<img /> tag? Do you see a static image, or is it only a box with a
“plugin†icon?

That should cover the basics of what I am looking for. A cc to my e-mail
would be appreciated (note sig!).

<link rel="stylesheet" media="print" type="text/css"
href="csss/print.css"> Works for me (IE 6) - I guess IE is order
sensitive. (Hard to imagine a bug in a quality browser ;-)

The transparency shows fine - I almost did not even see the flash show -
do not see much (if any) value in it.

 

[Travis Newbury]

<link rel="stylesheet" media="print" type="text/css"
href="csss/print.css"> Works for me (IE 6) - I guess IE is order
sensitive. (Hard to imagine a bug in a quality browser ;-)

What quality browser?

The transparency shows fine - I almost did not even see the flash show -
do not see much (if any) value in it.

Eye candy, pure and simple. And there is nothing wrong with eye candy.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:
http://continentalkit.com/

Huge text-as-image banner at the top of page. No alt, no title.

Didn't bother looking any further - someone's clueless or careless.

 

[nice.guy.nige]

[follow-ups set to news:alt.html]

While the city slept, Neo Geshel ([email protected]) feverishly typed...

Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:

http://continentalkit.com/

In Firefox, with images and style turned off, your level-1 heading reads as
follows: "Continental EnterprisesContinental Enterprises - Complete,
detailed and authentic continental kits for most American-built vehicles
from 1949 through present." due to the various titles and alts in there.
Consider something along the lines of...

<h1><img src="whatever.png" alt="Continental Enterprises"></h1>

.... which will serve the image if the user-agent will accept it, or display
the phrase which is in the image (and Firefox at least will display that as
a level-1 heading).

From an aesthetic point of view, I don't really like the banner image. It's
a bit gloomy and hard to read. The slideshow is very distracting. This makes
the text hard to read, as my eye keeps moving every time the image changes.

Not too sure about making it all into one page either. Consider an intro
page, a photo gallery page (so they can show all those nice pics) and a
contact page if they don't want anything too big.

I agree with other posters that the "science bit" (the technical info at the
bottom) is probably too much. Consider a "designed for accessibility" style
comment with a link to a page describing how you approached the design and
development to produce an accessible site (and why that is important).

Hope that helps,
Nige

 

[Toby Inkster]

http://continentalkit.com/

alt text missing on banner. "enquiries" spelt wrong.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Travis Newbury mumbled the following on 16/05/2005 09:49:



Nor does the OP apparently:
Fails CSS validation.

Really?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.continentalkit.com/css/global.css
Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get “Failedâ€from
“Congratulations! Valid CSS! This document validates as CSS! â€.

Fails XHTML1.1 validation (right Doctype, wrong MIME type).

Really?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.continentalkit.com/
Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get "Failed" from "This
Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1!"

Fails Automated Section 508.
Fails Automated WAI Level A, let alone Level AAA.

I don’t know what you used to do the validation on these, but this site:
http://webxact.watchfire.com/
says that I only fail level AAA, and by only one checkpoint which I
can’t do anything about because of the way that the feedback formmust
be processed by the server-side code. My hands are tied. If you really
wanna be a neurotic bitch about it, I’ll change the text to AA.

And as for Section 508, the same site clocks me in at having (once
again!) only one (1) error, which is a dubious issue, since I provide
exactly what they demand (the link to the plugin is INSIDE the <object>
tag; users that don’t have flash should see the link... this was a check
that I was asking about. As well, there is a static image that should
also be seen if the user doesn’t have flash).

It's all very well trying to impress people, but to those in the know,
you look a bit silly when you can't back those claims up...

I just did. Who's looking silly now?

With images disabled, you have no obvious <h1> and with CSS disabled
(but images on), you have it twice. On IE6 I don't see any image, even
with images on.

Point taken. But my main thrust of support is for TTS readers. Not ppl
with images turned off or CSS disabled.

Your title for the acronym JPEG is wrong, it should be Photographic
Experts, not Photographer�s Expert.

Mea Culpa. That, at least, can be “fixedâ€, and it has been.

...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Oli Filth]

Really?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.continentalkit.com/css/global.css

Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get “Failed†from
“Congratulations! Valid CSS! This document validates as CSS! â€.

However:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http://continentalkit.com/

Although the CSS itself *is* correct. You need to check your MIME types
etc. if you're going to use XHTML and the <?xml ... ?> directive.

 

[kchayka]

I don’t know what you used to do the validation on these, but this site:
http://webxact.watchfire.com/

Are you using this to determine that a site is accessible? <rolls eyes>

Following the WAI guidelines blindly does not mean the site is
accessible, not by a long shot.

If you're only interested in pleasing some automated checker, then say
so. If you're truly interested in creating accessible sites, then don't
depend on some tool telling you it's good or not. Use your brain.

Just don't claim the site is accessible coz some automated checker says
it is.

But my main thrust of support is for TTS readers. Not ppl
with images turned off or CSS disabled.

Accessibility is a heck of a lot more than just accommodating blind
users. If you really had a clue about this subject, you would know that.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Are you using this to determine that a site is accessible? <rolls eyes>

Following the WAI guidelines blindly does not mean the site is
accessible, not by a long shot.

If you're only interested in pleasing some automated checker, then say
so. If you're truly interested in creating accessible sites, then don't
depend on some tool telling you it's good or not. Use your brain.

Just don't claim the site is accessible coz some automated checker says
it is.

Did I ever say I did? No. That’s why the 508 and AAA links at thebottom
of the page don’t lead to any automated checker (unlike the XHTMLand
CSS links). It’s easy enough to do, but I don’t do it because I don’t
DEPEND on the checkers. I simply use them as a “minimum guideline†and
go from there.

Accessibility is a heck of a lot more than just accommodating blind
users. If you really had a clue about this subject, you would know that.

Of course I know that. But show me a peer-reviewed research paper that
indicates the usage of browsers that have images or css turned off as
being larger than the number of TTS readers, and I’ll gladly change my tune.

IMHO, I don’t know of any study that puts no-images and no-css users as
being anywhere even on the map. eight to ten years ago, this would have
been an issue. Eight to ten years ago, people still used 9,800 and
14,400 baud modems (I did!) and often turned off images (so did I!) in
order to get faster page loads. Not anymore.

Sure, you might get the odd hermetic geek in his parent’s dank basement
that has images and css turned off, but that’s bound to be the exception
rather than the rule. And I highly doubt that he’s looking for
Continental Kits. But a blind spouse looking for a Kit for her Husband’s
birthday, now THAT is a potential scenario that I can believe in.

Let’s get logical, let’s get reasonable. Let’s NOT get into a
nit-picking debate over the Emperor’s new clothes.

...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Toby Inkster]

But show me a peer-reviewed research paper that indicates the usage of
browsers that have images or css turned off as being larger than the
number of TTS readers, and I’ll gladly change my tune.

Most mobile user-agents don't support CSS.

 

[Neo Geshel]

However:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http://continentalkit.com/

Although the CSS itself *is* correct. You need to check your MIME types
etc. if you're going to use XHTML and the <?xml ... ?> directive.

Yes, but I have no control over the mime-type that the server puts out
(the site isn’t hosted with us), and a quick search of google hasn’t
turned up anything that I can use in PHP (without throwing an error,
that is). If you have any links that show me how I can get the server to
modify a normal page’s mime-type through PHP (before the page is sent to
the user), I'd be glad to implement it. So far, most everything that I
have come across is related to setting the mime-type of an upload to the
server.

...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Oli Filth]

Yes, but I have no control over the mime-type that the server puts out
(the site isn’t hosted with us), and a quick search of google hasn’t
turned up anything that I can use in PHP (without throwing an error,
that is). If you have any links that show me how I can get the server to
modify a normal page’s mime-type through PHP (before the page is sent to
the user), I'd be glad to implement it. So far, most everything that I
have come across is related to setting the mime-type of an upload to the
server.

header("Content-Type: ...");

Before any script output. However, there are issues with XHTML MIME
types and Internet Explorer (cos it's lame). Do a Google search for
"xhtml mime explorer" to find your options.

 

[dorayme]

Consider a "designed for accessibility" style
comment with a link to a page describing how you approached the design and
development to produce an accessible site (and why that is important).

What a good idea! I feel like a jackal prowling around the edges of a kill
and getting what morsels I can. But, again, this is sensible, well said.

dorayme

 

[dorayme]

If you're only interested in pleasing some automated checker, then say
so.

Of course the OP should! But if he finds it a bit hard to admit to others or
even to himself such a silliness, how about a shrink or the ultimate
repository for the hardest of confessions, a priest?

dorayme

 

[Steve Sundberg]

Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:

http://continentalkit.com/

Looking for several things:

=E2=80=A2 Why does IE ignore the other stylesheets? Both Mozilla and Op=
era see=20
the print and handheld stylesheets, but IE ignores them. When one does a =

print preview in Mozilla or Opera, the print preview comes out=20
correctly, but in IE it does not. Same with viewing the site on a=20
cellphone or a handheld device.

This may or may not help. For your "print.css," you've got to go
through and, basically, create a duplicate of your "screen.css" file
but use "display: none" for those classes and IDs you do not want
showing in a printed page. IE may be confused by some of the
directions it is trying to interpret from both the screen.css and
print.css files. IIRC, your print.css file has to account for
everything in the screen.css file. Remember, too, that the proper
measurement for print typefaces is "point," not "pixel".

=E2=80=A2 How is the header image coming out at the very top? Are IE pp=
l able=20
to see the full alpha-transparency? (Notice how the background slides=20
behind the blur when you scroll)

In IE 6.02, it is NOT displaying the transparency.

What's wrong with using a GIF transparency? Or, if you were to
absolutely position your IDs, simply using your existing background
tile as the background for the banner?

And why use Flash for a simple slide show? At 56k, with a great
majority of people still use in the US (~70%), it took over three
minutes for the file to load with no indication in Firefox that a
Flash file was loading. An impatient visitor will just stop loading
the page after xx number of seconds if it otherwise appears that the
page has loaded. As an alternative, a properly optimized GIF animation
would get the same job done for fewer bytes. Overall, without the
Flash file, your page still took ~22 seconds to load at 56K -- about
twice the recommended speed.

Your title header is way too large (~60k) for the purpose it serves.
Your visitors would be better served if you at least incorporated the
image as a background-image in css so as to greatly speed up the
loading of subsequent pages.

Hopefully this will all be helpful to you.

 

[Toby Inkster]

This may or may not help. For your "print.css," you've got to go
through and, basically, create a duplicate of your "screen.css" file
but use "display: none" for those classes and IDs you do not want
showing in a printed page.

No you don't. Typically, for a print style sheet, I'll start with a new,
blank file, set something like:

BODY {
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: "Georgia", "Times New Roman", serif;
color: black;
background: white;
}
H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 {
font-family: "Swis721 BT", "Helvetica", "Arial", sans-serif;
}
#menu {
display: none;
}

and that's it. Let the rest be unstyled.

IE may be confused by some of the directions it is trying to interpret
from both the screen.css and print.css files.

When it is printing, IE should (and indeed does) ignore the screen CSS
file entirely. When it is displaying, IE should (and indeed does) ignore
the print CSS file entirely. IE shouldn't (and indeed doesn't) have any
problems with confusion between print and screen styles.

IIRC, your print.css file has to account for everything in the
screen.css file.

You don't RC.

What's wrong with using a GIF transparency?

GIF can't handle alpha-blending, so would look ugly as hell.