I just found an interesting website.

[Andy Dingley]

Key words being "his default settings" the page looks fine with FF's
default settings,

Not on this very typical computer. The page only uses 800px width and
it requires a particularly small font, as the sheer incompetence of
its coding breaks badly otherwise.

If you have anything like a relatively-modern, relatively high-res
display, then _anyone's_ defaults will break this site. This isn't
just some artefact of my personal settings being unusually large.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Well that is the point isn't it? Those who "have a clue" most probably
aren't using MSIE, so they would be taking advantage of "advance"
features such as adjusting one the fly the micro-font sites to a more
legible size. The improving stats on my sites give me hope that we all
are not dim as sheep.

Even those with a clue do not "have" to change the default settings
just because they switch browsers.

I believe that the informed surfer does not just run away beating
their head in dispair just because a font looks wrong, or they have to
turn on Javascript because someone used it in a menu, or the layout is
not flexible. If they do, then they will also probably be an anal
customer and bitch and moan about everything. I have to wonder, do I
want that type of person as a customer? Probably not.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

My point exactly. To the casual surfer (read that as almost everyone
but a professional web designer) that website looks and works
perfectly fine. No one going to that site looking for soap will look
at the source code and say

"Damn this company has shitty HTML code! SON OF A BITCH! They used
WORD and not Notepad!!! I am going to their competitor!!!!"

Ah therein lies the rub, they rarely work well. As with said example is
flooded with MS BS:

<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:rect id="_x0000_s1173"
style='position:absolute;left:0;
top:123pt;width:132.82pt;height:450pt;z-index:17;visibility:visible;
mso-wrap-edited:f;mso-wrap-distance-left:2.88pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:2.88pt;
mso-wrap-distance-right:2.88pt;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:2.88pt'
fillcolor="#ffebae [2 lighten(102)]"
...

that mega-bloat of the code where the mere markup excluding images can
be unbelievable! That simple page is 60K without the images and if done
properly would be under 2K, only 30x bloat! Now if the page had any
significant amount of content it would not take much imagination to
guess how it would load on dialup.

Next, even though the example page:

http://www.thesagewreath.com.au/index_files/Page1279.htm

looks decent, it completely borks if you change the text size...so
access ability is out the window. And since most of the content reads as
comments does it even work with a screen reader?

And how about my friend's infamous site, a true MS Publisher marvel!
Thankfully it is not longer up,www.redskyibizans.com. To any anyone
without IE you got a blank grey page!

To you, a professional, yes it [technically] sucks, to my mom, who is
looking to buy soap, and wouldn't know how to view the source code if
her life depended on it, it looks and works fine. And she will buy
the soap.

You don't sell soap if the page doesn't work. And many don't, and this
one was lucky, because that MS funky code to "protect" (a Publisher
method I believe) and position images usually makes the site MS-only.

A "good" website is one that helps your business regardless of how it
was built or who built it.

Despite some flaws on the site that started this thread, it is far
superior to some sites of large companies that have deep pockets and
can afford to hire very good programmers. My latest find is none other
than the site www.usps.com , none other than the United States Postal
Service site. Two days ago I decided to order some stamps and other
supplies from them for the first time. I was on Firefox. I filled out
the order forms without incident and went to check out. Since this was
my first order, the first part of this was registration. I filled out
requested information on the first page or two there. At the next step
everything blew up, I got a very long error report, and it took me
back to the start of check out. This happened a second time. Then I
used the IE6 browser, and easily completed the order without problems.
I did not bother to look at the code, because the problem was on
secure pages, and likely some of it was server side code.
I can think of no more serious error for a site than to let you spend
a lot of time on an order and then have it blow up near the very end -
better that the site not work at all than have this happen.

 

[Travis Newbury]

There is something about reaching your late 40's that gives you a new
appreciation for this kind of thing. I find myself reading the web with
fonts at 120% more and more lately. People who need to increase font
sizes will figure out how to do it.

I am 50 and have (dollar store) reading glasses in both cars, the
intruder saddle bag, at work, and 2 sets at home, and I use CTRL+ and
CRTL- all the time. I am blind as a bat for reading. That was one of
the main reasons I switched to FF. (There were a lot of other reasons
too) Even so, I don't run away from a site just because it may not
look right. And I don't believe others to either.

Hell the AARP site breaks with large fonts. Don't you think that an
organization that represents millions of people over 50 would not have
that problem if those people complained? People generally don't
complain. They deal with the problem and move ahead in life.

The site in question breaks at 120%. You can do that on your own site if
you want to. But don't sell your design services to others if you create
sites that don't work for those of us who wear reading glasses.

Would you do their site for $450? That might be all Mom and Pop can
afford.... So do you have no web presents because you can not afford
someone that can "do it right", or do you spend the $450 and get your
name out there for the majority of the folks?

Life is full of decisions.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Despite some flaws on the site that started this thread, it is far
superior to some sites of large companies that have deep pockets and
can afford to hire very good programmers. My latest find is none other
than the site www.usps.com , none other than the United States Postal
Service site. Two days ago I decided to order some stamps and other
supplies from them for the first time. I was on Firefox. I filled out
the order forms without incident and went to check out. Since this was
my first order, the first part of this was registration. I filled out
requested information on the first page or two there. At the next step
everything blew up, I got a very long error report, and it took me
back to the start of check out. This happened a second time. Then I
used the IE6 browser, and easily completed the order without problems.
I did not bother to look at the code, because the problem was on
secure pages, and likely some of it was server side code.
I can think of no more serious error for a site than to let you spend
a lot of time on an order and then have it blow up near the very end -
better that the site not work at all than have this happen.

The USPS is an abysmal site! I have complained to them on several
occasions. I use their Click-n-Ship services and each time they "update"
it they break it for a day!

Originally the site would only work in IE! What is the killer is you
know that they (we US citizens) paid *good money* for code-monkeys that
don't even realize that form INPUTS need to be contained within the FORM
element to be valid!

 

[Chaddy2222]

I am 50 and have (dollar store) reading glasses in both cars, the
intruder saddle bag, at work, and 2 sets at home, and I use CTRL+ and
CRTL- all the time. I am blind as a bat for reading. That was one of
the main reasons I switched to FF. (There were a lot of other reasons
too) Even so, I don't run away from a site just because it may not
look right. And I don't believe others to either.

Hell the AARP site breaks with large fonts. Don't you think that an
organization that represents millions of people over 50 would not have
that problem if those people complained? People generally don't
complain. They deal with the problem and move ahead in life.


Would you do their site for $450? That might be all Mom and Pop can
afford.... So do you have no web presents because you can not afford
someone that can "do it right", or do you spend the $450 and get your
name out there for the majority of the folks?

The majority of web designers charge by instalments, which means that
paying $1000 for a site would be bugger all, in fact if you only payed
$300 for the first instalment then it would work out less expensive,
especially if the instalments were every three months or so. Also if
the $1000 site got you $5000 in profit, what would you go for. People
don't think about such issues when buying stuff that is "cheap".

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Even those with a clue do not "have" to change the default settings
just because they switch browsers.

I believe that the informed surfer does not just run away beating
their head in dispair just because a font looks wrong, or they have to
turn on Javascript because someone used it in a menu, or the layout is
not flexible. If they do, then they will also probably be an anal
customer and bitch and moan about everything. I have to wonder, do I
want that type of person as a customer? Probably not.

There was a trend in the 90's to design mall stores with maze-like
aisles, glass panels and mirror to disorient "trap" customers in their
stores like a fun house on the theory that if they cannot find a way out
they will buy something. Even those hip clothing stores to not do that
anymore, because what happen in face was so many folks hated the
experience that they avoided the entering the store, hence no sale. Same
will happen with websites. If folks find it too uncomfortable to use
unless forced to they just will not come back. Whether or not you agree
with their preferences if your are in business your goal is to make the
sale.

 

[Neredbojias]

I hope you did not forget to get inside. I look forward to
preparing your body. I have been doing this for a hobby ever
since I saw the nice film: Plots with a View

Just kidding, ol' girl.

One time I had this obnoxious female-friend whom I sent away to Alice
Springs just to get rid of her. Well lo and behold, I discovered I was
almost as miserable when she was gone as when she was here. It worried me
for awhile; thought I was developing masochistic tendencies or something.

 

[Neredbojias]

Remind me to pay more attention to what Travis has to say in posts. He
makes a lot of sense.

Only on Fridays. <g>

 

[dorayme]

I might have a rusty 1970 Ford Pinto to get me around. It would "work",
and it would be "cheap", but I wouldn't want to take a customer to
lunch in it.

I have (somewhat shamefully) occasionally hid my car when
visiting clients or contractors or even future in-laws in order
to cause less trouble in their imaginations.

 

[Neredbojias]

I agree to a point with what you are saying. However the main point I
was trying to make is that as a company offering web design services,
they should have some idea of good practice when it come to web
authoring, you need to understand all about Do and charsets and a
range of other factors, here in Australia web accessibility is yet
another of these issues as it's law! It's in the DDA that websites
need to be accessible. You also need to know about other issues such
as the fact that not all web surfers use the same Operating system
(OS). You can't just slap a nice looking page on a web server and
expect it to just work!.

I'm flabbergasted! _You're_ from Australia, too?? What is this, an
invasion? Well, anyway, watch out for dorayme.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

My point exactly. To the casual surfer (read that as almost everyone
but a professional web designer) that website looks and works
perfectly fine.

You have a strange definition of "looks and works fine":
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/sagewreath.shtml>

 

[Travis Newbury]

You have a strange definition of "looks and works fine":
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/sagewreath.shtml>

No, you just do not use the default settings like most other people
do.

Look, I agree the page falls apart if you change the font size. I can
get my browser to screw up just about any page if I try hard enough.
So should the Web designer be overly concerned? Probably not because
the vast majority of your visitors will not see that. To them the
page will look and work just fine.

 

[Andy Dingley]

No, you just do not use the default settings like most other people
do.

I do. Whole office full of couple-of-year-old vanilla Windows boxes,
and they'll all show the same font size screwup. Anything running a
modern modestly-high resolution display on a desktop will see this.
The only way you'll avoid it for any likely "original default"
settings is by either having an old steam computer, or a laptop.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I do. Whole office full of couple-of-year-old vanilla Windows boxes,
and they'll all show the same font size screwup. Anything running a
modern modestly-high resolution display on a desktop will see this.
The only way you'll avoid it for any likely "original default"
settings is by either having an old steam computer, or a laptop.

My own experience is exactly the opposite of yours.

 

[Phil Payne]

I do. Whole office full of couple-of-year-old vanilla Windows boxes,

and they'll all show the same font size screwup. Anything running a
modern modestly-high resolution display on a desktop will see this.
The only way you'll avoid it for any likely "original default"
settings is by either having an old steam computer, or a laptop.

I have an IBM A21p running at 1280 x 1024 and it's garbage on that too.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

No, you just do not use the default settings like most other people
do.

Why would I do that. Rather than broken pages, I would see
unreadable pages.

Look, I agree the page falls apart if you change the font size. I can
get my browser to screw up just about any page if I try hard enough.
So should the Web designer be overly concerned? Probably not because
the vast majority of your visitors will not see that. To them the
page will look and work just fine.

When making a page readable over a large range of settings is so
easy, why would one do anything else?

 

[Travis Newbury]

When making a page readable over a large range of settings is so
easy, why would one do anything else?

Well the main reason would be if it increased your sales, or helped
your bottom line. If I learn what excites my target audience, and I
give it to them, then my sales go up even if I designing like that
makes the site unusable to some non target audience visitors.

If I am selling hemorrhoid cream, then I will more than likely get the
most sales if the site can be viewed, and navigated easily by an older
audience like your Mom. With the exception of maybe a application
training video [oh the visuals that brings], the site would probably
be very straight forward. Putting fancy Flash menus is meaningless to
someone that has hemorrhoids.

But, if I am selling a cool ass video game that is directed at couch
potato 12-17 year old boys who spend every moment of their lives
either masturbating or playing this game, then I will have a shit load
of fancy Flash, lots of suggestive boobalishious images and videos for
them to see. Your Mom would probably never be able to use the site,
and I might even lose a sale to you if she tried to go to the site and
buy you a birthday present, But I am pretty sure that the sales I
gain by giving my target audience (read that as the people that LOVE
this kind of stuff) exactly what they want will far outweigh the few
I lose because someone not in my target audience (your Mom) can not
use the site for one reason or another.

That is why you might not want to make your pages readable over a
large range of settings. And your right, making a site that spans all
configurations is easier than the one I described.

 

[Andy Dingley]

That is why you might not want to make your pages readable over a
large range of settings.

That's an inappropriate generalisation. It's a generalisation because
you've identified one group (teenagers with good eyesight) and then
generalised them as representing all users. It's an inappropriate
generalisation, _not_ because burger-munching couch potatoes don't get
haemorrhoids (they do), but because you've argued that what works for
one site will thus work for all sites.

You might regard this as the fallacy of affirming the consequent
instead. The fact that an audience can do something doesn't mean that
they _should_ be forced to do it. We're arguing in favour of
appropriately-sized fluid-designed sites here, not sites with a
rigidly fixed "large print" approach. They're nearly as bad as the
rigid small-print sites. Having accessibly-sized text doesn't mean
that users can't also have small text, if they prefer it and can read
it.

Whether your argument here stands or falls though, that cited site is
simply poor technical execution by anyone's standards. There's just no
excuse for it.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Whether your argument here stands or falls though, that cited site is
simply poor technical execution by anyone's standards. There's just no
excuse for it.

I agree the site blows.