Question for Sandman about web design
Snit
experience... but it is about Sandman's sites:
What value is there to using the alt-text of "alt=" or "Space" as you did
until very recently on such sites as sandman.net and others.
I notice that on sandman.net you are no longer doing this, but if you look
at the WayBackMachine archive of your site you can see you were doing this
even as of its most recent entry:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/>
You use "Space" no less than 30 times, though you do not use "alt=" as you
have done more recently. Looking at http://csma.sandman.net you even use
such things as "left" and "right" as your alt-text. Over and over... to
indicate the left and right spacing around images.
Now you are a pro web designer, or so you claim... and I am merely a
semi-pro who uses (maybe even relies!) on tools such as Dreamweaver, a tool
you think is only for beginners. So please, Sandman, spare me some time and
help educate me on why you do as you do... and why you are busy altering
your sites now that I pointed out your alt-text.
Of course, Sandman, the reason is clear: you have been caught again, by me,
doing silly things with your code. To use such silly alt text is simply
wrong... it does not aid search engines or those who use screen readers or
those who use text based browsers or... well... anyone. It is simply piss
poor coding that shows a very, very low level of understanding of what the
code even means! And it is from you, Sandman... and you have once again
learned something from me but are too proud to admit to it. You will likely
deny you *ever* did what you did, even though the WayBackMachine proves it,
just as it proves that your CSS and HTML failed to validate for *years*
before I pointed out to you how to do your own validations.
That, really, is what your little trolling spree against me is all about -
your weak little ego has been stomped on again. Oh well. If you would just
grow a backbone and not run when your clear errors are pointed out you would
be much better off. Heck, if you were an adult you would thank me for
helping you get better at what you claim is your profession.
Good day... and, of course, I predict you will run from this post... you
simply cannot handle the truth. :)
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Really for Sandman
Quit pestering him for free design tips, Snit... you obviously got enough about
design from his site already... your new site doesn't look like the dancing
chicken farm your old site was. If anyone wants to see what Snit has learned
from Sandman about web design since his last session with him go to:
http://www.prescottcomputerguy.org/
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Sandman
> Really for Sandman or any other web pros or even folks with decent
> experience... but it is about Sandman's sites:
How's that for obsession!
I will, of course, answer all you honest and non-trolling question you
may have the day you agree to be honest and honorable, by signing this
agreement:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Honesty:
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
in a forum like this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
problems as they arise.
4) Agree to let the past go...
Dishonesty examples:
- Creative snipping
- Deliberate misinterpretation
- Diversion
- Having an agenda
- Lying
- Role Reversal
- Insults
- Forging posts and material
- Thread hijacking
- Projection
- Unsubstantiated accusations
- Antagonizing through other media
- Antagonizing threads
- Ignoring evidence
- Obfuscation
It should be clear that this agreement is valid for all posts made by
the signers, not merely those between the signers. Agreeing to this
displays ones commitment to "end the BS" (as worded by one possible
signer) and end ongoing and past disputes to embrace common
understanding, patience and tolerance.
After signing, the signers should refrain from entering discussions
that are, and opt-out of discussion that are becoming, offensive or
destructive, regardless of who is the instigator. This unless the
signer feels confident that he or she can continue participation
without engaging in the elevated level of argumentation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you sign this, I will begin treating you like an honest person and
as such, will answer whatever questions you may have that are not part
of a trolling agenda. Of course, I still have the right not to answer
any question as per free will, but I will treat you like an honest
person nonetheless.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C2A8942A.85DAF%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > Really for Sandman
>
> Quit pestering him for free design tips, Snit... you obviously got enough
> about
> design from his site already... your new site doesn't look like the dancing
> chicken farm your old site was. If anyone wants to see what Snit has learned
> from Sandman about web design since his last session with him go to:
>
> http://www.prescottcomputerguy.org/
Argh! I clicked the link! Damn.
And in what way is this hideous site similar to anything I have done?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-3B5A43.09...@News.Individual.NET on 6/28/07 12:16 AM:
Assuming *you* also enter into the same agreement I accept. I do, however,
leave open the option to pull out of the agreement if, for example, you
refuse to agree to it or follow it.
I do have some concerns with it - for example I am not sure how one would go
about determining with any validity if someone has an "agenda", and I do not
think all "agendas" are bad. For example, I am very open with the fact I
strive to be honest and honorable and to encourage others to be the same -
that could, I suppose, be called an "agenda". I assume you mean by "agenda"
something more than just having a list of items one wants to discuss or a
set of goals one wants to reach - likely having some sort of agenda that
would be detrimental to reasoned discussion is what you are thinking of.
OK, now that you have agreed to answer any "honest and non-trolling
questions", I would like to take you up on that offer. You have talked
about being a professional web developer and I do some semi-pro work on the
side. I would like to understand some of the things I have seen on your
site - maybe I will learn a thing or two... and maybe you will. I do not
expect you (or anyone!) to do things perfectly even in your professional
work. I know I certainly *never* claim to be the perfect teacher, even
though that is what I do professionally. OK, the questions:
1) I have noticed that on your web sites you often use alt-text for your
images of "space". Personally I see no value in this and even see this as
being detrimental - not only will it be annoying to folks who use screen
readers but it also does nothing to help search engines and the like. What
is the reason for your doing so? Is it simply a mistake - something that I
have helped you to understand the problem with or is there some value I am
not thinking of? Of course, Sandman, if there is another reason I do not
mean to push you into a false dichotomy - I just want to know why you would
do something that seems, to me, to be a mistake.
2) Looking at the WayBackMachine archives of your sandman.net homepage, I
have not been able to find any examples of your code having valid CSS or
HTML. While some "errors" may be done on purpose (such as the use of
shadowing that Safari uses and is non-detrimental elsewhere) there seems
little reason for the number of errors that you have had on your site.
While validation clearly is not the be-all and end-all of web development,
it is beneficial. This leads me to ask: When did you start getting your CSS
and HTML to validate correctly? Do you strive to do so now (other than the
above mentioned times when it makes sense to not do so). Have you always
tried to get your code to validate, and if not, when did you start? What
guidelines do you follow when it comes to validation?
So you know my view: Personally I *do* try to get my code to validate,
though I also use shadowing (and the like) on some pages and do not always
go through the extra trouble of making sure I have my movies and Flash
elements perfectly validate. This is, in part, just a matter of convenience
for me.
3) I have the CS3 suite and am working on learning to use both Photoshop and
Dreamweaver. I tinker with some of the other programs in the suite, but
have not really focused on them. Are you working in learning Photoshop CS3?
Were you when you had the beta?
4) In your database of posts you collect from CSMA, are you able to find and
read specific sets of posts, such as all posts that are from (or mention) a
specific user? I know just from the web end I can do a substantial subset
of that. If you can not, then what prevents you? Seems that a database
system that lacks such features would be very limiting.
And some questions not based on web design or your websites:
5) Which determines (in your view) if someone is a troll - their actions or
what others say about them (or some third option if you feel that is a false
dichotomy)? Is it just going against the above agreement perhaps?
6) Do you think people should try to justify the behavior of other people?
If so, under what circumstances?
7) You recently claimed I was lying when talked about Steve Carroll having
(beyond any reasonable doubt) a drug abuse problem. The fact you claimed I
was lying is a specific complaint I have against you.
I have detailed the reasons I believe what I do about Carroll, as summarized
here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5f8f193a0fcc015f>.
Can you offer an any explanation that fits that data other than drug abuse
by Steve Carroll? If not then do you have any other reason to have
reasonable doubt?
Thanks, Sandman, for agreeing to answer those questions. I sincerely
appreciate it and thank you in advance.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
ed
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
<snip>
> Assuming *you* also enter into the same agreement I accept.
yeah, less trolling!
<snip antagonistic questions...>
damn, that didn't last long...
<snip>
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The same goes for both of us. Now you (and I) have agreed to refrain
from any behaviour that could be described by the above list. That
includes ALL posts from wither you and me, not just posts between us.
This is for CSMA, not for you and me.
Thank you for signing an agreement to be honest and honorable.
> I do have some concerns with it - for example I am not sure how one would go
> about determining with any validity if someone has an "agenda", and I do not
> think all "agendas" are bad.
Obviously not, but bringing up unrelated things in multiple threads is
a good sign of having an agenda.
> OK, now that you have agreed to answer any "honest and non-trolling
> questions", I would like to take you up on that offer.
Sure.
> You have talked about being a professional web developer and I do
> some semi-pro work on the side. I would like to understand some of
> the things I have seen on your site - maybe I will learn a thing or
> two... and maybe you will. I do not expect you (or anyone!) to do
> things perfectly even in your professional work. I know I certainly
> *never* claim to be the perfect teacher, even though that is what I
> do professionally.
Fair enough.
> 1) I have noticed that on your web sites you often use alt-text for your
> images of "space". Personally I see no value in this and even see this as
> being detrimental - not only will it be annoying to folks who use screen
> readers but it also does nothing to help search engines and the like. What
> is the reason for your doing so?
There is no reason. An automated script, when used, puts the name of
the image file in the alt text unless one is given. The image filename
is "space.gif" in some of these cases.
> 2) Looking at the WayBackMachine archives of your sandman.net homepage, I
> have not been able to find any examples of your code having valid CSS or
> HTML. While some "errors" may be done on purpose (such as the use of
> shadowing that Safari uses and is non-detrimental elsewhere) there seems
> little reason for the number of errors that you have had on your site.
> While validation clearly is not the be-all and end-all of web development,
> it is beneficial. This leads me to ask: When did you start getting your CSS
> and HTML to validate correctly?
As with any dynamic system, validation is not a on/off switch. The CSS
for any given Atlas site is generated from a number of sources and
databases, so there is no telling when something will break, either by
customers doings things they're not supposed to or me parsing
stylesheets incorrectly.
> Do you strive to do so now (other than the
> above mentioned times when it makes sense to not do so). Have you always
> tried to get your code to validate, and if not, when did you start? What
> guidelines do you follow when it comes to validation?
Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is
far more important. I dont' give validation much thought. If there is
something obviously wrong with a page and it's easy to fix when it's
pointed out then sure, I'll fix it. Most of the times it's been
because my output scripts have been misbehaving (not fixing ampersands
in urls correctly, tagging elements with name='' instead of id='' and
such)
There has never been any problem with validation, meaning that even if
a page didn't validate perfectly, it looked perfect and as planned.
> So you know my view: Personally I *do* try to get my code to validate,
> though I also use shadowing (and the like) on some pages and do not always
> go through the extra trouble of making sure I have my movies and Flash
> elements perfectly validate. This is, in part, just a matter of convenience
> for me.
Sure.
> 3) I have the CS3 suite and am working on learning to use both Photoshop and
> Dreamweaver. I tinker with some of the other programs in the suite, but
> have not really focused on them. Are you working in learning Photoshop CS3?
> Were you when you had the beta?
No, I do Photoshop tutorials for MacWorld on CS3, so I think it's safe
to say that I am learning others to use Photoshop CS3. :-D
> 4) In your database of posts you collect from CSMA, are you able to find and
> read specific sets of posts, such as all posts that are from (or mention) a
> specific user?
Not by any front end. I can do direct-id searches directly in the
database of course. But I don't have a "reader" that formats it in a
readable way. Think of it like if you didn't use Mail.app to read your
mail, but telnetted directly to port 110 on your mailserver to execute
raw POP commands.
> I know just from the web end I can do a substantial subset
> of that. If you can not, then what prevents you? Seems that a database
> system that lacks such features would be very limiting.
How do you figure? A database is just lists of data. To read that
data you request it and it returns it in list form (so to speak) in
order to -present- that data, you need to format it in a readable way.
Sure, technically you CAN read the lists. But here's two typical
database requests into the database shown in a graphical query
application and in the native terminal application:
http://sandman.net/files/mysql_terminal.png
http://sandman.net/files/mysql_gui.png
(I've removed my firewall block on your IP so you can see them).
As you can see, neither interface is particulalrly good for "reading"
posts.
> And some questions not based on web design or your websites:
>
> 5) Which determines (in your view) if someone is a troll - their actions or
> what others say about them (or some third option if you feel that is a false
> dichotomy)? Is it just going against the above agreement perhaps?
I have answered this question before, and the answer is till the same.
Whether or not someone is a troll (or anything related to behaviour;
evil, kind, humble and so on) is defined by others. There is no metric
to be compared against or ruleset to define whether someone is "kind".
You can of course use descriptive terms such as "a kind person give a
lot of stuff away", but since it's entirely possible for an evil
person to give things away, the end judgement comes from how that
persons actions is viewed by others.
Actually, one may THINK that one is being a kind person only to find
out that no one else thinks so. Whether that person still insists that
he is being kind based on his intentions or his conclusions would be
irrelevant. Unless you are viewed as kind by others, you're not really
kind.
But, this is a inflammatory subject and I would rather not discuss it
any further. Hope you understand.
> 6) Do you think people should try to justify the behavior of other people?
No, why?
> 7) You recently claimed I was lying when talked about Steve Carroll having
> (beyond any reasonable doubt) a drug abuse problem.
Actually, I said that if you would continue claiming that he has a
drug abuse problem after having stated yourself that you could not
support that, then you would be lying. Whether or not he has a drug
problem is of no concern to me. I was opposed to making claims without
being able ti support them.
This is a inflammatory subject so I would rather not discuss it any
further, however.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
I think that was very provoking of you, ed. I answered his question on
the premise that they were asked in an honest fashion.
He has now agreed to treat everyone in an honest fashion and I think
we should encourage that.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
1183049730.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 6/28/07 9:55 AM:
What questions do you think were antagonizing? And why?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
MuahMan
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:noone-255786....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
LOL
MuahMan
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in message
news:1183049730.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
LOL @ all you dorks making and agreeing to uneforcable, internet NNTP
contracts.
How, how....... Mactarded!!
Does something productive with your time, like camp out an Apple store
waiting for your iPhone. Or you can bid on mine on Ebay! Reserve price is
only $1500, Free shipping for Mactards!
Or do something more productive like troll the newsgroup filled with a bunch
of blind zealots that worship a CEO and camp out for a cell phone!
Snit
>>> If you sign this, I will begin treating you like an honest person and as
>>> such, will answer whatever questions you may have that are not part of a
>>> trolling agenda. Of course, I still have the right not to answer any
>>> question as per free will, but I will treat you like an honest person
>>> nonetheless.
>>
>> Assuming *you* also enter into the same agreement I accept. I do, however,
>> leave open the option to pull out of the agreement if, for example, you
>> refuse to agree to it or follow it.
>>
> The same goes for both of us. Now you (and I) have agreed to refrain from any
> behaviour that could be described by the above list.
Ok, this is admittedly nit picky, but *any* behavior could be described in
any way - just perhaps not honestly so. :)
> That includes ALL posts from wither you and me, not just posts between us.
> This is for CSMA, not for you and me.
>
> Thank you for signing an agreement to be honest and honorable.
It seems to make you happy. I am glad that is so.
>> I do have some concerns with it - for example I am not sure how one would go
>> about determining with any validity if someone has an "agenda", and I do not
>> think all "agendas" are bad.
>>
> Obviously not, but bringing up unrelated things in multiple threads is a good
> sign of having an agenda.
Do you agree that the items I described are OK, even though they could be
described as having an "agenda"?
>
>> OK, now that you have agreed to answer any "honest and non-trolling
>> questions", I would like to take you up on that offer.
>>
> Sure.
>
>> You have talked about being a professional web developer and I do some
>> semi-pro work on the side. I would like to understand some of the things I
>> have seen on your site - maybe I will learn a thing or two... and maybe you
>> will. I do not expect you (or anyone!) to do things perfectly even in your
>> professional work. I know I certainly *never* claim to be the perfect
>> teacher, even though that is what I do professionally.
>>
> Fair enough.
>
>> 1) I have noticed that on your web sites you often use alt-text for your
>> images of "space". Personally I see no value in this and even see this as
>> being detrimental - not only will it be annoying to folks who use screen
>> readers but it also does nothing to help search engines and the like. What
>> is the reason for your doing so?
>>
> There is no reason. An automated script, when used, puts the name of the image
> file in the alt text unless one is given. The image filename is "space.gif" in
> some of these cases.
Seems to me a better method would be to have the script just put in empty
alt-text (alt=""). Having "space" as alt-text can make things quite
frustrating for those with vision problems. I do some work with a local
blind center and have a couple customers with severe sight problems - I know
how frustrating it can be for them. Just something for you to consider.
>> 2) Looking at the WayBackMachine archives of your sandman.net homepage, I
>> have not been able to find any examples of your code having valid CSS or
>> HTML. While some "errors" may be done on purpose (such as the use of
>> shadowing that Safari uses and is non-detrimental elsewhere) there seems
>> little reason for the number of errors that you have had on your site. While
>> validation clearly is not the be-all and end-all of web development, it is
>> beneficial. This leads me to ask: When did you start getting your CSS and
>> HTML to validate correctly?
>>
> As with any dynamic system, validation is not a on/off switch.
Nor is it with any system I know of. :)
> The CSS for any given Atlas site is generated from a number of sources and
> databases, so there is no telling when something will break, either by
> customers doings things they're not supposed to or me parsing stylesheets
> incorrectly.
It does seem as though it has gotten better - much better - since, say, the
start of the year. Is that correct? If so what has changed?
>> Do you strive to do so now (other than the above mentioned times when it
>> makes sense to not do so). Have you always tried to get your code to
>> validate, and if not, when did you start? What guidelines do you follow when
>> it comes to validation?
>
> Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is far
> more important.
Interesting. I try to balance a site looking good and working well with
validation. Validation helps make sure sites work well on multiple browsers
(including updates to current ones - it helps future proof a site), helps
with search engines, etc. Generally I do not go back and "fix" my old code
that might not validate if that is the only problem, but I do try to get
*most* of my new code to validate.
> I dont' give validation much thought. If there is something obviously wrong
> with a page and it's easy to fix when it's pointed out then sure, I'll fix it.
> Most of the times it's been because my output scripts have been misbehaving
> (not fixing ampersands in urls correctly, tagging elements with name=''
> instead of id='' and such)
>
> There has never been any problem with validation, meaning that even if a page
> didn't validate perfectly, it looked perfect and as planned.
>
>> So you know my view: Personally I *do* try to get my code to validate,
>> though I also use shadowing (and the like) on some pages and do not always
>> go through the extra trouble of making sure I have my movies and Flash
>> elements perfectly validate. This is, in part, just a matter of convenience
>> for me.
>
> Sure.
>
>> 3) I have the CS3 suite and am working on learning to use both Photoshop and
>> Dreamweaver. I tinker with some of the other programs in the suite, but
>> have not really focused on them. Are you working in learning Photoshop CS3?
>> Were you when you had the beta?
>
> No, I do Photoshop tutorials for MacWorld on CS3, so I think it's safe
> to say that I am learning others to use Photoshop CS3. :-D
Well, even those of us who teach others have to learn it ourselves! I know
I am still learning the ins and outs of the new Dreamweaver, though the
changes there are not that significant. Even with Photoshop the changes are
not earth-shattering, though things such as the new interface might confuse
some users.
>> 4) In your database of posts you collect from CSMA, are you able to find and
>> read specific sets of posts, such as all posts that are from (or mention) a
>> specific user?
>
> Not by any front end. I can do direct-id searches directly in the database of
> course. But I don't have a "reader" that formats it in a readable way. Think
> of it like if you didn't use Mail.app to read your mail, but telnetted
> directly to port 110 on your mailserver to execute raw POP commands.
What do you keep the data for? Seems data should be able to be searched and
read easily - at least in most cases.
>> I know just from the web end I can do a substantial subset of that. If you
>> can not, then what prevents you? Seems that a database system that lacks
>> such features would be very limiting.
>>
> How do you figure? A database is just lists of data. To read that data you
> request it and it returns it in list form (so to speak) in order to -present-
> that data, you need to format it in a readable way. Sure, technically you CAN
> read the lists. But here's two typical database requests into the database
> shown in a graphical query application and in the native terminal application:
>
> http://sandman.net/files/mysql_terminal.png
> http://sandman.net/files/mysql_gui.png
>
> (I've removed my firewall block on your IP so you can see them).
Your block only blocked my access from Firefox, and even then not all the
time. It did not block me when using Safari... I always found that odd and
never figured out why. Any ideas what was happening?
> As you can see, neither interface is particulalrly good for "reading"
> posts.
Sure, those interfaces might not be, but if you have a table it should be
pretty easy to search it and have it be presented in a readable way.
>> And some questions not based on web design or your websites:
>>
>> 5) Which determines (in your view) if someone is a troll - their actions or
>> what others say about them (or some third option if you feel that is a false
>> dichotomy)? Is it just going against the above agreement perhaps?
>
> I have answered this question before, and the answer is till the same. Whether
> or not someone is a troll (or anything related to behaviour; evil, kind,
> humble and so on) is defined by others. There is no metric to be compared
> against or ruleset to define whether someone is "kind". You can of course use
> descriptive terms such as "a kind person give a lot of stuff away", but since
> it's entirely possible for an evil person to give things away, the end
> judgement comes from how that persons actions is viewed by others.
I disagree. Some people may *appear* to be one way but really be another -
or, as often happens, as time goes on people may be seen differently. And,
of course, there is almost never 100% consensus. I agree that people may be
*seen* differently, but what determines if a person is *actually* kind or
whatever is based on their behavior.
I will agree it is very hard to come up with a strict and objective set of
criteria that can be rated with great reliability and validity. I have a
background in psychology and know the trouble such studies possess - how do
you objectively define and measure such things is rarely perfect, but you
can do a pretty darn good job. There are all sorts of tests that do this.
> Actually, one may THINK that one is being a kind person only to find out that
> no one else thinks so. Whether that person still insists that he is being kind
> based on his intentions or his conclusions would be irrelevant. Unless you are
> viewed as kind by others, you're not really kind.
Here you and I strongly disagree. I do not think it is based on how the
individual sees himself *or* how others see him, I think it is based on how
one defines a term and how one measures it. Of course there will be
disagreement when it comes to general "natural language" words and things
will not be perfect.
> But, this is a inflammatory subject and I would rather not discuss it any
> further. Hope you understand.
I accept that you will not respond to my above comments... but I did want to
let you know, in a non-derogatory way, where I disagree with you. Food for
thought perhaps.
>> 6) Do you think people should try to justify the behavior of other people?
>
> No, why?
I am happy to see we agree on this. At least in general I do not think one
should. Since you asked: you asked if I could justify why other people
would do a specific action (enter someone into a kill filter). I offered
reasoned guesses and logical speculation, but I simply cannot justify other
people's behavior.
>> 7) You recently claimed I was lying when talked about Steve Carroll having
>> (beyond any reasonable doubt) a drug abuse problem.
>
> Actually, I said that if you would continue claiming that he has a
> drug abuse problem after having stated yourself that you could not
> support that, then you would be lying.
If I had stated that I could not support it I would agree. I can, however,
support it, and have done so. You might *disagree* with the support and if
so I have no problem with that (though if that is the case I would
appreciate knowing your thinking behind the disagreement).
> Whether or not he has a drug problem is of no concern to me.
It is to me only in that I am trying to best understand his odd behavior,
especially since I am the one he most frequently targets with his lashing
out and dishonesty.
> I was opposed to making claims without being able ti support them.
I was and I am. I do not think people should make claims they cannot show
at least some pretty good support for.
>
> This is a inflammatory subject so I would rather not discuss it any
> further, however.
Fair enough.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
teKdnZbwotjykhnb...@comcast.com on 6/28/07 12:43 PM:
>
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in message
> news:1183049730.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 28, 9:37 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>>> mr-3B5A43.09161228062...@News.Individual.NET on 6/28/07 12:16 AM:
>> <snip>
>>> Assuming *you* also enter into the same agreement I accept.
>>
>> yeah, less trolling!
>>
>> <snip antagonistic questions...>
>>
>> damn, that didn't last long...
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
> LOL @ all you dorks making and agreeing to uneforcable, internet NNTP
> contracts.
If it helps to end the BS I am happy to see it.
>
> How, how....... Mactarded!!
>
> Does something productive with your time, like camp out an Apple store
> waiting for your iPhone. Or you can bid on mine on Ebay! Reserve price is
> only $1500, Free shipping for Mactards!
>
> Or do something more productive like troll the newsgroup filled with a bunch
> of blind zealots that worship a CEO and camp out for a cell phone!
--
ed
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> > Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is far
> > more important.
>
> Interesting. I try to balance a site looking good and working well with
> validation. Validation helps make sure sites work well on multiple browsers
> (including updates to current ones - it helps future proof a site), helps
> with search engines, etc. Generally I do not go back and "fix" my old code
> that might not validate if that is the only problem, but I do try to get
> *most* of my new code to validate.
i agree w/ sandman's position here. validation is of little concern.
your position of balancing looking good and working well with
validation makes little sense to me- if it looks good and works well,
it doesn't really matter if it doesn't validate. why would you give
any weight to 'balancing' that criteria? for example, if i make up my
own tag for some reason- (dumb example, but-) say i enclose big blocks
of text with <delete date='jul 1 2007></delete> because i have a
script that automatically parses and modifies files every day, and
it'll remove blocks of text based on a delete tag and date parameter.
all browsers ignore tags they don't understand, so it's not going to
affect anything, why should i care if it doesn't validate?
<snip>
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Obviously not, but bringing up unrelated things in multiple threads
>> is a good sign of having an agenda.
>
> Do you agree that the items I described are OK, even though they could be
> described as having an "agenda"?
Sure. But remember that even if one thinks he is acting in a specific
way, others may not agree, and that person should probably rethink his
behaviour. One cannot hide behind the claim that the intention was
something other than how people percieved it.
>> There is no reason. An automated script, when used, puts the name
>> of the image file in the alt text unless one is given. The image
>> filename is "space.gif" in some of these cases.
>
> Seems to me a better method would be to have the script just put in empty
> alt-text (alt="").
That's not a very good idea, since people with screen readers or web
search engines would miss some information. :)
Seriously though, most of the images are named appropriately, and the
alt-tag fails on some occasions. It's not a big enough of a problem
for me to make exceptions to the parser just for this.
> > As with any dynamic system, validation is not a on/off switch.
>
> Nor is it with any system I know of. :)
Actually, if your CSS is contained within just one or two on-disk
files, validation is just a matter of fixing them. When it's spread
over a dynamic content management system, "fixing it" could lead to a
huge bug hunt.
> > The CSS for any given Atlas site is generated from a number of sources and
> > databases, so there is no telling when something will break, either by
> > customers doings things they're not supposed to or me parsing stylesheets
> > incorrectly.
>
> It does seem as though it has gotten better - much better - since, say, the
> start of the year. Is that correct? If so what has changed?
Sorry, I don't keep track of dates with regards to any CSS. I just
don't care enough about it. :)
> > Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is far
> > more important.
>
> Interesting. I try to balance a site looking good and working well with
> validation. Validation helps make sure sites work well on multiple browsers
"work well on multiple browsers" is contained by "making good looking
websites" actually. Validation rarely has any impact on final result.
What you basically want to do is error-correct your cocde (html/css)
so that it works in the browsers you want it to work in. Whether it
validates after that is just a matter of preference and some sense of
"doing the right thing".
> > No, I do Photoshop tutorials for MacWorld on CS3, so I think it's safe
> > to say that I am learning others to use Photoshop CS3. :-D
>
> Well, even those of us who teach others have to learn it ourselves! I know
> I am still learning the ins and outs of the new Dreamweaver, though the
> changes there are not that significant. Even with Photoshop the changes are
> not earth-shattering, though things such as the new interface might confuse
> some users.
CS3 has mind-numbingly few new features. The most notable are 3D
support, Convert for smart filters and its image alignment tools. The
biggest new feature of CS3 is that it's universal, really.
>> Not by any front end. I can do direct-id searches directly in the
>> database of course. But I don't have a "reader" that formats it in
>> a readable way. Think of it like if you didn't use Mail.app to read
>> your mail, but telnetted directly to port 110 on your mailserver to
>> execute raw POP commands.
>
> What do you keep the data for?
Statistical purposes, really.
> Seems data should be able to be searched and
> read easily - at least in most cases.
That's what a news reader is for! Or google. I have a function that
takes a Message-ID and creates a google link for it. A lot easier than
trying to make a usenet front-end myself.
> > http://sandman.net/files/mysql_terminal.png
> > http://sandman.net/files/mysql_gui.png
> >
> > (I've removed my firewall block on your IP so you can see them).
>
> Your block only blocked my access from Firefox, and even then not all the
> time. It did not block me when using Safari... I always found that odd and
> never figured out why. Any ideas what was happening?
My block blocked your IP, not your browser. If you could access the
website, you used another IP. I blocked this: 24.116.166.0/24 which, I
see now, doesn't include your current IP.
> > As you can see, neither interface is particulalrly good for "reading"
> > posts.
>
> Sure, those interfaces might not be, but if you have a table it should be
> pretty easy to search it and have it be presented in a readable way.
Sure, but the "have it be presented" is the part that I haven't done.
:)
> >> 6) Do you think people should try to justify the behavior of other people?
> >
> > No, why?
>
> I am happy to see we agree on this. At least in general I do not think one
> should. Since you asked: you asked if I could justify why other people
> would do a specific action (enter someone into a kill filter).
Ah, yes, you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant how you could justify
your behaviour that has lead to so many people killfiling you. But
that's all in the past now.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1183049730.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 6/28/07 9:55 AM:
>
> > On Jun 28, 9:37 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> >> mr-3B5A43.09161228062...@News.Individual.NET on 6/28/07 12:16 AM:
> > <snip>
> >> Assuming *you* also enter into the same agreement I accept.
> >
> > yeah, less trolling!
> >
> > <snip antagonistic questions...>
> >
> > damn, that didn't last long...
>
> What questions do you think were antagonizing? And why?
I wondered the same thing. Sure, some obviously constituted "bringing
up the past", but anatgonizing? No, I don't think so.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Here are a number of reasons to validate:
1) It helps to reduce the chance of your code breaking in different browsers
- including future ones and older ones you might not test under.
2) It helps some search engines - how much I do not know for sure, but I
know Google and others have stated they give preference to "professional"
code.... or at least code that does not "confuse" their bots. Code that
validates is almost guaranteed to work well for the bots (though you can
still have useless or detrimental alt-text and the like).
3) If you have customers who validate your code it looks more professional
4) If you hand off the code to others it will be easier for them to work
with.
In your example, one you admit is "dumb", you can create "tags" for your own
benefit by placing them in comments. If you look at the page of mine that
has recently been point out I do this (based on how Dreamweaver does
things). Some examples:
<!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/CompGuy.dwt" ... -->
<!-- InstanceParam name="CompGuy" type="text" value="current" -->
Browsers ignore that but Dreamweaver makes good use of it.
You can also use your own DTD, but that generally is just not worth it. For
example, I still use the "embed" tag even though it is not officially
supported in XHTML. This is an educated choice I made, though, and one I
may revisit later. I do not say one should *always* validate above all
else, but it is generally a good idea.
For more info on why to validate, see:
<http://www.searchenginepromotionhelp.com/m/articles/search-engine-problems/
why-validate-html.php>
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Sandman
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is far
> > > more important.
> >
> > Interesting. I try to balance a site looking good and working well with
> > validation. Validation helps make sure sites work well on multiple browsers
> > (including updates to current ones - it helps future proof a site), helps
> > with search engines, etc. Generally I do not go back and "fix" my old code
> > that might not validate if that is the only problem, but I do try to get
> > *most* of my new code to validate.
>
> i agree w/ sandman's position here. validation is of little concern.
> your position of balancing looking good and working well with
> validation makes little sense to me- if it looks good and works well,
Sure, but there is nothing wrong with going the extra mile to get
things to ALSO validate.
Unfortunately, I'm self-employed and the maintainer of a 60k-line php
project so I don't have much time to spare when it comes to tidy up
things that work. But if you can take the time to make things also
look tidy, more power to you. :)
> it doesn't really matter if it doesn't validate. why would you give
> any weight to 'balancing' that criteria? for example, if i make up my
> own tag for some reason- (dumb example, but-) say i enclose big blocks
> of text with <delete date='jul 1 2007></delete> because i have a
> script that automatically parses and modifies files every day, and
> it'll remove blocks of text based on a delete tag and date parameter.
> all browsers ignore tags they don't understand, so it's not going to
> affect anything, why should i care if it doesn't validate?
You shouldn't, of course. You should never sacrifice functionality on
something as superficial as validation.
--
Sandman[.net]
ed
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1183062717.176783.127...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 6/28/07 1:31 PM:
> > On Jun 28, 1:16 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> > <snip>
> >>> Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is far
> >>> more important.
>
> >> Interesting. I try to balance a site looking good and working well with
> >> validation. Validation helps make sure sites work well on multiple browsers
> >> (including updates to current ones - it helps future proof a site), helps
> >> with search engines, etc. Generally I do not go back and "fix" my old code
> >> that might not validate if that is the only problem, but I do try to get
> >> *most* of my new code to validate.
>
> > i agree w/ sandman's position here. validation is of little concern. your
> > position of balancing looking good and working well with validation makes
> > little sense to me- if it looks good and works well, it doesn't really matter
> > if it doesn't validate. why would you give any weight to 'balancing' that
> > criteria? for example, if i make up my own tag for some reason- (dumb
> > example, but-) say i enclose big blocks of text with <delete date='jul 1
> > 2007></delete> because i have a script that automatically parses and modifies
> > files every day, and it'll remove blocks of text based on a delete tag and
> > date parameter. all browsers ignore tags they don't understand, so it's not
> > going to affect anything, why should i care if it doesn't validate?
>
> Here are a number of reasons to validate:
> 1) It helps to reduce the chance of your code breaking in different browsers
> - including future ones and older ones you might not test under.
but the html spec specifically calls for unrecognized elements to be
ignored, so it should be fine. :P
> 2) It helps some search engines - how much I do not know for sure, but I
> know Google and others have stated they give preference to "professional"
> code.... or at least code that does not "confuse" their bots. Code that
> validates is almost guaranteed to work well for the bots (though you can
> still have useless or detrimental alt-text and the like).
find me a html bot that would be confused by something like an
unrecognized tag, and i'll show you a search engine company that's not
going to be in business long...
> 3) If you have customers who validate your code it looks more professional
if i'm doing something like adding tags, it's probably going to be
because a customer wants it (when i was doing consulting, i had a
customer that was doing an online content management system, and they
specifically requested none-standard tags so that they could more
easily process the data from their website w/out doing additional
database queries. hey, i didn't agree, but that's the way they wanted
it done)!
> 4) If you hand off the code to others it will be easier for them to work
> with.
>
> In your example, one you admit is "dumb",
the specific tag (and reason for it) is dumb, that doesn't mean there
aren't good reasons for using your own tags. see:
http://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/118/
> you can create "tags" for your own
> benefit by placing them in comments.
you have to do a lot more parsing that way.
> If you look at the page of mine that
> has recently been point out I do this (based on how Dreamweaver does
> things). Some examples:
> <!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/CompGuy.dwt" ... -->
> <!-- InstanceParam name="CompGuy" type="text" value="current" -->
>
> Browsers ignore that but Dreamweaver makes good use of it.
which is fine if you're on a pc coding up pages... not so good if
you're doing a lot of parsing on a server, for example.
> You can also use your own DTD, but that generally is just not worth it.
especially since you can just add tags to html, and browsers are
SUPPOSED to (and do) ignore it if they don't recognize it. :D
> For
> example, I still use the "embed" tag even though it is not officially
> supported in XHTML. This is an educated choice I made, though, and one I
> may revisit later. I do not say one should *always* validate above all
> else, but it is generally a good idea.
sure, it's a 'good idea' as a concept, it just doesn't really buy you
a whole lot in practice.
> For more info on why to validate, see:
> <http://www.searchenginepromotionhelp.com/m/articles/search-engine-pro...
> why-validate-html.php>
they're basically talking about a lot more serious problems in that
link; something like missing 'alt' text for images really isn't going
to matter for a search engine, even though a validator will throw all
sorts of errors, eh?
MuahMan
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C2A9654A.85E95%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "MuahMan" <Mua...@yahue.com> stated in post
> teKdnZbwotjykhnb...@comcast.com on 6/28/07 12:43 PM:
>
>>
>> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote in message
>> news:1183049730.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 28, 9:37 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>>>> mr-3B5A43.09161228062...@News.Individual.NET on 6/28/07 12:16 AM:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Assuming *you* also enter into the same agreement I accept.
>>>
>>> yeah, less trolling!
>>>
>>> <snip antagonistic questions...>
>>>
>>> damn, that didn't last long...
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>> LOL @ all you dorks making and agreeing to uneforcable, internet NNTP
>> contracts.
>
> If it helps to end the BS I am happy to see it.
>>
That's because you are a raving lunatic.
Snit
>>> LOL @ all you dorks making and agreeing to uneforcable, internet NNTP
>>> contracts.
>>
>> If it helps to end the BS I am happy to see it.
>>>
>
>
> That's because you are a raving lunatic.
>
A shame that you do *not* want the BS to end, or at least be reduced... and
even worse that you see wanting that to be a sign of being a "raving
lunatic". Oh well... that is just who you are.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
> In article <C2A96518.85E94%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obviously not, but bringing up unrelated things in multiple threads
>>> is a good sign of having an agenda.
>>
>> Do you agree that the items I described are OK, even though they could be
>> described as having an "agenda"?
>
> Sure. But remember that even if one thinks he is acting in a specific
> way, others may not agree, and that person should probably rethink his
> behaviour. One cannot hide behind the claim that the intention was
> something other than how people percieved it.
Nor should one just accept that because several people see things one way -
or claim to - that it should be accepted. This is especially true in a
forum such as CSMA.
>>> There is no reason. An automated script, when used, puts the name
>>> of the image file in the alt text unless one is given. The image
>>> filename is "space.gif" in some of these cases.
>>
>> Seems to me a better method would be to have the script just put in empty
>> alt-text (alt="").
>
> That's not a very good idea, since people with screen readers or web
> search engines would miss some information. :)
Well, missing info might be better than hearing "space" repeatedly.
> Seriously though, most of the images are named appropriately, and the
> alt-tag fails on some occasions. It's not a big enough of a problem
> for me to make exceptions to the parser just for this.
Do you know if you have sight impaired "readers"? If so, have you asked
them... *some* have very strong opinions on this and having your sites work
well for them is a pretty big benefit. It does, of course, depend on your
priorities and your intended audience. I built a site for a gun safety
group at one point - I doubt they have many blind people going to their site
looking for classes!
>>> As with any dynamic system, validation is not a on/off switch.
>>
>> Nor is it with any system I know of. :)
>
> Actually, if your CSS is contained within just one or two on-disk
> files, validation is just a matter of fixing them. When it's spread
> over a dynamic content management system, "fixing it" could lead to a
> huge bug hunt.
Sure - fixing them when you have just a few files, as I tend to when I
design, is generally not that hard - but it is still not just an on/off
switch. In the end, though, you are right that having just a few CSS files
that are static and well tested is the easier way to go (though not always
the best way to go, of course).
>>> The CSS for any given Atlas site is generated from a number of sources and
>>> databases, so there is no telling when something will break, either by
>>> customers doings things they're not supposed to or me parsing stylesheets
>>> incorrectly.
>>
>> It does seem as though it has gotten better - much better - since, say, the
>> start of the year. Is that correct? If so what has changed?
>
> Sorry, I don't keep track of dates with regards to any CSS. I just
> don't care enough about it. :)
Well, *something* has changed... right now your HTML on sandman.net is
validating and your CSS has only three errors, and those do no harm (the
text-shadow that I referenced earlier).
>>> Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is far
>>> more important.
>>
>> Interesting. I try to balance a site looking good and working well with
>> validation. Validation helps make sure sites work well on multiple browsers
>
> "work well on multiple browsers" is contained by "making good looking
> websites" actually.
Well, you cannot test your sites on every browser and every browser version.
Validation is one way to catch silly errors. As Ed has pointed out
elsewhere there are things that break validation that should not effect
older browsers, but there are also things that break validation that do
matter. An example would be "broken" tables, something your sites have
suffered from in the past.
> Validation rarely has any impact on final result.
It helps you to catch broken tables and other errors - that that can very
much have an effect on the final result.
> What you basically want to do is error-correct your cocde (html/css)
> so that it works in the browsers you want it to work in. Whether it
> validates after that is just a matter of preference and some sense of
> "doing the right thing".
You want to check not just for general browsers but also for screen-readers,
search engine bots, and the like.
>>> No, I do Photoshop tutorials for MacWorld on CS3, so I think it's safe
>>> to say that I am learning others to use Photoshop CS3. :-D
>>
>> Well, even those of us who teach others have to learn it ourselves! I know
>> I am still learning the ins and outs of the new Dreamweaver, though the
>> changes there are not that significant. Even with Photoshop the changes are
>> not earth-shattering, though things such as the new interface might confuse
>> some users.
>
> CS3 has mind-numbingly few new features. The most notable are 3D
> support, Convert for smart filters and its image alignment tools. The
> biggest new feature of CS3 is that it's universal, really.
Agreed - though I am really liking the smart filters. For Photoshop I also
like some of the other smaller updates such as the new way brightness and
contrast works and the new gray-scale conversion. The new selection tool is
pretty good for some things, too.
I do *not* like that they removed slice sets and some other Image Ready
elements from the suite.
>>> Not by any front end. I can do direct-id searches directly in the
>>> database of course. But I don't have a "reader" that formats it in
>>> a readable way. Think of it like if you didn't use Mail.app to read
>>> your mail, but telnetted directly to port 110 on your mailserver to
>>> execute raw POP commands.
>>
>> What do you keep the data for?
>
> Statistical purposes, really.
>
>> Seems data should be able to be searched and read easily - at least in most
>> cases.
>
> That's what a news reader is for! Or google. I have a function that
> takes a Message-ID and creates a google link for it. A lot easier than
> trying to make a usenet front-end myself.
Sure: one way to allow getting to the data easily is just link to the same
post on Google. Still, if you want to do a search for something specific
that the Google search does not make easy, doing a search on your own
database and then getting the actual post from Google fits my "need" to be
able to search and read the data easily.
>>> http://sandman.net/files/mysql_terminal.png
>>> http://sandman.net/files/mysql_gui.png
>>>
>>> (I've removed my firewall block on your IP so you can see them).
>>
>> Your block only blocked my access from Firefox, and even then not all the
>> time. It did not block me when using Safari... I always found that odd and
>> never figured out why. Any ideas what was happening?
>
> My block blocked your IP, not your browser. If you could access the
> website, you used another IP. I blocked this: 24.116.166.0/24 which, I
> see now, doesn't include your current IP.
Odd. I have not been blocked in a long time overall, but I am *still*
blocked on some pages, but only when using Firefox. I get this:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/error.jpg>
>>> As you can see, neither interface is particulalrly good for "reading"
>>> posts.
>>
>> Sure, those interfaces might not be, but if you have a table it should be
>> pretty easy to search it and have it be presented in a readable way.
>
> Sure, but the "have it be presented" is the part that I haven't done.
> :)
>
>>>> 6) Do you think people should try to justify the behavior of other people?
>>>
>>> No, why?
>>
>> I am happy to see we agree on this. At least in general I do not think one
>> should. Since you asked: you asked if I could justify why other people
>> would do a specific action (enter someone into a kill filter).
>
> Ah, yes, you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant how you could justify
> your behaviour that has lead to so many people killfiling you. But
> that's all in the past now.
>
--
Snit
There are, as you and I have both noted, some errors that effect validation
that are generally not of much (or any?) real concern. There are lots of
other errors that are of concern - and checking validation is one way to
help catch them. An example I gave elsewhere was broken tables. This can
effect browsers, search engines, etc.
Snit
> In article <1183062717.1...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Validation is of little concern to me. Making good looking websites is far
>>>> more important.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I try to balance a site looking good and working well with
>>> validation. Validation helps make sure sites work well on multiple browsers
>>> (including updates to current ones - it helps future proof a site), helps
>>> with search engines, etc. Generally I do not go back and "fix" my old code
>>> that might not validate if that is the only problem, but I do try to get
>>> *most* of my new code to validate.
>>
>> i agree w/ sandman's position here. validation is of little concern.
>> your position of balancing looking good and working well with
>> validation makes little sense to me- if it looks good and works well,
>
> Sure, but there is nothing wrong with going the extra mile to get
> things to ALSO validate.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm self-employed and the maintainer of a 60k-line php
> project so I don't have much time to spare when it comes to tidy up
> things that work. But if you can take the time to make things also
> look tidy, more power to you. :)
Validating *also* helps you to catch errors such as broken tables, missing
alt-text, and other such things. Currently, from what I have seen with a
quick look, your sites do not have those type of errors - but that has not
always been the case, at least according to the WayBackMachine. Apparently
you have done something that has helped to clean up your HTML. This is
something that will help search engines and, potentially, different
browsers, screen readers, etc.
>> it doesn't really matter if it doesn't validate. why would you give
>> any weight to 'balancing' that criteria? for example, if i make up my
>> own tag for some reason- (dumb example, but-) say i enclose big blocks
>> of text with <delete date='jul 1 2007></delete> because i have a
>> script that automatically parses and modifies files every day, and
>> it'll remove blocks of text based on a delete tag and date parameter.
>> all browsers ignore tags they don't understand, so it's not going to
>> affect anything, why should i care if it doesn't validate?
>
> You shouldn't, of course. You should never sacrifice functionality on
> something as superficial as validation.
I would not, generally, be worried about *those* types of errors.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Seems to me a better method would be to have the script just put in empty
> >> alt-text (alt="").
> >
> > That's not a very good idea, since people with screen readers or web
> > search engines would miss some information. :)
>
> Well, missing info might be better than hearing "space" repeatedly.
Yeah, but I was in reference to all images that isn't named
"space.gif" :-D
> > Seriously though, most of the images are named appropriately, and the
> > alt-tag fails on some occasions. It's not a big enough of a problem
> > for me to make exceptions to the parser just for this.
>
> Do you know if you have sight impaired "readers"?
Yes, I have had two people using www.malarnetcity.se to write weblogs
and participate in the forums. Both were completely blind.
>>> It does seem as though it has gotten better - much better - since,
>>> say, the start of the year. Is that correct? If so what has
>>> changed?
>>
>> Sorry, I don't keep track of dates with regards to any CSS. I just
>> don't care enough about it. :)
>
> Well, *something* has changed... right now your HTML on sandman.net is
> validating and your CSS has only three errors, and those do no harm (the
> text-shadow that I referenced earlier).
Well... ok :)
> > "work well on multiple browsers" is contained by "making good looking
> > websites" actually.
>
> Well, you cannot test your sites on every browser and every browser version.
Right, but I do test them on the 98% that use the website, or
something like that. That means that Opra is off the radar. Gecko,
khtml and Trident and their not too distant releases is the usual
suspects.
I would never go the extra mile to make things work in IE for Mac, for
example.
> > Validation rarely has any impact on final result.
>
> It helps you to catch broken tables and other errors - that that can very
> much have an effect on the final result.
I was talking about CSS validation. HTML validation is another beast,
and can point to some errors. I've never been in a situation where
HTML validation showed a parser error by a browser, though.
> > What you basically want to do is error-correct your cocde (html/css)
> > so that it works in the browsers you want it to work in. Whether it
> > validates after that is just a matter of preference and some sense of
> > "doing the right thing".
>
> You want to check not just for general browsers but also for screen-readers,
> search engine bots, and the like.
Nah. Unless it is specifically requested by my client, I won't. search
engines doesn't care about css validation, really.
> > CS3 has mind-numbingly few new features. The most notable are 3D
> > support, Convert for smart filters and its image alignment tools. The
> > biggest new feature of CS3 is that it's universal, really.
>
> Agreed - though I am really liking the smart filters. For Photoshop I also
> like some of the other smaller updates such as the new way brightness and
> contrast works and the new gray-scale conversion. The new selection tool is
> pretty good for some things, too.
>
> I do *not* like that they removed slice sets and some other Image Ready
> elements from the suite.
Yeah. I wonder how FireWorks compares when it's released.
> > That's what a news reader is for! Or google. I have a function that
> > takes a Message-ID and creates a google link for it. A lot easier than
> > trying to make a usenet front-end myself.
>
> Sure: one way to allow getting to the data easily is just link to the same
> post on Google. Still, if you want to do a search for something specific
> that the Google search does not make easy, doing a search on your own
> database and then getting the actual post from Google fits my "need" to be
> able to search and read the data easily.
Sure, but the read part just isn't implemented locally.
> > My block blocked your IP, not your browser. If you could access the
> > website, you used another IP. I blocked this: 24.116.166.0/24 which, I
> > see now, doesn't include your current IP.
>
> Odd. I have not been blocked in a long time overall, but I am *still*
> blocked on some pages, but only when using Firefox. I get this:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/error.jpg>
That's a block only on csma.sandman.net, not sandman.net, and is in
relation to earlier events, which I rather not drag up. I'll remove
that as well. I just forgot about it. It has nothing to do with a
firewall.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2A9A595.85F13%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Seems to me a better method would be to have the script just put in empty
>>>> alt-text (alt="").
>>>
>>> That's not a very good idea, since people with screen readers or web
>>> search engines would miss some information. :)
>>
>> Well, missing info might be better than hearing "space" repeatedly.
>
> Yeah, but I was in reference to all images that isn't named
> "space.gif" :-D
Looking at some of your pages I see a file called "vinjett_left.gif" with
the alt-text of "left"... and a similar one with the alt-text of "right". I
personally try to not do such things, though if you have blind readers who
say they are not bothered maybe it is not that big of a deal for you (or for
them).
I focus on this because I know a number of people who *are* bothered by such
things and find it frustrating enough to avoid websites when they have
alternatives.
>>> Seriously though, most of the images are named appropriately, and the
>>> alt-tag fails on some occasions. It's not a big enough of a problem
>>> for me to make exceptions to the parser just for this.
>>
>> Do you know if you have sight impaired "readers"?
>
> Yes, I have had two people using www.malarnetcity.se to write weblogs
> and participate in the forums. Both were completely blind.
And, I assume, they were able to get around OK?
>>>> It does seem as though it has gotten better - much better - since,
>>>> say, the start of the year. Is that correct? If so what has
>>>> changed?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't keep track of dates with regards to any CSS. I just
>>> don't care enough about it. :)
>>
>> Well, *something* has changed... right now your HTML on sandman.net is
>> validating and your CSS has only three errors, and those do no harm (the
>> text-shadow that I referenced earlier).
>
> Well... ok :)
>
>>> "work well on multiple browsers" is contained by "making good looking
>>> websites" actually.
>>
>> Well, you cannot test your sites on every browser and every browser version.
>
> Right, but I do test them on the 98% that use the website, or
> something like that. That means that Opra is off the radar. Gecko,
> khtml and Trident and their not too distant releases is the usual
> suspects.
>
> I would never go the extra mile to make things work in IE for Mac, for
> example.
Is there an IE for the Mac? :)
Ok, hard to argue against.
>>> Validation rarely has any impact on final result.
>>
>> It helps you to catch broken tables and other errors - that that can very
>> much have an effect on the final result.
>
> I was talking about CSS validation. HTML validation is another beast,
> and can point to some errors. I've never been in a situation where
> HTML validation showed a parser error by a browser, though.
>
>>> What you basically want to do is error-correct your cocde (html/css)
>>> so that it works in the browsers you want it to work in. Whether it
>>> validates after that is just a matter of preference and some sense of
>>> "doing the right thing".
>>
>> You want to check not just for general browsers but also for screen-readers,
>> search engine bots, and the like.
>
> Nah. Unless it is specifically requested by my client, I won't. search
> engines doesn't care about css validation, really.
Not sure about CSS validation, though it would make sense for them not to,
but they do care about (X)HTML validation, at least to some extent.
>>> CS3 has mind-numbingly few new features. The most notable are 3D
>>> support, Convert for smart filters and its image alignment tools. The
>>> biggest new feature of CS3 is that it's universal, really.
>>
>> Agreed - though I am really liking the smart filters. For Photoshop I also
>> like some of the other smaller updates such as the new way brightness and
>> contrast works and the new gray-scale conversion. The new selection tool is
>> pretty good for some things, too.
>>
>> I do *not* like that they removed slice sets and some other Image Ready
>> elements from the suite.
>
> Yeah. I wonder how FireWorks compares when it's released.
Hopefully folks do not have to use/learn a whole new program just to get
those ImageReady features "back".
>>> That's what a news reader is for! Or google. I have a function that
>>> takes a Message-ID and creates a google link for it. A lot easier than
>>> trying to make a usenet front-end myself.
>>
>> Sure: one way to allow getting to the data easily is just link to the same
>> post on Google. Still, if you want to do a search for something specific
>> that the Google search does not make easy, doing a search on your own
>> database and then getting the actual post from Google fits my "need" to be
>> able to search and read the data easily.
>
> Sure, but the read part just isn't implemented locally.
Fair enough. Does not really matter if it is local or not, expect, I
suppose, for the rare time Google is down.
>>> My block blocked your IP, not your browser. If you could access the
>>> website, you used another IP. I blocked this: 24.116.166.0/24 which, I
>>> see now, doesn't include your current IP.
>>
>> Odd. I have not been blocked in a long time overall, but I am *still*
>> blocked on some pages, but only when using Firefox. I get this:
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/error.jpg>
>
> That's a block only on csma.sandman.net, not sandman.net, and is in
> relation to earlier events, which I rather not drag up. I'll remove
> that as well. I just forgot about it. It has nothing to do with a
> firewall.
Curious how you blocked Firefox and not Safari... even when I changed the
user agent on Firefox. Never did much to get around it, but the little I
did failed. :)
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Yes, I have had two people using www.malarnetcity.se to write weblogs
> > and participate in the forums. Both were completely blind.
>
> And, I assume, they were able to get around OK?
Yeah, we invited them in to talk about it, and they had no problems at
all. Not that they were in over their ears about how easy it was -
www.malarnetcity.se was a pretty messy site back then (I've cleaned it
up substantially now), but nothing of that had anything to do with
code, though, just layout. They like the community a lot.
> > Nah. Unless it is specifically requested by my client, I won't. search
> > engines doesn't care about css validation, really.
>
> Not sure about CSS validation, though it would make sense for them not to,
> but they do care about (X)HTML validation, at least to some extent.
How do you figure? Don't know about Google, but lots of engines just
parse away the markup and index the text.
> > That's a block only on csma.sandman.net, not sandman.net, and is in
> > relation to earlier events, which I rather not drag up. I'll remove
> > that as well. I just forgot about it. It has nothing to do with a
> > firewall.
>
> Curious how you blocked Firefox and not Safari... even when I changed the
> user agent on Firefox. Never did much to get around it, but the little I
> did failed. :)
It had nothing to do with user agent, actually. Anyway, that's in the
past :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2AA0341.86123%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I have had two people using www.malarnetcity.se to write weblogs
>>> and participate in the forums. Both were completely blind.
>>
>> And, I assume, they were able to get around OK?
>
> Yeah, we invited them in to talk about it, and they had no problems at
> all. Not that they were in over their ears about how easy it was -
> www.malarnetcity.se was a pretty messy site back then (I've cleaned it
> up substantially now), but nothing of that had anything to do with
> code, though, just layout. They like the community a lot.
If the layout and general ease of use is not there then content will not be
found or used. I used to run a communications system for about 200 schools
and 100 United Way agencies - at the beginning it worked real well and
people really liked it (overall). As time went by, though, politics got in
the way - the design I had created for the system was altered *drastically*
and it was designed not with users in mind but with serving the whims of the
politics and infighting silliness at the school district. We had some
die-hard users who tolerated the changes, but few liked it and many people
left. The growth slowed and, at least for a while, the number of active
users dropped. They also made other silly decisions. The software ran on
an old Mac and we started to pass the number of files HFS can handle. It
got so bad that the backup software we were using (Retrospect) could no
longer back it up. In order to migrate to a better system I would have to
take it down for a few hours - or, to be safe, give myself a full day. This
was unacceptable ... and so we had no backups. It is also one of the
reasons I quit... and a couple months after I left the whole system came
crashing down, they lost some big clients, and were hurting badly.
But I digress... :)
>
>>> Nah. Unless it is specifically requested by my client, I won't. search
>>> engines doesn't care about css validation, really.
>>
>> Not sure about CSS validation, though it would make sense for them not to,
>> but they do care about (X)HTML validation, at least to some extent.
>
> How do you figure? Don't know about Google, but lots of engines just
> parse away the markup and index the text.
Not all errors will cause Google problems, but some will. Doing a quick
search:
<http://www.searchenginepromotionhelp.com/m/articles/search-engine-problems/
why-validate-html.php>
-----
A few months ago I helped a webmaster who had lost his Top
10 ranking because of a simple typo in his HTML. One badly
placed angle bracket kept Googlebot from correctly parsing
the home page, causing it to fall completely out of the
index. The page displayed correctly under all the major
browsers, but it still caused problems for Googlebot.
-----
>>> That's a block only on csma.sandman.net, not sandman.net, and is in
>>> relation to earlier events, which I rather not drag up. I'll remove
>>> that as well. I just forgot about it. It has nothing to do with a
>>> firewall.
>>
>> Curious how you blocked Firefox and not Safari... even when I changed the
>> user agent on Firefox. Never did much to get around it, but the little I
>> did failed. :)
>
> It had nothing to do with user agent, actually. Anyway, that's in the
> past :)
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, we invited them in to talk about it, and they had no problems at
> > all. Not that they were in over their ears about how easy it was -
> > www.malarnetcity.se was a pretty messy site back then (I've cleaned it
> > up substantially now), but nothing of that had anything to do with
> > code, though, just layout. They like the community a lot.
>
> If the layout and general ease of use is not there then content will not be
> found or used.
Yeah. The thing with huge web projects (as www.malarnetcity.se) is
that it will outgrow itself. The one I have online now is version 4 of
the site, with major navigational and structural cleanups. It has been
recieved really well.
The problem was that the site, being a market and community site, grew
in functionality in every possible way, so the navigation got
cluttered up and people felt lost. We did a few surveys and redid it
from scratch. :)
> I used to run a communications system for about 200 schools
> and 100 United Way agencies - at the beginning it worked real well and
> people really liked it (overall). As time went by, though, politics got in
> the way - the design I had created for the system was altered *drastically*
> and it was designed not with users in mind but with serving the whims of the
> politics and infighting silliness at the school district. We had some
> die-hard users who tolerated the changes, but few liked it and many people
> left. The growth slowed and, at least for a while, the number of active
> users dropped. They also made other silly decisions. The software ran on
> an old Mac and we started to pass the number of files HFS can handle. It
> got so bad that the backup software we were using (Retrospect) could no
> longer back it up. In order to migrate to a better system I would have to
> take it down for a few hours - or, to be safe, give myself a full day. This
> was unacceptable ... and so we had no backups. It is also one of the
> reasons I quit... and a couple months after I left the whole system came
> crashing down, they lost some big clients, and were hurting badly.
>
> But I digress... :)
Hehe, tough luck. :)
> > How do you figure? Don't know about Google, but lots of engines just
> > parse away the markup and index the text.
>
> Not all errors will cause Google problems, but some will. Doing a quick
> search:
>
> <http://www.searchenginepromotionhelp.com/m/articles/search-engine-problems/
> why-validate-html.php>
> -----
> A few months ago I helped a webmaster who had lost his Top
> 10 ranking because of a simple typo in his HTML. One badly
> placed angle bracket kept Googlebot from correctly parsing
> the home page, causing it to fall completely out of the
> index. The page displayed correctly under all the major
> browsers, but it still caused problems for Googlebot.
> -----
Yeah, as I said, I don't know about Google... But missing a angle
bracket usually brakes parsing as well. Missing to close an open tag
may not. It's just a huge smorgasbord of things that have alternating
effects on parsing :)
--
Sandman[.net]