Website Entry
Simon
My entry for the website design contest can be found at :
http://www.srbsite.uklinux.net/
It's unfortunate that, due to illness and various other factors, I
haven't had the time I had hoped to work on this, which is why certain
elements are marked as coming soon. However, with the deadline imminent,
it seemed best to just put up what I had.
The to-do list includes -
Expanding the style sheet to handle more formatting, indents and
centring of text for example.
Creating completely text only versions of the pages. Although the pages
can be viewed fairly well outside of the frames, I want to tune them to
be sure they don't screw up text-based browsers. I haven't as yet had a
chance to measure the site against the W3C accessibility guidelines.
Getting a calendar script demo up. I actually have a calendar script
similar to the one FG already uses, which I developed for someone else
and started to modify for us. The advantage of this is that it would
allow entries to be input via a form on the website. If my site were
chosen, there would obviously need to be some pooling of scripts here,
to ensure that everything worked OK and that the website form could feed
into whatever generates the posts to the newsgroup.
Comments are of course welcome.
Simon
--
"Mandy, I am very disappointed by your behaviour. Take your knickers
down and come here so I can spank you."
Mandy sighed and started to bare her bottom. It was so unfair !
It wasn't as if anyone was going to miss Great Aunt Emma....
jkl...@webtv.net
Simon,
I like the list on the first page, making the bottoms turn red when you
scroll it. Very cool. <BG>
Jen
Pablo
>
> My entry for the website design contest can be found at :
>
> http://www.srbsite.uklinux.net/
Some *very* quick comments, to be taken with the usual barrel
of salt. (I'm sure some of these you've already planned, but
just not had time for.)
The rollover graphics are great. There'd need to be a text-only
menu too, for people who don't have/load graphics, natch.
I'm usually extremely resistant to frames, but when they're as
simple as this, they don't cause too much trouble.
I tend to avoid using external style sheets. There are plenty
of benefits, but they mean that if someone saves (or caches)
a page, such that the style sheet isn't available, all of the
formatting will be lost. I prefer to keep each page entirely
self-sufficient. That's more work when you're doing the coding
by hand, though, as I think you are here.
Could you make the main text bigger? Relative size +1 is what I
usually use for stuff like this. I hate it when text is too small,
and it very often is.
Using tables to give the pages some margin might help the layout
a bit.
Hospital green? :-) Nothing at all wrong with black on white,
IMO, with some splashes of colour here and there.
Pab.
[p&e]
Pam
loved) then maybe we could combine the two. I like both very much.
p/e
Pam
Remove my panties before responding. :)
Switchmaybe
text. I suspect there are no alt tags.
I do appreciate that its not complete though.
I would definitely avoid frames like the plague they are,though I am always
willing to be proved wrong.
I am using i.e. 5.5 with the Hal series 4 screenreader, in its Supernova
guise, from Dolphin. This is very much used in the UK, so the Jaws is not
the only game in town. I chose what I chose because it is only 490 ukp
rather than the 600ukp of Jaws, Outrageous prices to get what sighted folk
have as normal. I hope you appreciate why we go on so much about non
accessible sites. I feel that if many sites are OK, there is no excuse for
the rest, why should our access software have to be rewritten every few
months with upgrade costs to us,?
Personally, I think all inaccessible web sites should submit their designers
for a sound spanking. Trouble is, they might enjoy it!
Brian
--
Switchy, enquiring, mature and a VIP....
dog...@bgserv.demon.co.uk
Simon <s...@imrryr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3BB651FE...@imrryr.demon.co.uk...
:
: My entry for the website design contest can be found at :
:
Simon
Switchmaybe wrote:
> Well, from the blind viewpoint, the only thing I can hear is the welcome
> text. I suspect there are no alt tags.
Eeek ! You are quite right, there are no alt tags. This is doubly embarrassing
since it was only recently that I explained to someone else the importance of
them for accessibility ! *blush* I shall correct this soon.
> I would definitely avoid frames like the plague they are,though I am always
> willing to be proved wrong.
I'm thinking about this. I do intend to add a link to a text-only version of the
site in due course, which would handle most of the accessibility issues I think.
I've alternated between using and not using frames in the past.
> I am using i.e. 5.5 with the Hal series 4 screenreader, in its Supernova
> guise, from Dolphin.
Is there a web page or something where I can learn about the specification of
this program ? What it can and can't handle and so on.
> Personally, I think all inaccessible web sites should submit their designers
> for a sound spanking. Trouble is, they might enjoy it!
It's a good point, and thanks for reminding me.
Simon
Pablo wrote:
> The rollover graphics are great. There'd need to be a text-only
> menu too, for people who don't have/load graphics, natch.
Yes, this is one of the things I had planned. There is a text-only menu
for people without frames, but not yet a link to one from the framed
pages.
> I'm usually extremely resistant to frames, but when they're as
> simple as this, they don't cause too much trouble.
It's something I've flip-flopped on over the years. Initially I avoided
them, but in a situation like this the performance of the site suffers
from constantly reloading the buttons. It's also a pain from a
maintainability point of view in that adding a menu item involves
updating every page on the site if the buttons are on each page. It's
something where I think the arguments are finely balanced, though, and I
am thinking about it.
> I tend to avoid using external style sheets.
I take the point, although aside from the coding issue, there is also
the fact that the theory behind CSS is that someone can link in their
own stylesheet if they want to do so. I know it doesn't work too well
right now and that the browsers don't support CSS properly, but I like
to code to the standards when I can, even if no-one else does ! :)
> That's more work when you're doing the coding
> by hand, though, as I think you are here
Yes I am. Sometimes I use Dreamweaver, but often it's easier and quicker
just to knock it up in and editor. You could just cut and paste a
standard inline stylesheet. Again though it comes down to maintenance
more than initial work, since a change to one style property means
editing every page.
> Could you make the main text bigger? Relative size +1 is what I
> usually use for stuff like this. I hate it when text is too small,
> and it very often is.
What browser are you using to view this, and on what platform ? Also,
what is your default font size set as ? I know things can look smaller
on Linux, although often that's because Linux browsers default to
ridiculously small font sizes. I also know that Mac fonts render smaller
than their Windoze equivalents. I'm not doing anything wacky like
hard-coding point sizes, so people can vary the size of the text by
altering their default browser settings. I have my default serif set to
Times New Roman 12pt and it all looks fine. My inclination is to
generate something that looks good under standard Windoze defaults,
since that is what the majority of users will be using. Sad but true :)
> Hospital green? :-) Nothing at all wrong with black on white,
> IMO, with some splashes of colour here and there.
Personally I hate glaringly white sites. They can be really harsh on the
eye, especially if your monitor is getting a bit elderly. I think a more
pastel background is easier to look at. As to hospital green <snort>, I
happen to think it's a perfectly nice and soothing green; hospitals are
harsh clinical white ! :) I guess this is just about personal taste.
Without wanting to give a long lecture on colour dithering, there are
also issues about what colours to use when you're trying to blend image
backgrounds with page backgrounds. Until browsers support PNG properly,
or Unisys get a life, transparent images are a real pain. So if you want
to have an image whose background blends seamlessly with your page
colour, you're limited to about 16 colours.
Pablo
Simon wrote:
>
> Pablo wrote:
>
> > The rollover graphics are great. There'd need to be a text-only
> > menu too, for people who don't have/load graphics, natch.
>
> Yes, this is one of the things I had planned. There is a text-only menu
> for people without frames, but not yet a link to one from the framed
> pages.
Just MHO, but I'd go for putting both graphical and text
menus on the same page/s. It would keep things a lot simpler,
rather than having two parallel systems.
> > I'm usually extremely resistant to frames, but when they're as
> > simple as this, they don't cause too much trouble.
>
> It's something I've flip-flopped on over the years. Initially I avoided
> them, but in a situation like this the performance of the site suffers
> from constantly reloading the buttons.
Hmmm? Why would they be constantly reloaded? Surely a good
browser would cache them?
> It's also a pain from a maintainability point of view in that
> adding a menu item involves updating every page on the site if
> the buttons are on each page.
<--- Points towards Dreamweaver's template facility. :-)
> > That's more work when you're doing the coding
> > by hand, though, as I think you are here
>
> Yes I am. Sometimes I use Dreamweaver, but often it's easier and quicker
> just to knock it up in and editor. You could just cut and paste a
> standard inline stylesheet. Again though it comes down to maintenance
> more than initial work, since a change to one style property means
> editing every page.
You might use templates for this too. Besides, we're not
talking about a huge site here.
> > Could you make the main text bigger? Relative size +1 is what I
> > usually use for stuff like this. I hate it when text is too small,
> > and it very often is.
>
> What browser are you using to view this, and on what platform ? Also,
> what is your default font size set as ?
I've looked at it on my Mac, using Netscape 4.7, and also
on a Sun UNIX box, also using Netscape 4.7. In both cases
the default size is 12pt.
It's not too bad, but I'd still make the body text a bit
bigger. It could be much worse, though. I can't tell you
how many sites I've seen (usually people with Front Page,
who haven't really figured out the principles of good web
design yet) that make the body text absolute size '1',
which is so small on the default settings on the Sun that
the text is literally unreadable.
> > Hospital green? :-) Nothing at all wrong with black on white,
> > IMO, with some splashes of colour here and there.
>
> Personally I hate glaringly white sites. They can be really harsh on the
> eye, especially if your monitor is getting a bit elderly. I think a more
> pastel background is easier to look at.
A nicely faint background image, then, to break up the
white, but not be too obtrusive?
> As to hospital green <snort>, I happen to think it's a perfectly
> nice and soothing green; hospitals are harsh clinical white ! :)
> I guess this is just about personal taste.
Yes indeed. :-)
Pab.
[p&e]
SparkleKitty
First of all... Where have you disappeared for so long? lol Glad
you're back! :)
Second: my favorite part of the page, is the way S.S.S. is written! I
just love it! And also, I have always liked frames! :)
Well done, good job! :)
Best
SK
p&e
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Zprymantis
>
> My entry for the website design contest can be found at :
>
> http://www.srbsite.uklinux.net/
>
I like it, especially the roll over blushing bottoms. :) I even like the
green because it can be the color theme throughout the site. The text on
the green for reading seemed fine to me. Visitors often don't realize when
they travel the web where exactly they are, so having a background color
other then white helps with that.
One problem I have, is that the left frame does not scroll - which is a good
thing actually. I don't like how it looks when more then one frame on a
page scrolls. My monitor is set to 800x600 85hz and I have to pick up and
move the window out of sight at the top to see the menu choices in the
bottom butt links. If I wasn't looking for them, I might not even know the
bottom two butt links were there when I first loaded the page.
Might I suggest...
Opening page, with the frames as you have it. Four standard links in roll
over butt links, still with no scrolling, so a fixed size. The four
standard links would be - General Info - Charter - Moderation - FAQ - and I
suppose there should also be a return to Main Page butt link. So, you might
have to combine two of the above links to prevent a scrolling left frame on
smaller monitor settings.
Then, in the main frame - my lovely picture (big cheesy grin here - ok so I
love my picture) My blushing peeks picture is nice, in that it is a
memorable type of eye catching thing - so visitors realize they arrived at
some place special. Then, with that main frame, you can have links to
special features. (fun things - not that the charter isn't 'fun' mind
you..but..er you know what I mean) Links could be things like - Web Rings
- Calendar - Roster - or any other future niceties that people could imagine
and want to add or delete as times change.
:)
warmly,
z
pe
Switchmaybe
near the top that they exist for those of us who are effectively looking
through a tiny hole on the page. Amazon make this mistake, and there are
countless blind folk out there who do not know they have a text only
site.... linked from down their page which has not alt tags...
At least, it it did, unless they altered it!
Like, if you don't know its there, yer won't look for it!
Brian
--
Switch, enquiring, mature and a VIP....
dog...@bgserv.demon.co.uk
Pablo <Pablo....@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:3BB72115...@newsguy.com...
: