Web Designer.
Iain Toft
Don't want to pay a huge price???
E-mail me ian...@globalnet.co.uk for a quote or just a chat about your
website.
Alternatively visit my website at www.webbuilder.cjb.net
Pedt Scragg
>Want a small and functional website??
>Don't want to pay a huge price???
Shame that. Bye.
--
Pedt
If smoking is so bad for you, how come it cures kippers?!
Homer Simpson
http://start.at/zaxdtp
--
Pedt Scragg <newsm...@pedt.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V3sZ2AAPHl$2Y...@pedt.demon.co.uk...
Odyssey
Iain Toft wrote in message <7dl91v$as8$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>Alternatively visit my website at www.webbuilder.cjb.net
What's the matter? Business to booking you don't have time to get a
domain name for $35 per year?
Odyssey
Odyssey
Odyssey wrote in message <92264682...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>Iain Toft wrote in message <7dl91v$as8$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
>>Alternatively visit my website at www.webbuilder.cjb.net
>
>What's the matter? Business to booking you don't have time to get a
That would be "booming" not "booking" - this one, there's no excuse.
Odyssey
Michael Rodgers
>Don't want to pay a huge price???
www.foxdesign.dabsol.co.uk
Anthony Edwards
If you *really* want cheap, Electranet in Orpington
(http://www.electranet.com) will design a basic business homepage for
just £69.95.
Anthony
Johnnie ego
egovision Web design:
: )
John
John Lyons
-----------------------------------
jo...@egovision.co.uk
*Web reference centre & tutorials:
http://www.egovision.com
*egovision professional Web design:
http://www.egovision.co.uk
-----------------------------------
Anthony Edwards wrote in message
<36ff4171...@goodnews.nildram.co.uk>...
>just Ł69.95.
>
>Anthony
Daniel Vesma
Daniel Vesma
www.thewebtree.com
www.thewebtree.com/daniel-vesma
Tina - White Lake Web
--Tina
Michael Rodgers wrote in message <3NpL2.137$54.233@wards>...
Craig dscape
C.
--
Craig Harrison - Partner (craig@!derby.co.uk)
dscape - web propulsion & internet scientists
Partners in the www.derby.co.uk project - now with Usenet (news.derby.co.uk)
==============================================================
Johnnie ego <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7dne6q$7bv$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net...
| Oh well, if we're doing this:
|
| egovision Web design:
|
| http://www.egovision.co.uk
|
| : )
|
| John
|
| John Lyons
| -----------------------------------
| jo...@egovision.co.uk
| *Web reference centre & tutorials:
| http://www.egovision.com
| *egovision professional Web design:
| http://www.egovision.co.uk
| -----------------------------------
| Anthony Edwards wrote in message
| <36ff4171...@goodnews.nildram.co.uk>...
| >On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:58:39 +0100, "Michael Rodgers"
| ><n...@rodge.force9INTERCITY.co.uk> wrote:
| >
| >>>Want a small and functional website??
| >>>Don't want to pay a huge price???
| >>>E-mail me ian...@globalnet.co.uk for a quote or just a chat about your
| >>>website.
| >>>Alternatively visit my website at www.webbuilder.cjb.net
| >>Nope, Fox Design are better, and most probably cheaper.
| >>www.foxdesign.dabsol.co.uk
| >>
| >
| >If you *really* want cheap, Electranet in Orpington
| >(http://www.electranet.com) will design a basic business homepage for
| >just £69.95.
| >
| >Anthony
|
|
Johnnie ego
our .co.uk site (below).
John
John Lyons
-----------------------------------
jo...@egovision.co.uk
*Web reference centre & tutorials:
http://www.egovision.com
*egovision professional Web design:
http://www.egovision.co.uk
-----------------------------------
Craig dscape wrote in message ...
Craig dscape
(I was only joking on the costing question.)
How are the tutorials coming along by the way? I could do with cutting my
teeth on a good critique.
:-)
C.
--
Craig Harrison - Partner (craig@!derby.co.uk)
dscape - web propulsion & internet scientists
Partners in the www.derby.co.uk project - now with Usenet (news.derby.co.uk)
==============================================================
Johnnie ego <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7do8i5$gma$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net...
Johnnie ego
late, but I tended to respond pretty quickly so you can imagine what my
schedule was like.
The site's now live at http://www.egovision.com
I took heed of most of your comments, so you should see many of the changes
there, but any further thoughts would be welcome.
Cheers,
lordathenry
,"Iain Toft" <ian...@globalnet.co.uk> burbled something like:
>Want a small and functional website??
>Don't want to pay a huge price???
>E-mail me ian...@globalnet.co.uk for a quote or just a chat about your
>website.
>Alternatively visit my website at www.webbuilder.cjb.net
If I wanted a "small and functional" website, I'd do it myself!.
If I was paying some bugger to do it, I'd want a bloody great big
funky-type website
%-)
Lord Athenry
"Old MacDonald had a farm, FL FL Q"
Spice girls, billie, steps, etc etc.........
Who said originality is dead...........
Resistance is useless (if <1ohm)
<Take out the papers and the trash before replying>
Craig dscape
I've got a couple of things to do, but I've put in the inbox for laters.
C. (sharpening his teeth....*lol*)
--
Craig Harrison - Partner (craig@!dscape.co.uk)
dscape - web propulsion & internet scientists - www.dscape.co.uk
Partners in the www.derby.co.uk project - now with Usenet (news.derby.co.uk)
==============================================================
Johnnie ego <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7dq90j$7m0$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net...
| >| >| >>>Want a small and functional website??
| >| >| >>>Don't want to pay a huge price???
| >| >| >>>E-mail me ian...@globalnet.co.uk for a quote or just a chat
about
| >| your
| >| >| >>>website.
| >| >| >>>Alternatively visit my website at www.webbuilder.cjb.net
farookh
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/6265/index.htm :o)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Easynet
--
--
Cheap, fast web hosting available at http://www.bexleynet.co.uk
Connecter directly to LINX in London, for unbeatable speed to
the UK, Europe, USA and Asia ! Check out our website for more
information. Sites from only 50 UKP / $75 per year! ( 1Mb )
Michael Rodgers wrote in message <3NpL2.137$54.233@wards>...
Jeff Cochran
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/6265/index.htm :o)
"Oops! We're having a problem finding this page."
Good thing it's a graphic designer and not a web designer...
farookh
And,of course, don't forget to hire a great graphic designer at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/6265 :o)
Rich
Iain Toft <ian...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7dl91v$as8$1...@newnews.global.net.uk...
> Want a small and functional website??
> Don't want to pay a huge price???
> E-mail me ian...@globalnet.co.uk for a quote or just a chat about your
> website.
> Alternatively visit my website at www.webbuilder.cjb.net
Don't you think you should learn how to design a non-amateur looking site
before asking people to pay you to make them one? I mean, learn what
"antialias" is, and colour coordination.
Sliva
Easynet <webm...@bexleynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7e2e7o$da9$1...@infoserv.netkonect.net...
LOL. Like anyone would want there site designed by a socalled web design
company with no real clients and who play Queen on there main page.
Joe Barta
It's almost as bad as having your site designed by someone with the
speling skils of a fourth grader.
- Joe Barta
Tina - White Lake Web
down for violated "spam policies".
--Tina
Joe Barta wrote in message <7e5h2r$qp3$2...@plonk.apk.net>...
John Forrest Tomlinson
I didn't even get to look at it -- instead this is all I saw:
The CJB.NET site you are trying to access does not exist.
If you received spam advertising this site, the account has been
terminated for violating our policies.
JT
****************************************
Remove "removethis" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
Cycling, Food and Stories
****************************************
Martin Jay
<wl...@webshore.net> writes
>I wanted to see this pathetic site for myself. Too bad...it has been shut
>down for violated "spam policies".
You've not missed much. :)
--
Martin Jay
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
>"Sliva" <y...@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>Easynet <webm...@bexleynet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:7e2e7o$da9$1...@infoserv.netkonect.net...
>>> No, I would say BexleyNet are the best.
>>>
>>> http://www.bexleynet.co.uk
>>
>>LOL. Like anyone would want there site designed by a socalled web design
>>company with no real clients and who play Queen on there main page.
>It's almost as bad as having your site designed by someone with the
>speling skils of a fourth grader.
>- Joe Barta
You really should not misspell "spelling" when you're criticizing
someone else's.
-----
Ralph Hickok
http://www.HickokSports.com/
Everything you wanted to know about sports
NitenRyu
Vadim
Odyssey
> >It's almost as bad as having your site designed by someone with the
> >speling skils of a fourth grader.
> >- Joe Barta
>
> You really should not misspell "spelling" when you're criticizing
> someone else's.
Ralph,
see how he "misspelled" the words "spelling" and "skils". Either my man
Joe has a problem with double consenants, or it was simply a joke.
Matt Warden
Odyssey Web Design and Hosting
Sliva
> speling skils of a fourth grader.
> - Joe Barta
Oooh sue me, I wrote there instead of their, shit, I forgot that newsgroup
postings were so important the my English and grammer had to be 100%. Take a
chill pill holmes.
And oh yeah, I actually check my spelling when I create a web site.
Rich
>
> The CJB.NET site you are trying to access does not exist.
Actually I was referring to www.foxdesign.dabsol.co.uk but I am sure the one
that got closed down is just as bad =)
Timothy Rooney
all and actually has some credibility to it, then go to
http://www.speedysites.com where the web's top designers are working
together to form the ultimate in World Wide Web services. Also available
there is the affiliate network, offering 20% commissions on all references.
Timothy Rooney
http://www.speedysites.com instead
Mark Waterous
What is this, a spamming contest to see who can recommend the
worst design firm?
-----Original Message-----
From: "Timothy Rooney" <tpro...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 04:54:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Web Designer.
:If you want to see a web design service that doesn't cost a lot of money at
:
-----End Original Message------
--
Mark Waterous The Revision III Network
<ma...@revision3.com> http://www.revision3.com/
______________________________________________________________________
"Applications programming is a race between software engineers, who
strive to produce idiot-proof programs, and the Universe which strives
to produce bigger idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
======================================================================
PGP Fingerprint: B456 D1BA 60B2 DDB4 41AE CFFC D0E9 AA08 797D DD7A
Rich
Mark Waterous <ma...@revision3.com> wrote in message
news:37072252...@news.direct.ca...
> Hello,
> What is this, a spamming contest to see who can recommend the
> worst design firm?
hehehe
Johnnie ego
John
--
John Lyons
-----------------------------------
jo...@egovision.co.uk
*Web reference centre & tutorials:
http://www.egovision.com
*egovision professional Web design:
http://www.egovision.co.uk
-----------------------------------
Rich
http://www.aquiesce.co.uk
I have nothing to do with this company so don't think I am spamming.
Pedt Scragg
>Just to let you know what a real web design companies site looks like -
>http://www.aquiesce.co.uk
>I have nothing to do with this company so don't think I am spamming.
>
or a non frames aware browser.
With frames and graphics their radio buttons are not visible in NN3.04
--
Pedt
sig away for Easter
Rich
> or a non frames aware browser.
>
> With frames and graphics their radio buttons are not visible in NN3.04
>
> --
> Pedt
> sig away for Easter
I do see your point Pedt but most web designers these days prefer to design
sites enhanced for modern (4.X+) browsers which the majority of people use,
rather than making one site that looks unimpressive but also works with
browsers that the minority use.
Johnnie ego
browsers, particularly their own sites! Most good Web designers recognise
that not all people are using 4+ browsers. If a site is to reach the largest
possible audience, it must be legible in less advanced browsers - this is a
professional outlook. I may wish that the WWW was sufficiently modern that I
could use all the great enhancements, but I realise that this is narrowing
my market. If a client requests that their site be 4+ enhanced, I will
happily follow suit. However, to advertise my wares as an industry-aware
designer, I would be foolish to limit my appeal.
John
--
John Lyons
-----------------------------------
jo...@egovision.co.uk
*Web reference centre & tutorials:
http://www.egovision.com
*egovision professional Web design:
http://www.egovision.co.uk
-----------------------------------
Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_KNN2.52418$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net...
<snip>
Rich
> I must refute your suggestion that "most" Web designers design to 4+
> browsers, particularly their own sites! Most good Web designers recognise
> that not all people are using 4+ browsers.
Yes they do recognise it, but they do not always acknowledge it. I am sure
that more design their own sites with most browsers in mind but as far as
clients go, a majority these days are enhanced for modern browsers. At the
end of the day it is up to the client, and it comes down to 2 choices.
1. Design a site which is less impressive but works with most browsers so as
not to deter a minority of visitors to the site.
2. Design a site which works with only modern browsers which a majority of
people use, and impress the visitor into taking more of an interest into the
site, so they may be more likely to buy the companies products.
It can be a hard decision deciding which comes first.
Timothy Rooney
we have had over 500 clients use and become satisfied with our service in
our first month of operation. if you think you are insulting our firm, then
think again. i'd like to see you attempt a firm. we all need a good laugh
--
Timothy P. Rooney
http://www.speedysites.com
Timothy Rooney
i have seen amateurs creating better sites than that. i am ashamed for
visiting it and i feel sorry for you for actually posting that to the
newsgroups.
Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fqLN2.52278$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net...
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
wrote:
| I do see your point Pedt but most web designers these days prefer to
| design sites enhanced for modern (4.X+) browsers which the majority
| of people use, rather than making one site that looks unimpressive
| but also works with browsers that the minority use.
There's nothing saying that one can't design sites enhanced for
"modern" browsers (I assume you mean the "big two" yet you don't say
it) yet still work with older or lightweight browsers (by this I mean
Lynx, Chimera, etc, and I don't mean to imply Lynx is not modern, it
is still in active development and that should tell you
something). It's been done before.
Obviously you're missing the entire point of the World Wide Web.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
Odyssey
--
Odyssey Web Design and Hosting
http://www.odyssey-design.com ::: Coming Soon :::
Rich
news:z7PN2.19608$0l4....@news.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> i hate to break it to you, but that site is worse than any i have seen
yet.
> i have seen amateurs creating better sites than that. i am ashamed for
> visiting it and i feel sorry for you for actually posting that to the
> newsgroups.
> --
> Timothy P. Rooney
> http://www.speedysites.com
HAH
It wasn't actually their site I was referring to, it was the sites they have
designed.
Your site is so completely amateurish that I am not one bit surprised you
have 0 clients to date. I actually got a friend to visit both sites. He said
your one was "crap" and "I like the second one" referring to Aquiesce. That
was coming from someone with the web design skills of a 2 year old (slightly
better than yours).
Art Sackett
<ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk> honored us all with these words:
R:
R: ... and it comes down to 2 choices.
R:
R: 1. Design a site which is less impressive but works with most browsers so as
R: not to deter a minority of visitors to the site.
R:
R: 2. Design a site which works with only modern browsers which a majority of
R: people use, and impress the visitor into taking more of an interest into the
R: site, so they may be more likely to buy the companies products.
It seems that if a corporate client is not in the business of selling
bells and whistles for web sites, the wise choice is always to deploy
a site that is as accessible as possible.
By way of example: Assuming that 90% of all visitors to your site are
using javascript enabled browsers, you can say that the vast majority
of your site's visitors could take advantage of, say, a javascript
shopping cart.
The net effect of deploying the javascript shopping cart without
providing an equally convenient alternative is to turn away every
tenth motivated buyer -- a minority, true, but a very important one.
At the end of the day, that 10% in customer volume accounts for a
disproportionate hit on the bottom line.
Suppose your retail site has to sell 90 widgets a month to reach the
break-even point. 100 visitors came to your site with their credit
cards propped in the special function keys ready to buy, but that
minority of ten users were unable to make purchases. Instead of showing
a profit, all you accomplished was breaking even. In the end, that
minority that you turned away took _all_ of your profit with them.
If your clients want to turn that very profitable minority away, my
clients will be more than happy to sell to them.
---- Art Sackett ----
Independent Web Developer
http://www.artsackett.com
John Forrest Tomlinson
>that more design their own sites with most browsers in mind but as
far as
>clients go, a majority these days are enhanced for modern browsers.
>end of the day it is up to the client, and it comes down to 2
choices.
>
>1. Design a site which is less impressive but works with most
browsers so as
>
majority of
into the
>
If the client has the money and the designer has the time, it seems to
me there is an important 3rd choice that's best -- design a site that
uses some sort of browser detection to offer visitors with more
"advances" browsers any desired bells and whistles and visitors with
other browsers a "simpler" version of the site.
Rich
> me there is an important 3rd choice that's best -- design a site that
> uses some sort of browser detection to offer visitors with more
> "advances" browsers any desired bells and whistles and visitors with
> other browsers a "simpler" version of the site.
>
> JT
Yes I agree with that, but one thing I don't understand is why more people
don't use browser detection, instead of enhancing their site for IE or NN?
Because it isn't smooth? I'd love to know the true answer if anyone else
knows.
Craig dscape
a) Take a look at www.attik.co.uk
b) Move through the site, leaving the client list till last.
c) Go to the client page, then come back here and reason as to why they got
the clients they have, whilst keeping that particular home site design.
They must be doing something right, and the emphasis of their success
certainly isn't their homepage.
C.
--
Craig Harrison - Partner (craig@!dscape.co.uk)
dscape - web propulsion & internet scientists - www.dscape.co.uk
Partners in the www.derby.co.uk project - now with Usenet (news.derby.co.uk)
==============================================================
Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4zPN2.52541$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net...
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
wrote:
| Yes I agree with that, but one thing I don't understand is why more people
| don't use browser detection, instead of enhancing their site for IE or NN?
| Because it isn't smooth? I'd love to know the true answer if anyone else
| knows.
The answer is "because it doesn't work." I can change my User-agent
header into anything (and frequently have). Yahoo! used to use stupid
browser detection, and still might (they once served a horribly
crippled version of the site to Lynx users and only Lynx users,
AFAICT). Of course you realize "enhancing [one's] site for IE or NN"
goes against the whole idea of the WWW, right?
--
Shawn K. Quinn
Mark Waterous
:worst design firm?
I never said yours won. If you want the trophy though...
:you can take a vote from the majority of web visitors.
Sorry, don't have enough time to waste on that. :)
:we have had over 500 clients use and become satisfied with our service in
:our first month of operation.
I'm amazed I haven't heard of you in some of the larger
publications! Are you planning an IPO anytime soon? You must be making
a decent revenue and have quite a few employees to handle such a
workload.
:if you think you are insulting our firm, then think again.
If you think that was the point of my post, then think again.
(just in case you still don't get it, I was pointing out that replying
to spam by spamming your own site is silly...)
:i'd like to see you attempt a firm. we all need a good laugh
As a matter of fact, I'm in the process of putting together our
firms page. You got lucky this time, not all web designers operate, or
are employed by a design firm - there are other jobs out there for us
you know. However if you'd like to see what we have online so far, you
can at http://newmedia.revision3.com/ - comments via email are always
welcome.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Timothy Rooney" <tpro...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 19:28:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Web Designer.
:worst design firm? you can take a vote from the majority of web visitors.
:we have had over 500 clients use and become satisfied with our service in
:our first month of operation. if you think you are insulting our firm, then
:think again. i'd like to see you attempt a firm. we all need a good laugh
Adrian Price
<tpro...@home.com> wrote:
>i hate to break it to you, but that site is worse than any i have seen yet.
>i have seen amateurs creating better sites than that. i am ashamed for
>visiting it and i feel sorry for you for actually posting that to the
>newsgroups.
>--
>Timothy P. Rooney
>http://www.speedysites.com
>
>Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:fqLN2.52278$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net...
>> Just to let you know what a real web design companies site looks like -
>> http://www.aquiesce.co.uk
>> I have nothing to do with this company so don't think I am spamming.
>>
>>
Slamming sites that do better design than you on a public forum is not a
very good way of drumming up business, pal. Is marketing just not your
forte?
--
Adrian Price, Webmaster
Sequoia Records Online: Music with Vision
<http://www.sequoiarecords.com/>
Mark Waterous
I'll make a long shot guess on this one from my own knowledge of
the online design world - chances are they made the site awhile ago.
It looked good at the time, so hey, all's good and they went with it.
They than proved that they could handle clients, and do good work and
were thus swamped with work, and had no time to redesign their home
page... ...or they just don't want to, one of the two. <G>
One thing a lot of people don't realize is that most of the "good
firms" are so busy with clients that they don't necessarily have time
to do their own sites. Did anyone else here ever get asked this as a
child? You're in a new town, out on business... you need a hair cut,
and there's only two barbers in town. So you go into the first shop -
nice clean, everything is sparkling and the barber has a fabulous
haircut. You go into the next, and there's hair here and there on the
floor, and the barber has a rather ragged haircut. Nobody in sight to
ask about the two, so you must decide which you want to go with before
hitting that big business conference? Which one do you go with?
The answer was the one with the ragged haircut for a few reasons -
one, you can tell he's had business, for there's hair on the floor
from past visitors. This is hard to tell with the other guy. Two,
there's only two barbers in town and they can't cut their own hair -
so obviously the one with the good haircut, must've gotten it from the
one with the bad, and visa versa.
That got rather long winded. <G> It doesn't transfer over
perfectly to web designers, but you get the idea I hope.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Craig dscape" <craig@!derby.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 00:03:32 +0100
Subject: Re: Web Designer.
:Before this thread falls off the right hand side again....
:
:a) Take a look at www.attik.co.uk
:
:b) Move through the site, leaving the client list till last.
:
:c) Go to the client page, then come back here and reason as to why they got
:the clients they have, whilst keeping that particular home site design.
:
:They must be doing something right, and the emphasis of their success
:certainly isn't their homepage.
:
:C.
Mark Waterous
I'd like to know why more people don't stop futzing about
"enhanced for" pages and start designing for the "world wide" part of
the web. Don't design for browserX, and don't design for resolutionX,
design for world wide web, where things are meant to be accessible
world wide.
PS: And before anybody starts picking apart my site, you'll notice
it's in production and I'm in the process of trying to make everything
portable. You'll also notice http://home.revision3.com/ validates for
a start...
-----Original Message-----
From: "Rich" <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 23:14:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Web Designer.
:Yes I agree with that, but one thing I don't understand is why more people
:don't use browser detection, instead of enhancing their site for IE or NN?
:Because it isn't smooth? I'd love to know the true answer if anyone else
:knows.
William G. Schlake
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>In message <knSN2.52741$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net>, Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk>
>wrote:
>| Yes I agree with that, but one thing I don't understand is why more people
>| don't use browser detection, instead of enhancing their site for IE or NN?
>| Because it isn't smooth? I'd love to know the true answer if anyone else
>| knows.
>
>The answer is "because it doesn't work." I can change my User-agent
>header into anything (and frequently have).
And doing so, the results are your doing... yet of course you'll still
find a way to bitch about it of course.
>Yahoo! used to use stupid
>browser detection, and still might (they once served a horribly
>crippled version of the site to Lynx users and only Lynx users,
>AFAICT). Of course you realize "enhancing [one's] site for IE or NN"
>goes against the whole idea of the WWW, right?
Wrong, that would be your silly idea.
If you're dumb enough to use Lynx then seeing ugly looking pages is
all you deserve to see. It doesn't mean everyone else got to drum down
their sites just so you don't feel left out.
William G. Schlake
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>In message <_KNN2.52418$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net>, Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk>
>wrote:
>| I do see your point Pedt but most web designers these days prefer to
>| design sites enhanced for modern (4.X+) browsers which the majority
>| of people use, rather than making one site that looks unimpressive
>| but also works with browsers that the minority use.
>
>There's nothing saying that one can't design sites enhanced for
>"modern" browsers (I assume you mean the "big two" yet you don't say
>it) yet still work with older or lightweight browsers (by this I mean
>Lynx, Chimera, etc, and I don't mean to imply Lynx is not modern, it
>is still in active development and that should tell you
>something). It's been done before.
Sure right, Lynx is in "active" development and it does tell me
something how active that development has been:
So far:
still stumbles or chokes on:
tables
frames
graphics
still doesn't have a clue what to do with:
DHTML
Java
JavaScripting
CSS
Flash
audio
any multimedia
>Obviously you're missing the entire point of the World Wide Web.
And that point would be what? Oh I know....every page should be
viewable in every browser so dip sticks too lazy or too dumb to
upgrade or too stubborn to switch to something better won't have to.
Gil Harvey
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) felt compelled to write:
>The answer is "because it doesn't work." I can change my User-agent
>header into anything (and frequently have). Yahoo! used to use stupid
>browser detection, and still might (they once served a horribly
>crippled version of the site to Lynx users and only Lynx users,
>AFAICT). Of course you realize "enhancing [one's] site for IE or NN"
>goes against the whole idea of the WWW, right?
By changing your header you ask for whatever you get.
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
>Johnnie ego <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7e8d9k$d1u$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net...
>> I must refute your suggestion that "most" Web designers design to 4+
>> browsers, particularly their own sites! Most good Web designers recognise
>> that not all people are using 4+ browsers.
>Yes they do recognise it, but they do not always acknowledge it. I am sure
>that more design their own sites with most browsers in mind but as far as
>clients go, a majority these days are enhanced for modern browsers. At the
>end of the day it is up to the client, and it comes down to 2 choices.
>1. Design a site which is less impressive but works with most browsers so as
>not to deter a minority of visitors to the site.
>2. Design a site which works with only modern browsers which a majority of
>people use, and impress the visitor into taking more of an interest into the
>site, so they may be more likely to buy the companies products.
>It can be a hard decision deciding which comes first.
It shouldn't be. I spent 25 years in the advertising business, and a
large part of the job was persuading clients that they should do what
was best for them, often against their own initial ideas or
"instincts." In fact, the agency I worked for resigned accounts on
several occasions because of "philosophical differences," meaning that
the client wanted to advertise in a certain way which the agency felt
was not in that client's best interests.
If you're a professional, you should know more about the field than
the client does, and you should recommend the best way to go. In many,
if not most, cases, that will mean designing a site to be accessible
to the largest number of potential visitors.
If you were an auto mechanic, and a customer wanted brakes relined
when he had a leak in the master cylinder, would you do it? Wouldn't
you feel obligated to point out, and fix, the real problem rather than
fixing an imaginary problem simply because the customer wanted it?
-----
Ralph Hickok
http://www.HickokSports.com/
Everything you wanted to know about sports
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
newsgroups trimmed accordingly]
In message <370826ab....@news.netquick.net>, Gil Harvey <g...@netquick.net>
wrote:
While I have an idea what prompted this reply, it really is none of
the server's business what browser I'm using. The only reason I can
think of why there is a User-agent header is because of robots that
run amok and cause problems. It's unfortunate that it's being used as
a method of keeping people out of a site. Funny how even that use
doesn't work (cue the troll-o-matic for another long winded spiel).
--
Shawn K. Quinn
catnip
>2. Design a site which works with only modern browsers which a majority of
>people use,
as opposed to what? 'antique' browsers?
catnip
Craig dscape
they are coming out and not the floor of the shop, or the hairdressers
haircut. Patience is a virtue is this instance, I very much doubt there are
only two people using the 'net, and I don't have to hold a mirror up to make
a web site. *lol*
The reason for my post prior to your was the irony involved in the Attik
site, but you are bang on in saying that a web design company's homepage is
usually the last thing to be updated!! :-)
C.
--
Craig Harrison - Partner (craig@!dscape.co.uk)
dscape - web propulsion & internet scientists - www.dscape.co.uk
Partners in the www.derby.co.uk project - now with Usenet (news.derby.co.uk)
==============================================================
Mark Waterous <ma...@revision3.com> wrote in message
news:37091237...@news.direct.ca...
Mark Waterous
Heh, like I said it didn't hold entirely true for the net
community, but the basic idea is there, I hope. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: "Craig dscape" <craig@!derby.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 05:01:31 +0100
Subject: Re: Web Designer.
:If I want a hair cut, I wait for someone to go in and I look at them when
:they are coming out and not the floor of the shop, or the hairdressers
:haircut. Patience is a virtue is this instance, I very much doubt there are
:only two people using the 'net, and I don't have to hold a mirror up to make
:a web site. *lol*
:
:The reason for my post prior to your was the irony involved in the Attik
:site, but you are bang on in saying that a web design company's homepage is
:usually the last thing to be updated!! :-)
:
:C.
Pedt Scragg
>> With due respect, have you seen their site with images disabled, in Lynx
>> or a non frames aware browser.
>>
>> With frames and graphics their radio buttons are not visible in NN3.04
>>
>sites enhanced for modern (4.X+) browsers which the majority of people use,
>rather than making one site that looks unimpressive but also works with
>browsers that the minority use.
I assume you mean IE and NN for modern (4.xx+) browsers. Lynx and Opera
are still being developed, don't they count as well ?
It is not hard, IMHO, to design sites that *do* use the latest
technologies *but* downgrade gracefully to those visitors who are not
allowed/cannot afford/system they use won't run plug-in/etc to use the
new technology.
Yes, their site is has an enhanced look with NN4.05 over 3.04 with the
arrows pointing to your choice when you hover over it but worked in
NN3.04 once I'd switchde graphics on.
However, in NN4.05 the radio buttons are not visible either from here. I
presume modern browser then means IE only.
A final point. One commercial site I have stats for: only 38% of the
visitors use NN4.xx+ or IE4.xx+ I would hate to have 62% of visitors go
elsewhere in case they booked their holiday with that Company who's site
they could read.
Mark Goodge
>
>1. Design a site which is less impressive but works with most browsers so as
>not to deter a minority of visitors to the site.
>
>2. Design a site which works with only modern browsers which a majority of
>people use, and impress the visitor into taking more of an interest into the
>site, so they may be more likely to buy the companies products.
>
>It can be a hard decision deciding which comes first.
Why do they have to be in competition? Intelligently used, you can
have all the bells and whistles on a site and still make it accessible
to people who can't (for whatever reason[1]) use them. Alt tags,
multiple navigation routes, <noframes>, etc, should always be part of
a site that uses "bleeding edge" design.
Ever heard of the term "graceful degradation"?
Mark
[1] Remember, a lot of people who access the web from their corporate
LAN don't have a choice of which browser to use, and often have Java
and Javascript disabled as a matter of company policy.
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Gil Harvey
K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) felt compelled to write:
>| By changing your header you ask for whatever you get.
>
>While I have an idea what prompted this reply, it really is none of
>the server's business what browser I'm using. The only reason I can
>think of why there is a User-agent header is because of robots that
>run amok and cause problems. It's unfortunate that it's being used as
>a method of keeping people out of a site. Funny how even that use
>doesn't work (cue the troll-o-matic for another long winded spiel).
What prompted the reply was - If "you" change the header
information "you" have altered to equation. And "you" forego any right
to complain about how the results are altered.
You say it is none of the server's business what browser you
use - I say it is "if" the owner of the server desires it.
I agree it would be unforunate to use the information to keep
people out of a site. But using the information to provide a better
browsing experience for those that do not alter the settings is a good
thing, No?
Rich
William G. Schlake <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote in message
> If you're dumb enough to use Lynx then seeing ugly looking pages is
> all you deserve to see. It doesn't mean everyone else got to drum down
> their sites just so you don't feel left out.
Wouldnt be my first choice of words but I couldn't agree more.
Rich
<rhi...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:7e990v$776$1...@antiochus.ultra.net...
> If you were an auto mechanic, and a customer wanted brakes relined
> when he had a leak in the master cylinder, would you do it? Wouldn't
> you feel obligated to point out, and fix, the real problem rather than
> fixing an imaginary problem simply because the customer wanted it?
I hardly think you can compare web site design to mechanics, and no it's not
the same in principle.
Rich
> As a matter of fact, I'm in the process of putting together our
> firms page. You got lucky this time, not all web designers operate, or
> are employed by a design firm - there are other jobs out there for us
> you know. However if you'd like to see what we have online so far, you
> can at http://newmedia.revision3.com/ - comments via email are always
> welcome.
That's an impressive looking site Mark, I like it, professional looking.
Rich
> visitors use NN4.xx+ or IE4.xx+
I would be interested to take a look at these stats.
Also stats can be very misleading.
Rich
> Slamming sites that do better design than you on a public forum is not a
> very good way of drumming up business, pal. Is marketing just not your
> forte?
>
> --
> Adrian Price, Webmaster
> Sequoia Records Online: Music with Vision
> <http://www.sequoiarecords.com/>
lol
Alan J. Flavell
> William G. Schlake <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote
(about Lynx)
> > It doesn't mean everyone else got to drum down
> > their sites just so you don't feel left out.
>
> Wouldnt be my first choice of words but I couldn't agree more.
Me too. There's no reason to dumb-down properly made WWW pages for Lynx
access: Lynx copes with them just fine.
[f'ups narrowed]
Tero Paananen
>Sure right, Lynx is in "active" development and it does tell me
>something how active that development has been:
>So far:
>still stumbles or chokes on:
>tables
Somewhat, easily overcome by the capabilities of HTML.
>frames
Untrue. You lying again, schlake-bot?
>graphics
Untrue. You lying again, schlake-bot?
>still doesn't have a clue what to do with:
>DHTML
>Java
You figure out a way to output graphical user interface
elements used in applets on a text terminal and you'll
become a rich man in an instant. Good luck.
>Flash
You figure out a way to output graphical user interface
elements used in flas animations on a text terminal and you'll
become a rich man in an instant. Good luck.
>audio
Untrue. You lying again, schlake-bot?
>any multimedia
Untrue. You lying again, schlake-bot?
You know, if you're trying to make a point, it would be wise
to actually have that point have some basis in facts. But then
again, we all know your game already. Move along, nothing new
here.
-TPP
Thomas Jespersen
> As a matter of fact, I'm in the process of putting together our
> firms page. You got lucky this time, not all web designers operate, or
> are employed by a design firm - there are other jobs out there for us
> you know. However if you'd like to see what we have online so far, you
> can at http://newmedia.revision3.com/ - comments via email are always
> welcome.
Good Work Mark!
Claus André Färber
> Obviously you're missing the entire point of the World Wide Web.
"Web Design" is not about hitting the point of the World Wide Web or
creating good websites. Web design is about making customers happy.
Unfortunatly, these customers usually understand less about the WWW than
the designers. They have seen other "Killer Web Sites" and want
something that looks equally good. Explaining to them why this is a bad
idea -- because it won't look good in other browsers -- is too much
hassle for the designers, especially as you are risking driving them to
competitors.
Just doing what the customer wants is easier, and -- given that most
visitors that are locked out don't complain (or even can't as they are
unable to even access the correct mail address) -- makes the customer
more happy.
It they happen to complain about inaccessibility, you can still argue
that is what they ordered and that it is the visitor's fault if they are
using non-state-of-the-art software or redo the website.
--
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.faerber.muc.de>
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC
Thomas Jespersen
> Flash
> audio
> any multimedia
My browser has problems with these as well, especially Flash. My
browser is Netscape 4.5 and my Operating System is Irix. My OS happens
to be the reason because Macromedia still has not ported Flash
(although I was happily surprised just seeing they ported to linux
which they had not last time I checked, which is admittedly, long time
ago).
Pedt Scragg
>> visitors use NN4.xx+ or IE4.xx+
>
>I would be interested to take a look at these stats.
>
NN4.xx 16%
NN3.xx 16%
NN2.xx 4%
NN1.xx 1% (less than)
IE5.xx 1%
IE4.xx 21%
IE3.xx 18%
IE2.xx 1% (less than)
IE1.xx 0%
Lynx 3%
Mosaic 4%
Opera 6%
Others 9% (includes unknowns)
>Also stats can be very misleading.
>
Indeed.
The above stats are those people who are one of the following
1. visit more than one page
2. Have graphics on and visit only one page
Each host is counted once and not by number of pages read.
Different sites will, of course, have different percentages.
Jukka Korpela
<ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
<_KNN2.52418$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net>:
>I do see your point Pedt but most web designers these days prefer to design
>sites enhanced for modern (4.X+) browsers which the majority of people use,
>rather than making one site that looks unimpressive but also works with
>browsers that the minority use.
This has the nice implication that one needs to do very little to
create pages which are much better than the average. Actually, if one
just uses simple markup, the pages will most probably look better
_both_ on "4.X+ browsers" (whatever that really means) _and_ on other
browsers. Naturally they also work robustly.
One point is that most attempts to "enhance" pages for "modern"
browsers are just misguided. Another point is that people who know how
to do _real_ enhancements usually know how to do them in a manner
which has no harmful effects on browsers which don't support them.
But this issue is rather abstract. For any specific "enhanced" page
which breaks on older browsers, it is usually easy to point out (a)
how many of the enhancements actually make things worse and (b) how
the potentially useful enhancements could be done in a non-destructive
manner (keyword: graceful degradation) - and _would_ have been done so
rather automatically, if the author had started from a simple
structure and its implementation and then added enhancements.
As usual, people talk so much about site design issues and the
"necessity" of using something that does not work at all on old enough
(or new enough? who knows) browsers. One seldom cites specific URLs,
perhaps because that would rather soon reveal that the arguments are
demonstrably false.
There's little point in carrying this discussion in a large assortment
of newsgroups. Followups trimmed to c.i.w.a.site-design.
--
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html
Jim Ley
<j...@removethisjt10000.com> wrote:
>If the client has the money and the designer has the time, it seems to
>me there is an important 3rd choice that's best -- design a site that
>uses some sort of browser detection to offer visitors with more
>"advances" browsers any desired bells and whistles and visitors with
>other browsers a "simpler" version of the site.
Browser detection really isn't that easy, it could be deliberately
broken by a user (maybe not through there own choice but by their
network sys-admin - you know the odd guy sitting in his room playing
with his dongles all day who thinks it's cool to have all the browsers
report some weird UA) It's extremely difficult to get it to work with
the latest browser releases - and you surely wouldn't want them
excluded - those are the people who would are obviously looking for
the features that these browsers would give them.
Whilst some sort of browser sniffing may get you up to 1 in 20, it
could also break another 1 in 20 - putting you right back where you
started - Especially if it breaks in NN4 because it's trying to run
the IE4 JavaScript - that looks incredibly unprofessional - I've
refused to consider working for a company that did that on their
page....
Jim.
(see follow-ups)
Sax of London
>>If the client has the money and the designer has the time, it seems to
>>me there is an important 3rd choice that's best -- design a site that
>>uses some sort of browser detection to offer visitors with more
>>"advances" browsers any desired bells and whistles and visitors with
>>other browsers a "simpler" version of the site.
I don't know if this was covered earlier in the thread, but why not just
ask the reader? Lots of sites ask if the user wants frames, for
instance.
--
Sax of London
Email: sax (at) wychcraft.demon.co.uk <-- I don't want ANY spam!
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
The principle is that you should do what's best for the client. If you
go along with the client's mistaken ideas, you're not being a
professional, you're being a lackey.
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
wrote:
>Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING <netaddic...@yahoo.com> schrieb/wrote:
>> Obviously you're missing the entire point of the World Wide Web.
>"Web Design" is not about hitting the point of the World Wide Web or
>creating good websites. Web design is about making customers happy.
>Unfortunatly, these customers usually understand less about the WWW than
>the designers. They have seen other "Killer Web Sites" and want
>something that looks equally good. Explaining to them why this is a bad
>idea -- because it won't look good in other browsers -- is too much
>hassle for the designers, especially as you are risking driving them to
>competitors.
It's part of your job, if you're a professional. If it's "too much of
a hassle," that's a sure sign of amateurism. Doing things the right
way is often a hassle.
>Just doing what the customer wants is easier, and -- given that most
>visitors that are locked out don't complain (or even can't as they are
>unable to even access the correct mail address) -- makes the customer
>more happy.
Doing what's easiest rather than what's best is another sign of
amateurism. You can paint by numbers, if you like, but that doesn't
make you an artist.
>It they happen to complain about inaccessibility, you can still argue
>that is what they ordered and that it is the visitor's fault if they are
>using non-state-of-the-art software or redo the website.
And what do you reply when the customer says, quite correctly, "But I
hired you because I thought you were a professional. Why didn't you
give me the benefit of your expertise up front, when it would have
been helpful?"
At that point, your only real reply is "Duh."
Paul Gregg
> No, I would say BexleyNet are the best.
> Cheap, fast web hosting available at http://www.bexleynet.co.uk
[snip]
Old internet saying.
Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick Two.
Paul Gregg
--
Email pgregg at tibus.net | CLUB24 | Email pgregg at nyx.net |
Technical Director | INTERNET | System Administrator |
The Internet Business Ltd | Free Access | Nyx Public Access Internet |
http://www.tibus.net | www.club24.co.uk | http://www.nyx.net |
Bowler
had no idea how to do it but was required to learn. Now we are in the
process of getting our site registered with the search engines. How do you
do you do this?? Is it necessary to go through a service that charges a fee?
What go Meta names do. I have seen stuff about these and know that they go
on the first page, Right?? Can they be on each page of the site?? What would
the benefit be? How do the search engines search for the information on your
site? The site has to do with ice rinks. Is it necessary To have my key
words be :
Ice,
Rink,
Ice Rink,
Ice Rinks.
Are all those necessary? Please e-mail me with any help you can give me.
dus...@deskmedia.com
Vista my First site and tell me what you think. Remember it is my first site
so I dont have any cool Java or any thing like that.
www.rinksystems.com
John Kestner
<ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>1. Design a site which is less impressive but works with most browsers so as
>not to deter a minority of visitors to the site.
>
>2. Design a site which works with only modern browsers which a majority of
>people use, and impress the visitor into taking more of an interest into the
>site, so they may be more likely to buy the companies products.
>
>It can be a hard decision deciding which comes first.
Don't confuse "impress the visitor" with "impress the client". We are so
deep into this stuff sometimes, we forget the bells and whistles are
impressive _technology_ - and not really conducive to getting the
visitor's business done. With the exception of the few businesses that
sell "hipness" as their product (like clothing manufacturers), the whizzy
technologies don't generally convey anything valuable.
Consistently, the visitors that bother to compliment my corporate site
mention how enjoyable it is to find exactly what they were looking for,
and how the information is presented without flashy distractions (and yes,
this can be done while also presenting an "image").
Admittedly, this is not necessarily the goal of every company, but I don't
see how you can go wrong reminding yourself that people go to websites to
get _information_. Can that information best be represented by Java
applets and Shockwave, or text and simple graphics? And is whatever
information you're presenting worth cutting out a portion of your
audience? Weigh the cost/benefits.
john
--
----
The real in us is silent; the acquired is talkative. - Kahlil Gibran
Gil Harvey
compelled to write:
>The principle is that you should do what's best for the client. If you
>go along with the client's mistaken ideas, you're not being a
>professional, you're being a lackey.
More than likely you're being unemployed
Tero Paananen
>>The principle is that you should do what's best for the client. If you
>>go along with the client's mistaken ideas, you're not being a
>>professional, you're being a lackey.
> More than likely you're being unemployed
Uh. Everybody else seems to be drowning in work...
-TPP
Jim Kissel
<fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>Me too. There's no reason to dumb-down properly made WWW pages for Lynx
>access: Lynx copes with them just fine.
>
tables extensively
jlk Consultants ltd.
jlk "at" pobox "dot" com // just to keep the spam away
Home of the Apache RTFM! http://www.jlk.net/apache/
Alan J. Flavell
> Except AFAIK Lynx doesn't cope well with tables,
It copes pretty well with tables-used-as-layout: by disregarding them,
which is often the right thing to do. emacs-w3 (another text browser)
takes tables-for-layout seriously, which often produces a much less
useful result than Lynx.
It's true, as you say, that Lynx does not format tables.
> and I use tables extensively
For what? The only URL you give is this:
> Home of the Apache RTFM! http://www.jlk.net/apache/
and Lynx does just fine on that, including the bogosity alert for
your failure to use ALT attributes properly.
[INLINE] [INLINE] [INLINE]
jlk Consultants ltd.
brings you
Apache RTFM!
* Why an RTFM?
* Beginners Start Here!
+ Minimum configuration options
+ Others startup options
+ All of the Beginners Sections
* Configuring CGIs
+ Getting Started with CGI
+ Testing CGI's
and so on.
I looked at a few pages in that RTFM, and none of them seemed to really
illustrate anything one way or the other.
OK, let's try your top level page. Imagine these texts being read
out to you by a speaking machine (one popular application of Lynx)
or displayed in a limited space (640x200px palmtop, say):
emacs-w3:
Website HTML, Forms,
development: Image Maps,
The basic CGI Scripting
technologies and custom
graphics
Other Perl and 'C'
services you Programming,
may need that Custom search
we provide engines,
I'd say Lynx does this better:
Website development: The basic technologies HTML, Forms, Image Maps,
CGI Scripting and custom graphics
Other services you may need that we provide Perl and 'C' Programming,
Custom search engines,
Neither is ideal, it's true, but in a difficult browsing situation it's
the content that counts, not some precise visual layout (that was
designed for a graphical display, as often as not).
To summarise: if Lynx had support for TABLEs, it would be desirable to
have a user option to disable it, IMO.
One _can_ adjust "real" tables (i.e tabular data) for better display
in Lynx, but I'm not saying that anyone _ought_ to do that: it's their
choice, after all (I just provide a few suggestions of how it might be
done if they want to).
Roving Reporter
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, William G. Schlake wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:26:15 GMT, netaddic...@yahoo.com (Shawn
>K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>>In message <knSN2.52741$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net>, Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>Yahoo! used to use stupid
>>browser detection, and still might (they once served a horribly
>>crippled version of the site to Lynx users and only Lynx users,
>>AFAICT). Of course you realize "enhancing [one's] site for IE or NN"
>>goes against the whole idea of the WWW, right?
>Wrong, that would be your silly idea.
>
>If you're dumb enough to use Lynx then seeing ugly looking pages is
>all you deserve to see. It doesn't mean everyone else got to drum down
>their sites just so you don't feel left out.
Boy, you talk about arrogance. Lynx is also the browser of choice for blind
people. In addition to that, many countries are still just getting up to
speed and may not be there for awhile, so Lynx, being less cumbersome and
faster in many respects, is the browser preferred for lower phone bills and
being able to run on many more computers (I refer to 286, 386, etc.)
without crashing.
If your target audience is the disabled community, you better damn well
know how to design for accessibility or else you will get no customers!!!
Furthermore, in the U.S., equal access is the LAW under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and people are starting to sue when that access
is not provided.
So there, Mr. KnowNothing.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
Roving Reporter
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Jim Kissel wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:30:24 +0200, "Alan J. Flavell"
><fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>>Me too. There's no reason to dumb-down properly made WWW pages for Lynx
>>access: Lynx copes with them just fine.
>>
>Except AFAIK Lynx doesn't cope well with tables, and I use
>tables extensively
You don't know how to write tables for accessibility *and*
you are probably misusing them.
Joe Barta
[snip]
>Furthermore, in the U.S., equal access is the LAW under the Americans with
>Disabilities Act of 1990, and people are starting to sue when that access
>is not provided.
Let's be realistic here. Sueing because you can't roll into the Post
Office is a little different than sueing because you can't get to my
list of MP-threez. Part of the above snippage makes the point that if
your site caters to the handicapped, you would want to make it as
accessible as possible. Fine. Agreed. But I think it's fairly safe to
assume that anyone authoring a site for handicapped people is already
"accessibility sensitive" and doesn't need to be told this. We can
further assume then that the only ones who DO need to be told this
probably DON'T cater to the handicapped, therefore that particular
issue is moot. To infer that John Q. Webmeister may get sued if his
site is inaccessible to blind people is a teensy bit on the ridiculous
side.
- Joe Barta
The Brailler
I have been reading these articles about web
page design with great interest.
Why with great interest well I have made
My sites Totally Accessible to all
Not like the great many sites out there
who not even take the trouble to try to do this in any way.
I have found many sites that people like my self
just cannot enter.
That people who are Deafblind, Blind net users
Even the ALT Tags on images are not on there sites.
and you cannot find your way around them.
Making a Site Accessible doesn't seem to be in the mind
of many webmasters and Designers on the net.
As long as they look good to the sighted hearing net user
then it OK.
But remember the net is not all just for the sighted hearing
world,
We all enjoy the net with it's vast information out there,
but remember to try and KEEP it accessible to all
so we all can learn new things and learn about each other.
We are all in this and should be aware of what
we should do and should not do when it comes to Web page design.
If you would like to go to
a sites which is accessible but not the best or most
interesting one for the sighted hearing readers of this group.
then try a site which I made myself
<http://www.s55wilma.demon.co.uk>
<http://www.deafblind.com>
I do hope that you will find them of some use
to you when you think about updating you site.
and may try to make them accessible to ALL.
I hope that you did not find this e-mail letter to
boring.
Just my little thought about this subject.
all the very best to all on the group
Yours
--
The Brailler
In article <john-05049...@gdsl116.phnx.uswest.net>,
jo...@coloured.net says...
William G. Schlake
wrote:
>(Followups snipped)
>
>On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, William G. Schlake wrote:
>>On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:26:15 GMT, netaddic...@yahoo.com (Shawn
>>K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING) wrote:
>>>In message <knSN2.52741$Eb....@nnrp2.clara.net>, Rich <ri...@jtr.clara.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>Yahoo! used to use stupid
>>>browser detection, and still might (they once served a horribly
>>>crippled version of the site to Lynx users and only Lynx users,
>>>AFAICT). Of course you realize "enhancing [one's] site for IE or NN"
>>>goes against the whole idea of the WWW, right?
>
>>Wrong, that would be your silly idea.
>>
>>If you're dumb enough to use Lynx then seeing ugly looking pages is
>>all you deserve to see. It doesn't mean everyone else got to drum down
>>their sites just so you don't feel left out.
>
>Boy, you talk about arrogance. Lynx is also the browser of choice for blind
>people.
Oh please... let's stop the charade. I'm no more against the blind
then the purist clique is for the blind. What you're seeing is another
feeble attempt to loudly wail against the big-two browsers all true
purists love to hate. I would prefer to think most wouldn't be so
gullible and see through what is nothing more than another purist
smoke screen to further their propaganda.
What will your next campaign be for? Here's a few "hot" topics to pick
from:
Let's all write to the major magazine publishers and demand they only
use black and while...you know there are people that are color blind.
Once we get them on track we'll go after the TV networks and movie
studios.
or
Demand seats on buses, planes, trains all be made 30% wider. You know
there's a growing number of fat people with big rear ends that don't
fit in normal seats...they have "rights" too!
or
What are we going to do about all those classroom chairs with the arms
on the wrong side? Don't you know they're hard to use for left-handed
people? We must demand the arms be convertible!
or
I'm only five tall and darn if I don't have a hard time reaching
things on the top shelves when I go shopping. We got to change it so I
neither have to stretch or bend over...everything must be between two
feet off the floor and four feet.
Paul Clark
> Part of the above snippage makes the point that if
> your site caters to the handicapped, you would want to make it as
> accessible as possible. Fine. Agreed. But I think it's fairly safe to
> assume that anyone authoring a site for handicapped people is already
> "accessibility sensitive" and doesn't need to be told this. We can
> further assume then that the only ones who DO need to be told this
> probably DON'T cater to the handicapped, therefore that particular
> issue is moot.
I take issue with the implied idea that handicapped people need to be
catered for in a ghetto of their own, rather than being able to take
part in full society along with everyone else. I thought the world had
moved beyond that.
Look, in the vast majority of cases accessibility problems are caused by
laziness or lack of knowledge. There are very few cases where providing
accessible material means much extra work. In fact, I can't think of
any other technology where accommodation is so easy for service
providers (as a publisher on the Web, you are a service provider, even
if you don't charge for it). Adding a ramp or an inductive loop system
costs real money - Web accessibility is really a mindset, which costs
you nothing.
In fact, the change of emphasis to a structural rather than
presentational mindset which tends to go along with thinking about
accessibility will save you endless time and money in the long run as
browsers become more diverse.
> To infer that John Q. Webmeister may get sued if his
> site is inaccessible to blind people is a teensy bit on the ridiculous
> side.
If you mean JQW's personal home-page, true, he's unlikely to be sued.
Still, discrimination against the disabled may not be the image he wants
to project.
However, if JQW is contracting for The Federal Wombat-Protection Service
or MegaFoo Inc., just watch this space...
P.
--
Paul Clark mailto:p...@sysmag.com $ whois pc52
Systems Magic Ltd. http://www.sysmag.com
Paul Clark
that's OK]
The Brailler wrote:
> ...I have found many sites that people like my self
> just cannot enter.
> ... That people who are Deafblind, Blind net users
>
> Even the ALT Tags on images are not on there sites.
> and you cannot find your way around them.
> ...
> I hope that you did not find this e-mail letter to
> boring.
Not at all, thank you for sticking your head above the parapet, so to
speak. It's refreshing to hear from someone for whom this is a very
real requirement rather than a theoretical ideal.
I think your perspective would be enormously useful on these groups.
You mentioned lack of ALT attributes being a problem - that's the most
obvious one, I guess. I wonder could you list the other main things
that stop you using Web sites easily? There are plenty of documents
that describe it in theory, but I'd be interested in a direct personal
perspective.
I take it from your description of yourself that you are using a Braille
reader - could you describe the technology involved here? Is it a
specialised browser, or a 'screen reader' running off a generic one
(e.g. Lynx). Are there any particular problems that Braille output
causes, or solves (compared to speech output, say)?. Please excuse my
ignorance...
Best regards
Paul
Paul Clark
> Oh please... let's stop the charade. I'm no more against the blind
Earlier in this thread you wrote:
> If you're dumb enough to use Lynx then seeing ugly looking pages is
> all you deserve to see.
I'm sure we can all work out the implication for blind people from that,
and the sad irony in the use of the word 'to see'. Whether or not you
intended offence, are you going to apologise for it? In the meantime,
I'd take the following advice:
"When in a hole, stop digging"
I've responded separately to your fatuous 'campaign' examples.
P.
Paul Clark
>> What will your next campaign be for? Here's a few "hot" topics to pick
> from:
These 'hot topics' are all valid, except one. The fact that we aren't
campaigning for them is simply because we aren't directly concerned with
the transport/education/retail industries. Yes, I'm bloody serious.
> Let's all write to the major magazine publishers and demand they only
> use black and while...you know there are people that are color blind.
> Once we get them on track we'll go after the TV networks and movie
> studios.
Fatuous. Unless the magazine uses very bad design techniques which
would make the text unreadable anyway, this is not an issue. Compare
and contrast 'Hue' with 'Luminance', Mr. image expert.
> Demand seats on buses, planes, trains all be made 30% wider. You know
> there's a growing number of fat people with big rear ends that don't
> fit in normal seats...they have "rights" too!
True, and some of them suffer from unfortunate biochemical conditions
that make them that way. Many modes of transport do provide such
accommodation, even if it's just allocating two adjacent seats.
> What are we going to do about all those classroom chairs with the arms
> on the wrong side? Don't you know they're hard to use for left-handed
> people? We must demand the arms be convertible!
Yes, and as a left-hander, I have done, successfully.
> I'm only five tall and darn if I don't have a hard time reaching
> things on the top shelves when I go shopping. We got to change it so I
> neither have to stretch or bend over...everything must be between two
> feet off the floor and four feet.
See also "Achondroplastic Dwarfism". I imagine that existing disability
legislation already provides for this, either in the form of personal
help or some form of portable step. The fact that it may not be
implemented in your neighbourhood just means no-one has flexed their
statutory muscles yet.
You're doing well, Bill. You implied that blind people are 'dumb'
(doubly offensive). You then make fun of the problems encountered by
people who are larger or smaller than 'normal'. I'll pass on the
left-hander one - although some people feel very strongly about it, it's
never affected me much (except that it made me learn to touch-type
because my hand-writing is so awful... Lucky you ;-)
Joe Barta
>Joe Barta wrote:
>> Part of the above snippage makes the point that if
>> your site caters to the handicapped, you would want to make it as
>> accessible as possible. Fine. Agreed. But I think it's fairly safe to
>> assume that anyone authoring a site for handicapped people is already
>> "accessibility sensitive" and doesn't need to be told this. We can
>> further assume then that the only ones who DO need to be told this
>> probably DON'T cater to the handicapped, therefore that particular
>> issue is moot.
>
>I take issue with the implied idea that handicapped people need to be
>catered for in a ghetto of their own, rather than being able to take
>part in full society along with everyone else. I thought the world had
>moved beyond that.
If handicapped people don't need to be catered for in a ghetto of
their own and are able to take part in full society along with
everyone else, then why would you even suggest that web authors pay
them special consideration? You're attempting to walk the fence here.
Either we take their special needs into consideration or we don't.
Either you think they need special treatment or you think they don't.
I thought handicapped people moved beyond THAT.
>Look, in the vast majority of cases accessibility problems are caused by
>laziness or lack of knowledge. There are very few cases where providing
>accessible material means much extra work. In fact, I can't think of
>any other technology where accommodation is so easy for service
>providers (as a publisher on the Web, you are a service provider, even
>if you don't charge for it). Adding a ramp or an inductive loop system
>costs real money - Web accessibility is really a mindset, which costs
>you nothing.
Everything costs something. However, I agree that web accessibility is
a mindset, as are many other things.
>In fact, the change of emphasis to a structural rather than
>presentational mindset which tends to go along with thinking about
>accessibility will save you endless time and money in the long run as
>browsers become more diverse.
I think that as browsers (user-agents is the technically correct
term?) become more diverse, it is the web content that will drive the
browser capabilities rather than the browsers driving the content. In
other words, a browser that can't successfully deal with A, B and C
won't have a prayer. Mix up C & B and then through D into the mix...
the browser better be able to handle that as well or it's going to be
on the losing end of the rope and people using it will keep getting
pulled into the mud.
>> To infer that John Q. Webmeister may get sued if his
>> site is inaccessible to blind people is a teensy bit on the ridiculous
>> side.
>
>If you mean JQW's personal home-page, true, he's unlikely to be sued.
>Still, discrimination against the disabled may not be the image he wants
>to project.
Not taking the handicapped's special requirements into consideration
is hardly what I call discrimination. Or wait, I thought they don't
have special requirements and can take part in full society along with
everyone else? Hmm. Either way, discrimination implies a deliberate
attempt to keep someone out. Your statement about projecting an image
of discriminating against the disabled is mush. On at least two counts
there's nothing there.
>
>However, if JQW is contracting for The Federal Wombat-Protection Service
>or MegaFoo Inc., just watch this space...
Working on a federally funded project has many requirements and many
pitfalls. I had one bad taste and avoid it like the plague. As far as
larger corporations... well, they are often the victims of the deep
pocket theory - Whoever has the deepest pockets gets sued... often by
some lilly livered, tree hugging, politically correct, social services
dependant, rarely gainfully employed liberal screaming DISCRIMINATION.
Unfortunately we haven't moved beyond THAT.
- Joe Barta
catnip
>To infer that John Q. Webmeister may get sued if his
>site is inaccessible to blind people is a teensy bit on the ridiculous
>side.
Not from what I know of the good ole US of A where filing a lawsuit is
as common as changing one's underwear.
catnip