Web site critique

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

http://continentalkit.com/

Looking for several things:

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

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

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

Neo Geshel wrote:

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

Well the only people that will appreciate this:

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

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

--
-=tn=-

Travis Newbury wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:

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


Well the only people that will appreciate this:

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

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

tweaks Newbury’s nose /

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

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

:-)

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

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

Neo Geshel wrote:

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


Well the only people that will appreciate this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Gazza
Mobile Number Network Checker - http://mnnc.net/
Creative writing & Poems - http://garyjones.co.uk/
Leovanna Leonbergers - http://leovanna.co.uk/

On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:26:36 GMT, Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> wrote:

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

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

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

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

While the city slept, Neo Geshel (gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org) feverishly typed...

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

http://continentalkit.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps,
Nige

--
Nigel Moss http://www.nigenet.org.uk
Mail address will bounce. nigel (AT) DOG (DOT) nigenet.org.uk | Take the DOG. out!
"Your mother ate my dog!", "Not all of him!"

Gazza wrote:

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

Neo Geshel wrote:

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



Well the only people that will appreciate this:

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

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


Nor does the OP apparently:
Fails CSS validation.

Really?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...css/global.css
Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get “Failed�from
“Congratulations! Valid CSS! This document validates as CSS! �.

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

Really?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ntalkit.com%2F
Somehow, I can't understand how you manage to get "Failed" from "This
Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1!"

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

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

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

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

I just did. Who's looking silly now?

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

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

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

Mea Culpa. That, at least, can be “fixed�, and it has been.

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

Neo Geshel wrote:

Gazza wrote:



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

Neo Geshel wrote:

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




Well the only people that will appreciate this:

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

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



Nor does the OP apparently:
Fails CSS validation.


Really?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...css/global.css

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

However:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...nentalkit.com/

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

--
Oli

kchayka wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:

Gazza wrote:

Fails Automated WAI Level A, let alone Level AAA.

I don�t know what you used to do the validation on these, but this site:
http://webxact.watchfire.com/


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Oli Filth wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:
Gazza wrote:
Travis Newbury mumbled the following on 16/05/2005 09:49:
Neo Geshel wrote:
Just looking for a 10,000 foot overview of this web site:

Well the only people that will appreciate this:

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

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

Nor does the OP apparently:
Fails CSS validation.

Really?
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...css/global.css

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


However:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...nentalkit.com/

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

Yes, but I have no control over the mime-type that the server puts out

(the site isn’t hosted with us), and a quick search of google hasn’t
turned up anything that I can use in PHP (without throwing an error,
that is). If you have any links that show me how I can get the server to
modify a normal page’s mime-type through PHP (before the page is sent to
the user), I'd be glad to implement it. So far, most everything that I
have come across is related to setting the mime-type of an upload to the
server.

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