![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
| |||
| |||
|
|
Seeing as this is posted to alt.html, be careful when taking this guy's advice as he has an irresistible urge to change the text size of every site he visits despite having perfectly good eyesight just so that he can criticize. |
|
Why he doesn't use the zoom function is a mystery and one can only assume that his false eyesight issue only affects text. |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Strike zero. Quoting signatures on usenet. I'll let you off on that one though. [...] Eight strikes. Andy, you are... out. |
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Andy" <a... (AT) REMOVETOEMAILmanyplay (DOT) com> wrote in message news:6a9gm.88611$Cj1.33551 (AT) newsfe30 (DOT) ams2... Being how this is posted to alt.html, be careful of using this site asa model for general markup or design or CSS, the author seems unaware of fundamental usability issues. Apart for errors in validation, see what happens when user uses a text size that the author never anticipated even though the trouble starts at just one click up in "text only" enlargement. -- dorayme Strike zero. Quoting signatures on usenet. I'll let you off on that one though. Seeing as this is posted to alt.html, be careful when taking this guy's Strike one. dorayme is a girl, as you might have ascertained if you had hung around for the requisite week or so before barging in here. And when you post to alt.html be very very prepared to have anything you exhibit to be critically appraised by people who can probably write web pages far far better that you can. advice as [s]he has an irresistible urge to change the text size of every site [s]he visits Strike two. Who are you to dictate what your viewer does with her quite valid browser settings? Those settings are there for a *reason* (accessibility), or do you think browser manufacturers simply put them in there so dorayme can use them to break your site? despite having perfectly good eyesight Strike three. How can you be so arrogant to presume that everybody on this planet has eyesight as good as yours. FWIW I have somewhat bad eyesight and I found your pitifully small 10 pixel text hard to read, even with my especially designed computer glasses. Some people (and I, occasionally) set their quite valid browser settings so as to enforce a minimum font size of, say,18 pixels. This quite valid browser setting destroys your web site. Who is to blame for this? The browser manufactures who provided the setting? The viewer who has usilised the setting? You? I think *I* know who is to blame :-) That would be the author of the website in question. ] |
|
just so that [s]he can criticize. Strike four. Not criticism. Just plainly stating that your site breaks accessibility rules. You posted to a newsgroup dedicated to using HTML to build *good* web sites, accessible to everybody, regardless of their visual acuity. Yours it not a good web site. Expect, accept and utilize the critique. I think you will find that Andy has got similar notifications about |
|
Why [s]he doesn't use the zoom function is a mystery Strike five. Perhaps doraymes browser does not *have* a zoom function that enlarges the entire page. Some of mine don't. And the ones that do I turn the function off as it pisses me right off to have a permanent horizontal scroll bar. and one can only assume that his[her] false eyesight issue only affects text. Strike six. Another arrogant assumption that we actually need to enlarge the images as well as the text. Look at your page, the images are largely eye candy. This apart from the fact that you are implying that dorayme is lying about her visual skills. As an ex hallway monitor, [s]he has a penchant for rule breaking and believes that only sites that pass strict validation are worth looking at Strike seven. Once again apart from the strawman argument, if you really believe that invalid HTML is worthwhile then simply wait until the next release of <pick your browser> error corrects your invalid code in a way that breaks your site. It happens all the time with invalid code presented to the most used browser out there. despite the fact that none of the top sites in the world pass and that the validation tool often gives false results. Strike eight. The standard lemming approach to validation. Heard here quite often. Eight strikes. Andy, you are... out. On the topic of validation I read a message in another NG just before, |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On the topic of validation I read a message in another NG just before, from a web designer / developer saying that "IE6 is still the best browser on the market". |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
Chaddy2222 wrote: On the topic of validation I read a message in another NG just before, from a web designer / developer saying that "IE6 is still the best browser on the market". Which millennium was that written in, Chaddy? * :-) That post was written yesterday would you believe. |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Aug 12, 2:45 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote: Chaddy2222 wrote: On the topic of validation I read a message in another NG just before, from a web designer / developer saying that "IE6 is still the best browser on the market". Which millennium was that written in, Chaddy? :-) That post was written yesterday would you believe. http://groups.google.com.au/group/biz.marketplace.web-design/browse_thread/thread/906c1e81dcd97260?hl=en# |
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Chaddy2222 wrote: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: Chaddy2222 wrote: On the topic of validation I read a message in another NG just before, from a web designer / developer saying that "IE6 is still the best browser on the market". Which millennium was that written in, Chaddy? :-) That post was written yesterday would you believe. http://groups.google.com.au/group/biz.marketplace.web-design/browse_thread/thread/906c1e81dcd97260?hl=en# |
|
Sure that was a web deziner! He also might be a paid promoter for our friend AW |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |