 | |
Re: Another Interesting Story Regarding Accessability
Web Accessibility alt.html.web-accessibility
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
 
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
|
Re: Another Interesting Story Regarding Accessability -
12-04-2005
, 10:28 AM
|
Hi all. I found this post in alt.comp.blind-users yesterday and thaught it might be of interest to you all.. |
Quote:
|
--------------- I am a member of the Hertfordshire Society for the Blind and attended it's A.G.M. on 17th November. One of the activities at this event was the launch of their new web site on www.hertsblind.com on that day.. |
http://www.hertsblind.com
Quote:
|
It was very difficult at this time to fully review the site, but I did so when I got back to a PC with full access to a screen reader, in my case Window-eyes. |
contributions of a blind reviewer would be more than welcome at
news:alt.www.webmaster where the beer is warm, the kettle is always on and
the regulars are (mostly) touchy feely friendly.
Quote:
|
I found that the site was not properly accessible to people using a screen reader, in fact an issue which was known about and published on the site itself. That day I pointed out, in e-mail, the access problems with the site and requested that something be done abut it urgently. |
tasked with reviewing the site.
Quote:
|
Despite protestations from the senior staff of HSB that they had taken the needs of visually impaired people into account and that they would fix the site the issue is not being dealt with in the manner which I would expect. |
Quote:
|
Today I was notified that it may be corrected by the end of January. |
Quote:
|
I am sorry, but the message that this gives out is that the needs of visually impaired people who use the internet are very much secondary to some other greater need. I find this totally unacceptable from a body designed to help visually impaired people. |
effort (and not a small amount of talent) to screw them up so they
completely unusable.
Quote:
|
I am told that the HSB does not have vast funds and so cannot do what larger charities do with their web sites; a very cursory inspection of the site would show that the access changes required are not great, but would then enable it to be useable. |
accessible copy (assumes content is present and correct) for approx £300 -
£600 (+ VAT if applicable) - vast funds?
Obviously the cost of gathering content and establishing requirements is
not included in that guess as those tasks are now complete - for some
values of complete.
Quote:
|
For a reason I do not understand HSB have been advised that the site builder requires a new piece of software in order to make it compatible with screen readers and that this will need to be learnt before it can be put in place. I don't buy this excuse! |
experience.
Quote:
|
Some examples of the issues on the site (which I have informed HSB about): On many pages, if not all there are what I take to be links to other information which are not accessible. These are the usual navigation links. |
Quote:
|
They have been set up with a graphical link rather than what I believe is the standard kind of link which screen readers can use. |
Quote:
|
On the front page Window-Eyes reports 5 links, where I believe there are in excess of 22 on it. |
Quote:
|
It is actually fairly difficult for a user with a screen reader to Comment on the site as the link to the Contact Us and Comments sections are not accessible. |
Quote:
|
There are a number of documents which can be downloaded for subsequent use. They appear to be some sort of protected Word document. Once downloaded, due to the protection you cannot use the cursor to navigate around them. Some access is available with a virtual mouse, but that is far from properly accessible. A PDF document would have been much better. |
Quote:
|
It would be nice if the site were to make a little more concession to Its VIP readers and accommodate changing of font size and colour to allow for easier reading for those with some sight. |
builder has to specifically prevent this.
Quote:
|
By means of this e-mail I would hope that the HSB would receive a greater deal of lobbying in order to make their site accessible in a more acceptable time frame. Regards, John. John Farley ... |
from professional (and enthusiastic amateur) webmasters would assist then
please say so - include AWW in your response.
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
#2
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> said: Hi all. I found this post in alt.comp.blind-users yesterday and thaught it might be of interest to you all.. [Original Group restored and others added as appropriate] --------------- I am a member of the Hertfordshire Society for the Blind and attended it's A.G.M. on 17th November. One of the activities at this event was the launch of their new web site on www.hertsblind.com on that day.. For the benefit of those without guessing software, that is http://www.hertsblind.com It was very difficult at this time to fully review the site, but I did so when I got back to a PC with full access to a screen reader, in my case Window-eyes. I wonder if the o/p does a lot of site reviewing? certainly the contributions of a blind reviewer would be more than welcome at news:alt.www.webmaster where the beer is warm, the kettle is always on and the regulars are (mostly) touchy feely friendly. I use the internet quite a bit and do let various web masters know when |
that would be of help. I prefer room temperature beer to warm beer though!
Please contact me off list.
Quote:
|
I found that the site was not properly accessible to people using a screen reader, in fact an issue which was known about and published on the site itself. That day I pointed out, in e-mail, the access problems with the site and requested that something be done abut it urgently. For the record, it would be useful to know if the o/p had actually been tasked with reviewing the site. No I was not tasked to do so, I just took it on myself to try to get it |
adequate. I am aware of other visually impaired people who did review the
site before it was launched who did make unfavourable comment about it. This
comment was not considered sufficient to delay the launch!
Quote:
|
Despite protestations from the senior staff of HSB that they had taken the needs of visually impaired people into account and that they would fix the site the issue is not being dealt with in the manner which I would expect. Unfortunately, an all to frequent occurrence. Today I was notified that it may be corrected by the end of January. any particular January? My thought entirely. I am sorry, but the message that this gives out is that the needs of visually impaired people who use the internet are very much secondary to some other greater need. I find this totally unacceptable from a body designed to help visually impaired people. Sasly, web docu\ments are accessible by design - it takes considerable effort (and not a small amount of talent) to screw them up so they completely unusable. I am told that the HSB does not have vast funds and so cannot do what larger charities do with their web sites; a very cursory inspection of the site would show that the access changes required are not great, but would then enable it to be useable. From a standing start, I'd suggest a competent site builder could make an accessible copy (assumes content is present and correct) for approx £300 - £600 (+ VAT if applicable) - vast funds? Obviously the cost of gathering content and establishing requirements is not included in that guess as those tasks are now complete - for some values of complete. I cannot say how much the HSB might be prepared to commit to this as I am |
Quote:
|
For a reason I do not understand HSB have been advised that the site builder requires a new piece of software in order to make it compatible with screen readers and that this will need to be learnt before it can be put in place. I don't buy this excuse! Me neither - it demonstrates (at best) a complete lack of talent and experience. I think that is being kind . Some examples of the issues on the site (which I have informed HSB about): On many pages, if not all there are what I take to be links to other information which are not accessible. These are the usual navigation links. Examples would be useful. On the left of each page there are what I believe are links to "home", |
Quote:
|
They have been set up with a graphical link rather than what I believe is the standard kind of link which screen readers can use. That would be text. On the front page Window-Eyes reports 5 links, where I believe there are in excess of 22 on it. I 'see' 19 - my software agrees with the o/p. It is actually fairly difficult for a user with a screen reader to Comment on the site as the link to the Contact Us and Comments sections are not accessible. astonishing really There are a number of documents which can be downloaded for subsequent use. They appear to be some sort of protected Word document. Once downloaded, due to the protection you cannot use the cursor to navigate around them. Some access is available with a virtual mouse, but that is far from properly accessible. A PDF document would have been much better. Plain text better still. It would be nice if the site were to make a little more concession to Its VIP readers and accommodate changing of font size and colour to allow for easier reading for those with some sight. again - this is something that web documents allow by default. The site builder has to specifically prevent this. By means of this e-mail I would hope that the HSB would receive a greater deal of lobbying in order to make their site accessible in a more acceptable time frame. Regards, John. John Farley ... Can't help with the lobbying I'm afraid, but if serious detailed comment from professional (and enthusiastic amateur) webmasters would assist then |
author for the site. Maybe someone who knows what he is doing. However, as I
said earlier I have no influence on what they may do.
Quote:
|
please say so - include AWW in your response. |
Quote:
|
-- William Tasso Save the drama for your Mama. |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> said: Hi all. I found this post in alt.comp.blind-users yesterday and thaught it might be of interest to you all.. [Original Group restored and others added as appropriate] --------------- I am a member of the Hertfordshire Society for the Blind and attended it's A.G.M. on 17th November. One of the activities at this event was the launch of their new web site on www.hertsblind.com on that day.. For the benefit of those without guessing software, that is http://www.hertsblind.com It was very difficult at this time to fully review the site, but I did so when I got back to a PC with full access to a screen reader, in my case Window-eyes. I wonder if the o/p does a lot of site reviewing? certainly the contributions of a blind reviewer would be more than welcome at news:alt.www.webmaster where the beer is warm, the kettle is always on and the regulars are (mostly) touchy feely friendly. I found that the site was not properly accessible to people using a screen reader, in fact an issue which was known about and published on the site itself. That day I pointed out, in e-mail, the access problems with the site and requested that something be done abut it urgently. For the record, it would be useful to know if the o/p had actually been tasked with reviewing the site. Despite protestations from the senior staff of HSB that they had taken the needs of visually impaired people into account and that they would fix the site the issue is not being dealt with in the manner which I would expect. Unfortunately, an all to frequent occurrence. Today I was notified that it may be corrected by the end of January. any particular January? I am sorry, but the message that this gives out is that the needs of visually impaired people who use the internet are very much secondary to some other greater need. I find this totally unacceptable from a body designed to help visually impaired people. Sasly, web documents are accessible by design - it takes considerable effort (and not a small amount of talent) to screw them up so they completely unusable. I am told that the HSB does not have vast funds and so cannot do what larger charities do with their web sites; a very cursory inspection of the site would show that the access changes required are not great, but would then enable it to be useable. From a standing start, I'd suggest a competent site builder could make an accessible copy (assumes content is present and correct) for approx £300 - £600 (+ VAT if applicable) - vast funds? Obviously the cost of gathering content and establishing requirements is not included in that guess as those tasks are now complete - for some values of complete. For a reason I do not understand HSB have been advised that the site builder requires a new piece of software in order to make it compatible with screen readers and that this will need to be learnt before it can be put in place. I don't buy this excuse! Me neither - it demonstrates (at best) a complete lack of talent and experience. Some examples of the issues on the site (which I have informed HSB about): On many pages, if not all there are what I take to be links to other information which are not accessible. These are the usual navigation links. Examples would be useful. They have been set up with a graphical link rather than what I believe is the standard kind of link which screen readers can use. That would be text. On the front page Window-Eyes reports 5 links, where I believe there are in excess of 22 on it. I 'see' 19 - my software agrees with the o/p. It is actually fairly difficult for a user with a screen reader to Comment on the site as the link to the Contact Us and Comments sections are not accessible. astonishing really There are a number of documents which can be downloaded for subsequent use. They appear to be some sort of protected Word document. Once downloaded, due to the protection you cannot use the cursor to navigate around them. Some access is available with a virtual mouse, but that is far from properly accessible. A PDF document would have been much better. Plain text better still. It would be nice if the site were to make a little more concession to Its VIP readers and accommodate changing of font size and colour to allow for easier reading for those with some sight. again - this is something that web documents allow by default. The site builder has to specifically prevent this. By means of this e-mail I would hope that the HSB would receive a greater deal of lobbying in order to make their site accessible in a more acceptable time frame. Regards, John. John Farley ... Can't help with the lobbying I'm afraid, but if serious detailed comment from professional (and enthusiastic amateur) webmasters would assist then please say so - include AWW in your response. -- William Tasso Save the drama for your Mama. |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Incidentally, how does a blind person open an account on Yahoo these days? Type in the characters from the picture? Really... What are they thinking.. We have been here before with Hotmail and probably Google if its still as it was. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1 (AT) blueyonder (DOT) co.uk __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote in message news  p.s09mk5x4m9g4qz-wnt (AT) tbdata (DOT) com...Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> said: Hi all. I found this post in alt.comp.blind-users yesterday and thaught it might be of interest to you all.. [Original Group restored and others added as appropriate] --------------- I am a member of the Hertfordshire Society for the Blind and attended it's A.G.M. on 17th November. One of the activities at this event was the launch of their new web site on www.hertsblind.com on that day.. For the benefit of those without guessing software, that is http://www.hertsblind.com It was very difficult at this time to fully review the site, but I did so when I got back to a PC with full access to a screen reader, in my case Window-eyes. I wonder if the o/p does a lot of site reviewing? certainly the contributions of a blind reviewer would be more than welcome at news:alt.www.webmaster where the beer is warm, the kettle is always on and the regulars are (mostly) touchy feely friendly. I found that the site was not properly accessible to people using a screen reader, in fact an issue which was known about and published on the site itself. That day I pointed out, in e-mail, the access problems with the site and requested that something be done abut it urgently. For the record, it would be useful to know if the o/p had actually been tasked with reviewing the site. Despite protestations from the senior staff of HSB that they had taken the needs of visually impaired people into account and that they would fix the site the issue is not being dealt with in the manner which I would expect. Unfortunately, an all to frequent occurrence. Today I was notified that it may be corrected by the end of January. any particular January? I am sorry, but the message that this gives out is that the needs of visually impaired people who use the internet are very much secondary to some other greater need. I find this totally unacceptable from a body designed to help visually impaired people. Sasly, web documents are accessible by design - it takes considerable effort (and not a small amount of talent) to screw them up so they completely unusable. I am told that the HSB does not have vast funds and so cannot do what larger charities do with their web sites; a very cursory inspection of the site would show that the access changes required are not great, but would then enable it to be useable. From a standing start, I'd suggest a competent site builder could make an accessible copy (assumes content is present and correct) for approx £300 - £600 (+ VAT if applicable) - vast funds? Obviously the cost of gathering content and establishing requirements is not included in that guess as those tasks are now complete - for some values of complete. For a reason I do not understand HSB have been advised that the site builder requires a new piece of software in order to make it compatible with screen readers and that this will need to be learnt before it can be put in place. I don't buy this excuse! Me neither - it demonstrates (at best) a complete lack of talent and experience. Some examples of the issues on the site (which I have informed HSB about): On many pages, if not all there are what I take to be links to other information which are not accessible. These are the usual navigation links. Examples would be useful. They have been set up with a graphical link rather than what I believe is the standard kind of link which screen readers can use. That would be text. On the front page Window-Eyes reports 5 links, where I believe there are in excess of 22 on it. I 'see' 19 - my software agrees with the o/p. It is actually fairly difficult for a user with a screen reader to Comment on the site as the link to the Contact Us and Comments sections are not accessible. astonishing really There are a number of documents which can be downloaded for subsequent use. They appear to be some sort of protected Word document. Once downloaded, due to the protection you cannot use the cursor to navigate around them. Some access is available with a virtual mouse, but that is far from properly accessible. A PDF document would have been much better. Plain text better still. It would be nice if the site were to make a little more concession to Its VIP readers and accommodate changing of font size and colour to allow for easier reading for those with some sight. again - this is something that web documents allow by default. The site builder has to specifically prevent this. By means of this e-mail I would hope that the HSB would receive a greater deal of lobbying in order to make their site accessible in a more acceptable time frame. Regards, John. John Farley ... Can't help with the lobbying I'm afraid, but if serious detailed comment from professional (and enthusiastic amateur) webmasters would assist then please say so - include AWW in your response. -- William Tasso Save the drama for your Mama. |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
I wonder if the o/p does a lot of site reviewing? certainly the contributions of a blind reviewer would be more than welcome at news:alt.www.webmaster where the beer is warm, the kettle is always on and the regulars are (mostly) touchy feely friendly. |
Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Incidentally, how does a blind person open an account on Yahoo these days? |
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:28:07 -0000, "William Tasso" SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote: I wonder if the o/p does a lot of site reviewing? certainly the contributions of a blind reviewer would be more than welcome at news:alt.www.webmaster where the beer is warm, the kettle is always on and the regulars are (mostly) touchy feely friendly. You mean like Chaddy2222 who posted this message? He is blind! |
Bring on the /real/ experts - there's nowt like empirical evidence.
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
#8
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|
Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> said: Hi all. I found this post in alt.comp.blind-users yesterday and thaught it might be of interest to you all.. [Original Group restored and others added as appropriate] --------------- I am a member of the Hertfordshire Society for the Blind and attended it's A.G.M. on 17th November. One of the activities at this event was the launch of their new web site on www.hertsblind.com on that day.. For the benefit of those without guessing software, that is http://www.hertsblind.com |
code on the page.
Oh my $DIETY! Someone *please* tell me this is a joke! This is like
an organisation for paraplegics building a new headquarters with access
available only by climbing ladders and knotted ropes.
Quote:
|
It was very difficult at this time to fully review the site, but I did so when I got back to a PC with full access to a screen reader, in my case Window-eyes. I wonder if the o/p does a lot of site reviewing? certainly the contributions of a blind reviewer would be more than welcome at news:alt.www.webmaster where the beer is warm, the kettle is always on and the regulars are (mostly) touchy feely friendly. I found that the site was not properly accessible to people using a screen reader, in fact an issue which was known about and published on the site itself. That day I pointed out, in e-mail, the access problems with the site and requested that something be done abut it urgently. For the record, it would be useful to know if the o/p had actually been tasked with reviewing the site. Despite protestations from the senior staff of HSB that they had taken the needs of visually impaired people into account and that they would fix the site the issue is not being dealt with in the manner which I would expect. Unfortunately, an all to frequent occurrence. |
Quote:
|
Some examples of the issues on the site (which I have informed HSB about): On many pages, if not all there are what I take to be links to other information which are not accessible. These are the usual navigation links. Examples would be useful. |
References
1. LYNXIMGMAP:http://www.hertsblind.com/#MicrosoftOfficeMap0
2. http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page1191.htm
3. http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page803.htm
4. http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page580.htm
5. http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page895.htm
6. http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page410.htm
The image map has no titles for any of the links in it so the menu you get
with Lynx is this uninformative list:
MicrosoftOfficeMap0
MAP: http://www.hertsblind.com/#MicrosoftOfficeMap0
* [1] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page1387.htm
* [2] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page571.htm
* [3] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page803.htm
* [4] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page1191.htm
* [5] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page760.htm
* [6] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page422.htm
* [7] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page496.htm
* [8] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page410.htm
* [9] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page580.htm
* [10] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page895.htm
* [11] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page508.htm
* [12] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page454.htm
* [13] http://www.hertsblind.com/index_files/Page603.htm
For some reason, little superscript twos are scattered throughout the
page:
: ²
: ² ² ² ² ² ² ²
Quote:
|
They have been set up with a graphical link rather than what I believe is the standard kind of link which screen readers can use. That would be text. |
I assume that the alt text displayed for them is the same as the text in
the image itself but haven't downloaded the images to find out:
: Using the Site
: Text Box: Using the Site
:
: Comments please
:
:
: As a new website, we welcome constructive comments so that we can make
: sure it is as helpful and relevant as possible.
:
:
: Text Box: Comments please As a new website, we welcome constructive
: comments so that we can make sure it is as helpful and relevant as
: possible.
They also ask for comments while providing no visible way to send the --
at least not visible to Lynx.
Quote:
|
On the front page Window-Eyes reports 5 links, where I believe there are in excess of 22 on it. I 'see' 19 - my software agrees with the o/p. |
However, the five plain hyperlinks are duplicates of links in the image
map so one could argue that there are only thirteen unique links on the
page.
Quote:
|
It is actually fairly difficult for a user with a screen reader to Comment on the site as the link to the Contact Us and Comments sections are not accessible. |
the Contact Us and Comments sections.
Quote:
|
astonishing really There are a number of documents which can be downloaded for subsequent use. They appear to be some sort of protected Word document. Once downloaded, due to the protection you cannot use the cursor to navigate around them. |
thing saved is the heading before the newsletter. Someone took special
effort (password protecting the document) to ensure that it wasn't
accessible. Word does provide an option to unprotect the document but
that prompts you for the password used for the protection.
A sighted person could just transcribe the text by eye or someone with
OCR software might be able to use it to convert screen-shots of the page
so I see no functional effect of the password protection in the first
place except for specifically excluding the blind.
Quote:
|
Some access is available with a virtual mouse, but that is far from properly accessible. A PDF document would have been much better. Plain text better still. |
Quote:
|
It would be nice if the site were to make a little more concession to Its VIP readers and accommodate changing of font size and colour to allow for easier reading for those with some sight. again - this is something that web documents allow by default. The site builder has to specifically prevent this. |
their site and used "Save As..." to save it as an HTML document, complete
with the tons of non-standard tags that are known only to Word and/or
Microsoft Office.
A couple of snippets, first some alleged style information:
: /* Font Definitions */
: @font-face
: {font-family:"Times New Roman";
: panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
: @font-face
: {font-family:Tahoma;
: panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
: @font-face
: {font-family:"Trebuchet MS";
: panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
: @font-face
: {font-family:Arial;
: panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
: @font-face
: {font-family:"Courier New";
: panose-1:2 7 3 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;}
: @font-face
: {font-family:"Wingdings 2";
: panose-1:5 2 1 2 1 5 7 7 7 7;}
The only mention of "panose" in my HTML or CSS references is a note about
a screen-shot of the Windows 95 GUI displaying font properties.
And Wingdings? Haven't they heard of Unicode?
Second example, big chunks of this type of junk is liberally sprinkled
throughout the web page. Is this some Microsoft Office scripting code or
something?
: <!--[if gte vml 1]><v:rect id="_x0000_s1025" style='position:absolute;left:110.55pt;
: top:0;width:5in;height:143.77pt;z-index:1;visibility:visible;
: mso-wrap-edited:f;mso-wrap-distance-left:2.88pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:2.88pt;
: mso-wrap-distance-right:2.88pt;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:2.88pt' fillcolor="#66c [1]"
: strokecolor="#36f" strokeweight="0" o:cliptowrap="t">
: <v:fill color2="white [7]"/>
: <v:stroke>
: <o:left v:ext="view" color="black [0]" weight="0" joinstyle="miter"/>
: <o:top v:ext="view" color="black [0]" weight="0" joinstyle="miter"/>
: <o:right v:ext="view" color="black [0]" weight="0" joinstyle="miter"/>
: <o:bottom v:ext="view" color="black [0]" weight="0" joinstyle="miter"/>
: <o:column v:ext="view" color="black [0]" color2="white [7]"/>
: </v:stroke>
: <v:shadow color="#ccc [4]"/>
: <v
ath insetpenok="f"/>: <o:lock v:ext="edit" shapetype="t"/>
: <v:textbox inset="2.88pt,2.88pt,2.88pt,2.88pt"/>
: </v:rect><![endif]-->
Quote:
|
By means of this e-mail I would hope that the HSB would receive a greater deal of lobbying in order to make their site accessible in a more acceptable time frame. Regards, John. John Farley ... Can't help with the lobbying I'm afraid, but if serious detailed comment from professional (and enthusiastic amateur) webmasters would assist then please say so - include AWW in your response. |
some time to recover from the shock of seeing that $DIETY-awful alleged
HTML source code first.
I may open that bottle of Crown Royal someone gave me a bit early instead
of waiting for Christmas.
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
"> Is there anything Spamazon DOESN'T sell?
Clues. The market's too small to justify the effort."
-- Stuart Lamble in the scary devil monastery, Fri, 13 May 2005
#9
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
For the benefit of those without guessing software, that is http://www.hertsblind.com For some reason, little superscript twos are scattered throughout the page: : ² : ² ² ² ² ² ² ² |
character model to shine through. They supposed that these characters
would be displayed using a symbol-type font, in which the HTML-correct
character (superscript 2, as you say) has been replaced by some fake
symbol (a decorative bullet, in this case). But a W3C-conforming
browser should not be fooled by this trick.
Even *if* the substitute character had been required, this is NOT the
way to do it in HTML (clue: Unicode). But HTML (with CSS) has much
better ways to produce a decorative separator, which does not cause
this kind of harm to other browsing situations, and could have been
an appropriate choice in this case.
Quote:
|
What they appear to have done is use Microsoft Office or Word to layout their site and used "Save As..." to save it as an HTML document, complete with the tons of non-standard tags that are known only to Word and/or Microsoft Office. |
Quote:
|
And Wingdings? Haven't they heard of Unicode? |
Quote:
|
The professional (and enthusiastic amateur) webmasters would have to take some time to recover from the shock of seeing that $DIETY-awful alleged HTML source code first. |
I'd say the only safe move now is to save the content as plain text
(if the content wasn't already available prior to being cocked-up in
this way), write-off this whole sorry web "design", and start again,
which someone who is actually competent to do the job.
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
There are a number of documents which can be downloaded for subsequent use. They appear to be some sort of protected Word document. Once downloaded, due to the protection you cannot use the cursor to navigate around them. You also can't use "Save As..." to save them as text because the only thing saved is the heading before the newsletter. Someone took special effort (password protecting the document) to ensure that it wasn't accessible. Word does provide an option to unprotect the document but that prompts you for the password used for the protection. |
to be a good quality conversion out in plain text. Possibly we're
looking at different files? (Or maybe catdoc just silently ignores the
protection) Which links did you follow to get them?
Quote:
|
Second example, big chunks of this type of junk is liberally sprinkled throughout the web page. Is this some Microsoft Office scripting code or something? |
back into Word to get (very close to) the original document. It's best
to view it as a Word document with an unusual format and mime-type
rather than a web page.
Recent MS Office (2003, at least) has an option to save web pages with
most of this junk stripped out (and then running tidy can potentially
produce a valid and reasonably hand-tunable web page, if the original
document was well structured), and Office 97 didn't include it in the
first place.
--
Chris
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.