Why is this site a flop?

Toby Inkster <usenet200701 (AT) tobyinkster (DOT) co.uk> writes:

Chris Morris wrote:
The W3C guidelines are not best used as a box-ticking exercise (even
if they do provide a handy table with boxes to tick) and this is
exactly why!

It's fine as a box ticking exercise so long as you don't resolve to make
sure all the boxes are ticked when they don't need to. You can work
through the checklist, ticking boxes when you've done something, and
putting, say, a squiggle by a box when you have a good reason not to do it.

True, and I use them like that a lot myself.

However, there's lots of stuff that isn't really written in to the
guidelines anywhere. Making visited and unvisited links distinct from
each other and from non-link text is pretty important for
accessibility and usability, but doesn't get a mention in the
guidelines (unless you interpret the bits about consistent use of
navigation to include "consistent with internet conventions")

Using sensible font sizes doesn't get a mention past "use relative
sizes", which "body {font-size: 0.6em;}" passes even though it's
virtually guaranteed to be unreadable.

--
Chris

Chris Morris wrote...

Martin Clark <martin (AT) spl (DOT) at> writes:

I didn't ask for a critique.

Welcome to usenet

Well, thanks, but you're a bit late. I've been heavily into usenet for

the last nine years. I'm also familiar enough with these groups to know
that giving a url or quoting bits of code can sometimes lead to the
poster being jumped on! That's why I'm not going to get all hot and
bothered and give the rest of you a spot of entertainment!

Thanks for your detailed comments on accessibility and W3C guidelines
and for the pointers. I have saved the post to refer back to when I am
doing more accessibility stuff. I take your point about a list being
better than paragraphs for those accesskey links.
--
Martin Clark