Website critique please

#21

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:47:15 +0100, Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch>
wrote:

Quote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
If you are looking at
the penetration of broadband (lines per 100 population) then they are
ranked 4th (behind south korea, hong kong and denmark).

See, that is why the Netherlands as area is useless for comparison with
'world wide'.

LOL check the graph again: This is not per area, but per 100 people :-) so it
gives you a good comparable figure about the DSL distribution.

What I mean is: something as small as The Netherlands is never a good
representative for all of the world wide web.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#22

Spartanicus wrote:

Quote:

A fundamental rule of quality web coding is that a web site needs to
work for all visitors. This means that you cannot rely on anything being
enabled on the client system except html rendering and text. Anyone who
has a basic understanding of web design can code sites that can work for
all clients, how many people actually have feature x disabled in their
UA is irrelevant.

Btw, I also have images disabled.

I second all of what you said. My point was just: if we are discussing
in alt.html.critique other websites, then we might have to consider the
fact, that people make errors (I assume that's why they ask for a
critique). Therefore it doesn't help if your UA ignores certain
(erroneous) parts of the page in question, and then you blame the OP
that he has created a fake page in order to get traffic, just because
you couldn't figure the errors he had on his page, because your UA did
filter them out... (I don't know if I can make myself clear, my English
is far from anything...)
To make it short: Your browser settings shouldn't be an excuse not being
able to provide a critique to a request (even a badly designed page like
the OPs one :-).

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

#23

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Quote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:47:15 +0100, Bernhard Sturm
sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

If you are looking at
the penetration of broadband (lines per 100 population) then they
are ranked 4th (behind south korea, hong kong and denmark).

See, that is why the Netherlands as area is useless for comparison
with 'world wide'.

LOL check the graph again: This is not per area, but per 100 people
:-) so it gives you a good comparable figure about the DSL distribution.

What I mean is: something as small as The Netherlands is never a good
representative for all of the world wide web.

I don't think so. I live in Switzerland. Even smaller than the NLs, but
I think you can still compare the relative penetration of DSL lines in
Switzerland with the USA for instance. The stats were not putting the
NLs as 'representative' for the entire WWW, they were just comparing the
NLs with other countries.
Oh maybe you were referring to the statements of Wouter? I think it all
depends on your target audiance. If you aim at local markets, then the
NLs can be representative for the 'NL' wide web as most users will only
visit from the NLs your site.... Or did I get you wrong?

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

#24

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:00:35 +0100, Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch>
wrote:

Quote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:47:15 +0100, Bernhard Sturm
sturmnixspam (AT) datacomm (DOT) ch> wrote:

LOL check the graph again: This is not per area, but per 100 people :-) so
it gives you a good comparable figure about the DSL distribution.

What I mean is: something as small as The Netherlands is never a good
representative for all of the world wide web.

Oh maybe you were referring to the statements of Wouter? I think it all
depends on your target audiance.

The target audience was not brought into the argument till now. I stated, or
meant to, 'the NL is not the world'. The .nl domain is not the world wide web.
The nl.* hierarchy is not what the alt.* hierarchy stands for. Anything smaller
than the world, is not the world. I didn't bring it any further and I'm not
about to too.

If putting a site up for a critique in _alt.html.critique_, I'm not to assume
that the audience targetted is local. If that is the case, it is the sort of
information that OP could have stated. Just like someone could state the
specifics of their browsing situation :-P
For all I care, a site is just published to send someones grandmother a birthday
card. If not made explicite, I don't know that and I don't assume either. If not
stated otherwise, I assume the world is the targetted audience.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#25

"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove (AT) removehotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

A fundamental unfortunately forgotten by the <censured>**</censured
generation :-/

Please never use that F wordt again ;-)
Wouter

#26

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

If not made explicite, I don't know that and I don't assume either. If not
stated otherwise, I assume the world is the targetted audience.

How many sites do you know that realy have the world as targetted audience?
How many of the site builders those sites did came here for critics?
Maybe you should even notice that when you place your comment; I assume you
have no specific audiance, just any one in the world (with connection to the
internet).

If so, you should test it with Chinese character sets as default for example
;-p
And via timing out ISPs from India, what does a user see if only 30% of the
page is loaded

Hmm.. but well, Barbara does not read this, she said..
Wouter

#27

Wouter wrote:

Quote:

"Ben Measures" wrote

A fundamental unfortunately forgotten by the <censured>**</censured
generation :-/

Please never use that F wordt again ;-)
Wouter

*grin*

--
Ben M.

#28

Bernhard Sturm wrote:

Quote:

Spartanicus wrote:

A fundamental rule of quality web coding is that a web site needs to
work for all visitors. This means that you cannot rely on anything being
enabled on the client system except html rendering and text.

To make it short: Your browser settings shouldn't be an excuse not being
able to provide a critique to a request (even a badly designed page like
the OPs one :-).

Accessibility is the most important critique of any website.

Volumes are spoken when somebody is unable to make sense of the website
to critique because basic accessibility has not been met.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
Priority 1, 1.1

--
Ben M.

#29

Ben Measures wrote:

Quote:

Accessibility is the most important critique of any website.

Volumes are spoken when somebody is unable to make sense of the website
to critique because basic accessibility has not been met.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
Priority 1, 1.1

but you agree at least, that the fact that the site was not accessible
for the reviewer, shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the OP is trying
to fool the reviewer? I mean, the least thing you could state would be:
"sorry dude, your site is not accessible for me. Read the W3C specs
about accessibility and get your HTML validated"
Wouldn't you agree?
--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

#30

Bernhard Sturm wrote:

Quote:

Ben Measures wrote:

Accessibility is the most important critique of any website.

Volumes are spoken when somebody is unable to make sense of the
website to critique because basic accessibility has not been met.

but you agree at least, that the fact that the site was not accessible
for the reviewer, shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the OP is trying
to fool the reviewer? I mean, the least thing you could state would be:
"sorry dude, your site is not accessible for me. Read the W3C specs
about accessibility and get your HTML validated"
Wouldn't you agree?

I agree that if the site was absolutely not accessible (404, server not
found, etc) then that conclusion would be unfounded.

However, half a picture is worse than no picture at all. In this case,
the parts viewed had all the indications of a avert/banner page.

--
Ben M.