E-mail List Archives
Thread: Sizing
Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)
From: HAA
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 6:05AM
Subject: Sizing
No previous message | Next message →
I'm updating a club website and using templates which do not have absolute
sizing in them yet Bobby says they have!
The site is at www.newchaletclub.co.uk/TESTZONE/ if anyone can help me.
Thanks a lot.
Helen
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 6:17AM
Subject: Re: Sizing
← Previous message | Next message →
> I'm updating a club website and using templates which do not have absolute
> sizing in them yet Bobby says they have!
>
> The site is at www.newchaletclub.co.uk/TESTZONE/ if anyone can help me.
One of the most basic technical requirements of an accessible site is
that it is valid HTML, to allow for any technology to render it
properly, this site isn't as of yet:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&;uri=http%3A//www.newchaletclub.co.uk/TESTZONE/
Meta keywords are only important to some minor search engines, and a
page should have one description, repeating yourself will only get you
punished by search catalogues with real editors.
The sizing thing bobby found is the following:
span style="font-size: 9px"
If you really want to show you care, better give the site a good
clean-up, structure it properly and worry about bobby later. The
navigation would make a lot more sense as a list for example and the
pages shouldn't link to themselves. Furthermore it'll be good to know
what link opens in a new window and which doesn't.
Why do you even bother with a bobby validation when you are planning
to use a right-click prevention script to make it hard for visitors?
Or is that just a copy and paste thing?
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Andrew Arch
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 8:54AM
Subject: RE: Sizing
← Previous message | Next message →
Helen,
What version of Bobby are you using? I know some tools even object (or used
to) to the use of fixed image sizes, though this is correct and accessible
HTML code. I could certainly see nothing wrong with your fonts.
Andrew
_________________________________
Dr Andrew Arch
Accessible Information Solutions, NILS
Ph +613 9864 9282; Fax +613 9864 9370
http://www.accessibleinfo.org.au/
National Information and Library Service
A subsidiary of RBS.RVIB.VAF Ltd.
From: HAA
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 9:57AM
Subject: Re: Sizing
← Previous message | Next message →
if you think this site is user hostile look at the original site at
www.newchaletclub.co.uk !!! And the font-size occurs in EVERY page but most
of the new site passes Auto P2! Go figure..
At 13:18 20/05/2005, you wrote:
>The sizing thing bobby found is the following:
>span style="font-size: 9px"
>
>If you really want to show you care, better give the site a good
>clean-up, structure it properly and worry about bobby later. The
>navigation would make a lot more sense as a list for example and the
>pages shouldn't link to themselves. Furthermore it'll be good to know
>what link opens in a new window and which doesn't.
From: HAA
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 9:58AM
Subject: RE: Sizing
← Previous message | Next message →
using 5.20.2.3, bought last year.
At 15:54 20/05/2005, you wrote:
>Helen,
>
>What version of Bobby are you using? I know some tools even object (or used
>to) to the use of fixed image sizes, though this is correct and accessible
>HTML code. I could certainly see nothing wrong with your fonts.
>
>Andrew
>_________________________________
>Dr Andrew Arch
>Accessible Information Solutions, NILS
>Ph +613 9864 9282; Fax +613 9864 9370
>http://www.accessibleinfo.org.au/
>
>National Information and Library Service
>A subsidiary of RBS.RVIB.VAF Ltd.
>
>
>
From: HAA
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 10:08AM
Subject: RE: Sizing
← Previous message | Next message →
Would it be more acceptable to change the 9px for small or x-small? As I
have pointed out already, it occurs on EVERY page of the site but only some
pages are failing.
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 10:27AM
Subject: Re: Sizing
← Previous message | Next message →
> Would it be more acceptable to change the 9px for small or x-small? As I
> have pointed out already, it occurs on EVERY page of the site but only some
> pages are failing.
Yes that will make Bobby happy.
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 10:27AM
Subject: Re: Sizing
← Previous message | Next message →
> if you think this site is user hostile look at the original site at
> www.newchaletclub.co.uk !!! And the font-size occurs in EVERY page but most
> of the new site passes Auto P2! Go figure..
So the logic of redoing something a little less horrible and wrong
than it was before is which? :-)
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, May 20 2005 12:00PM
Subject: RE: Sizing
← Previous message | No next message
On Fri, 20 May 2005, HAA wrote:
> Would it be more acceptable to change the 9px for small or x-small?
Yes. Using 9px is criminal (or should be), x-small is foolish, and
small can be OK when used for less relevant text.
On the other hand, the real question is whether you (or, rather, your
users) need the fine print at all.
> As I
> have pointed out already, it occurs on EVERY page of the site but only some
> pages are failing.
I don't know how Bobby confuses you, but as usual, the purported
accessibility tool seems to have thrown you into problems. What's the
value of an accessibility tool that itself isn't accessible even to people
with "normal" (or better than normal) cognitive abilities?
The pages contain far too many irrelevant elements, and "irrelevant"
spells "distracting to all, seriously distracting to many". Does the
copyright statement really serve a useful purpose? Just putting it there
to be safe isn't safe to accessibility. In particular,
- "This site is Bobby approved" is worse than useless (even if true).
- The Webring stuff (one of the most prominent elements on the page)
is both a distraction and sign of a pathetic attempt at making a site
popular on grounds other than its usefulness.
- "Hosted by..." is always a distraction. There is no such thing as
a free lunch.
- "Go to top of page" is less foolish than the common obscurity "Top",
but useless, distracting, and space-consuming.
alt=" The New Chalet Club logo. " is questionable too. Does someone really
benefit from hearing or seeing it? You might have use for a good logo, but
a logo normally needs alt="" unless used as a heading or otherwise
_essential_ identification.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/