Re: Waiting for a window to close -- without killing the CPU

On Aug 11, 9:10 pm, "rf" <r...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Andy" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:6a9gm.88611$Cj1.33551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Being how this is posted to alt.html, be careful of using this site as a
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
his website before. Look through the alt.html.critique archive for his
domain name on on the archives of that group through Google.


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,
from a web designer / developer saying that "IE6 is still the best
browser on the market".
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org.au
.

Relevant Pages