Re: Personals Site - designer needed.

2005-08-12, Responding to Chris...

>>> All GUI's by definition are graphical... people would usually want to
>>> send in pictures of themselves and those pictures need to be in a
>>> structure capable of displaying them to best advantage - which makes
>>> Lynx hard to cater for. From what I've seen, it even has 'issues' with
>>> frames (not that I'm considering using them <shudder>) but it seems
>>> bizarre to attempt to rewrite and entire site to make it compatible
>>> with a browser only the smallest of minorities would use?
>
>>And amongst those "minorities" will be the visually impaired
>>users you mentioned earlier? They will now be prevented from
>>using whatever software they have available as you insist
>>they should use M$ software? Things are not adding up
>>here... (See comments further down the page...)
>
> But... there are readers specifically written for use with GUI's that
> are there for use by the visually impaired...

And the "universal" ones that comply with w3c standards.
(Du-UH!) Read on...


>>> And I mean 'smallest'.... I just looked at the stats for
>>> http://www.odps.org and despite the dictionary itself being almost
>>> entirely graphics free... out of 25,000 visitors last month not one
>>> attempted to access the site using Lynx.
>>
>>So what? Thats not my point.
>
> Well not but it's part of mine... :)

Er... ok...

(You ARE aware that many non-M$ browser can be and are
reconfigured to tell servers that they are M$ to bypass
browser-blocks?)

>>> Hence, I'm still not convinced the massive overhead to ensure
>>> compliance with a 'rare' text browser would be worthwhile. Money is
>>> *very* tight and I think the site might be better served with higher
>>> bandwidth access and a feature rich interface than with full
>>> compliance for Lynx.
>
>>Oh dear! I'm NOT suggesting that you write your pages
>>specifically "optimised" for Lynx users. I'm suggesting that
>>if your pages won't render in a browser SUCH AS Lynx, then
>>they are most likely NOT "standard" enough to be useful on
>>anything but M$-type software, (which to date almost always
>>FAILS to comply with internation standards itself,) and are
>>more likely to FAIL as a resource for those with visual
>>impairments, as I mentioned above.
>
> My point is that if they render properly in the browsers that make up
> 99% of the user base then the site will be accessible for the vast
> majority of users?

And still fail to comply with international standards, and
therefore, because of the inbuilt dependance on non-standard
M$ "practices" rather than real internationally recognised
standards, will fail as soon as M$ shift their
copyrighted goal-posts once again.


>>Stick to the standards everybody else works to, and you, and
>>your readers, will at least only have "standard" problems to
>>solve. Those who cannot use M$ Interest Exploiter (blind
>>people for instance?) will also be able to render your pages
>>in the most suitable way for them.
>
> You're missing the point now... what I'm saying is that if 99% of
> browser can access the pages with no problems, they perhaps it is the
> 1% (or in the case of Lynx 0.53% ) that aren't following the standards
> appropriately??

Without possibly knowing it, you're partially correct, and
you make my point too. I'll explain...

Lynx does not render tables. Therefore, content that depends
on them could be regarded as "broken". Many different
browsers similarly have their own "quirks" and therefore
different page componants could therefore be regarded as
"broken" when viewed in them. (Hence the M$ "quirks-mode"
which does not fix a problem, it covers it up, leaving web
authors thinking their pages are ok when they are in fact
"broken". See?)

However...

When w3c standards are complied with, and the concept of
"graceful degredation" (see www.cookwood.com) is applied
when writing pages, those browsers that cannot render
graphics, or process Java etc. (like a number of specialist
disability aid applications for instance) will still render
something of use.

When some "standard" other than the "default", such as "It
works in IE!" is set as the construction model, then ALL
other browsers are in effect reduced to "also rans" as the
private M$ "way" is imposed and becomes the LIMIT to
standards compliance.

A standard page will be rendered in a standard manner by any
browser that renders it. If it is properly constructed, the
content of the page will provided something in a standard
manner to the viewer, be they a blind Blynx user, a rampant
Linux advocate using Dillo or Lynx ;), a Mac user using
Safari, or whatever.

If you were to write pages specifically to look and work
best in Lynx for instance, and ignored the w3c standards
(once again), then you'd be doing the same thing as you are
when you insist on using IE as the "standard", the only
difference being the size of the user base. this is NOT what
I'm suggesting here.


Write w3c standard pages and EVERYBODY can render them.

Its that simple.

w3.org
www.cookwood.com

....are your very VERY good friends.


>>This has NOTHING to do with what browser you should or
>>should not be writing for. (Even though as soon as you do
>>that you begin to exclude possible readers). Why CREATE a
>>problem that did not exist? (Outlook Express maybe? ;)
>
> Oi.... I have some strange traits but I have *never* used Outlook
> Express... its dire reputation swept all before it. Since 1996 I've
> use a neat little emailer from Japan called Becky
> (http://www.rimarts.co.jp/):)

Ok, my apologies. That was a lowdown thing to suggest. ;\



>>If so, I'll be sending you a consultation bill soon.
>
> Heh :) I wish I could afford you.... though if you want to help set
> the site up of course that could probably be sorted... ??

You wish? I wish! *I* can't afford me! 8\


> Seriously tho, the idea of the business plan is to try to keep it on a
> quasi-professional level so that once the decision is reached about
> exactly where the destination will be, we can work out what steps need
> to be taken in order to reach it effectively.

IMO, (FWIW), you are chewing on a huge chunk of something
that most likely will not provide the end result you desire.

I'd save the money and time for some other project.

Best of luck to ya.

--
----
* Another squeaking wheel @ http://tinyurl.com/6bf56
* Mike's (curious) Brain @ http://tinyurl.com/4872c
- Have a nice day, it really does do you good! :)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Personals Site - designer needed.
    ... >>compliant pages and expect the viewer to use specific ... > with a browser only the smallest of minorities would use? ... > attempted to access the site using Lynx. ... FAILS to comply with internation standards itself,) and are ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: Personals Site - designer needed.
    ... >> 'readers' can interpret Windows based sites quite well now. ... >international w3c standards. ... >> attempted to access the site using Lynx. ... >> compliance with a 'rare' text browser would be worthwhile. ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: OT: One Laptop per Child
    ... This version is unable to render most of the stuff ... up with the ever changing web standards, ... of people working on Mozilla, Firefox, Opera etc. ... weight browser which doesn't depend on a huge amount of the latest ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: IE8 Standards?
    ... The new version of the dominant browser will render in full standards mode ... BROWSER MAKER actually fully adheres to. ...
    (alt.2600)
  • OT: HTML (WAS: MF having issues?)
    ... Even though he is only serving up static HTML pages and has no idea how they work or the fine points of the language, he has a very professional looking site that he built in about an hour. ... Though leading browser makers have been involved in the creation of web standards since W3C was formed, for many years compliance was observed in the breach. ... By releasing browsers that failed to uniformly support standards, manufacturers needlessly fragmented the Web, injuring designers, developers, users, and businesses alike. ... It is not enough for the website to simply "look okay" on any one particular browser; the HTML should be structurally correct, and the tags used for their semantics, rather than how they render in one particular browser. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)