Subj : Freebies To : ROY J. TELLASON From : CHARLES ANGELICH Date : Mon May 09 2005 01:59 am 123c5f778462 tech Hello Roy - --8<--cut RJT>> I have, from time to time, been dropping notes to RJT>> webmasters with my opinions and comments on their sites. RJT>> Sometimes I even get a reply. Sometimes RJT>> "webmaster@whatever.com" isn't a valid address, since RJT>> they seem to have become a target for spam. I've been at RJT>> this for somewhat longer than a year. CA>> I mean _discuss_ this with webmasters. Not just drop them CA>> a comment or two or three but _discuss_ the pros and cons CA>> and reasons why. RJT> There haven't been too many of them that seem to be open RJT> to such discussion... My own experiences have been that the _female_ webmasters are more willing to discuss standards than the male. Not unlike FIDO there are a few zealots and general misfits that become insulting but not all are that way. --8<--cut RJT>> Case in point: For some folks, a suggestion (which a RJT>> browser tag is more often than not) isn't good enough. RJT>> They can say what font they want to use, and what size, RJT>> and so forth. But suppose you don't have that font on RJT>> your machine? CA>> The established practice is to specify three different CA>> fonts just in case your preferred font is unavailable on a CA>> particular machine. RJT> Yep. One of the things that tends to bulk up pages RJT> unnecessarily. Why not let me decide what font I want to RJT> use here? To a degree 'fit' is a consideration. Some fonts aren't kerned to the degree that others are and text may or may not fit within the allocated spaces if the font type changes. RJT>> The solution (and there are times when I *hate* that RJT>> word!) on a lot of sites is to load a graphic to RJT>> substitute. This is _OFTEN_ done for menu items, RJT>> typically going down the left side of the page. CA>> I've never found a webpage that defaults to graphics if a CA>> font is not available. RJT> They didn't specify a font in these cases, just the "ALT=" RJT> tag to say some text if you didn't get the graphic. RJT> Sometimes I feel like I'd be better off viewing these RJT> pages in text-only mode... CA>> Webmasters I have communicated with put graphics into CA>> those menus intentionally with no intent to use text at CA>> any time. RJT> Yep. Which leaves some folks out entirely. Those who are RJT> visually-impaired ferinstance. The "ALT" tag you mention is intended as an aide to the visually impaired to allow their screen readers to read the ALT tags aloud. RJT>> Now, my eyes aren't quite what they used to be. I really RJT>> like the feature of firefox where you can hit a single RJT>> keystroke and make the type get bigger. But when the RJT>> menus and such are all graphics rather than words, this RJT>> doesn't work. Which makes it hard for me to view those RJT>> sites. CA>> Use OPERA, it will enlarge both text _and_ graphics for CA>> you. :-) RJT> Payware, ain't it? :-) There is a version that is adware supported (free) if I remember correctly. RJT>> Thier loss, I'll get what I want somewhere else... RJT>> Once a lot of those people realize that I have that RJT>> choice, maybe they'll wake up. CA>> Those who sell webpages _do_ realize that you have that CA>> choice which is why many take the time to learn how to CA>> code the most generic code possible considering the CA>> variety of browser support for various code. They test CA>> with multiple browsers or have others test for them. RJT> All too often this isn't the case, though. The most RJT> concession people seem to be willing to make is IE or RJT> Netscape... CA>> Not unlike Microsoft dropping support for 'older' CA>> software, the webmaster will eventually decide that CA>> such-and-such a browser has outlived it's useful lifespan CA>> and stop making concessions for that browser's problem CA>> areas. CA>> Granted there are some webmasters who out of arrogance or CA>> ignorance write webpages that only one browser can CA>> accomodate and those who do their work in that fashion are CA>> helping no one, not even themselves. RJT> Exactly my point. RJT> I far prefer "best viewed with ANY browser" and similar RJT> pages. :-) My own webpages at my 'tech' website are 'any-browser' compatible but I also have another website that requires minimal javascripting to be fully appreciated. All pages will _display_ properly but something will be lost on _certain_ pages without javascripting at the 'entertainment' website. > > , , > o/ Charles.Angelich \o , > <| |> __o/ > / > USA, MI < \ __\__ --- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * .... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/ * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140) .