Standards

[Lady Chatterly]

Re: Standards

In article <lg2fv05md8b8lc alks11ie8u7h78b khono@4ax.com>
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>No.[/color]

Did you guys are pathetic.
[color=blue]
>Who are frequently the worst offenders, but react pompously and
>defensively if challenged, rather than cheerfully and ignorantly as
>the Flashbunnies do.[/color]

Be specific.
[color=blue]
>No, quite the opposite. In fact it says "We don't follow standards,
>but we looked at it afterwards and in these browsers it wasn't
>completely b0rken"[/color]

Are you sure?

--
Lady Chatterly

"Hey sparky......... . Chatterley IS S BOT! Amazing that it is s k00ks
bot and YOU don't know it." -- Kenneth Pangborn

[GEO Me@home.here]

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:40:42 -0500, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\ "@-@-@XXXupsdell.com "> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
>>
>> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
>> 6.02 or later[/color]
>
>I trust that you realize that there is no such thing as IE6.02. The
>latest version is IE6.0.
>[/color]

Thank you. I didn't know that. I would mention it to them, but they
no longer answer my calls. <g> I was going to mention to the Help
Desk that some of the links don't work on the terminals provided at
the library branches (scripting not enabled?), but I am still waiting
for someone to call me back.

Geo

[GEO Me@home.here]

Re: Standards

On 26 Jan 2005 08:49:19 -0800, "Dan" <dan@tobias.nam e> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"GEO:[color=green]
>> PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>So the Calgary Public Library is a commercial entity?[/color]

It looks as if someone registered the name before the library
thought of it. Their old address used to be:
<http://public-library.calgary .ab.ca>, but for some unknown reason
they changed it to the current **.com.

Geo

[kchayka]

Re: Standards

Barbara de Zoete wrote:[color=blue]
>
> we[1] hate Google forum users ...[/color]

These days I tend to be more general with
"we[I] hate Google groups-beta"

They took a perfectly fine, quite usable system and tried to make it
kewl. They just made it suck instead. :-(

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:49:55 -0600, kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Barbara de Zoete wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> we[1] hate Google forum users ...[/color]
>
> These days I tend to be more general with
> "we[I] hate Google groups-beta"
>
> They took a perfectly fine, quite usable system and tried to make it
> kewl. They just made it suck instead. :-(
>[/color]

Isn't it ironic, that just now AOL drops support for usenet on its own servers,
because (one of the reasons) Google gives such good and complete access?

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[GEO Me@home.here]

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:57:12 -0500, Kimba W. Lion
<kimbawlionATao lDOTcom@127.0.0 .1> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:56:03 GMT, "GEO" Me@home.here wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
>> 6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
>>use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
>>Netscape 7.1."
>>
>> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
>>you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
>>following some agreed upon standards?[/color]
>
>More like it shows that the page doesn't follow any standards.[/color]

Thank you. The Library has told me the opposite. Originally the page
only mentioned IE 6.02 and Netscape 7.1. Apparently they have made
some changes since I first saw it.
[color=blue]
>From a user's POV, I will upgrade my browser when it suits me to do so,
>not when it suits some site. Any site that doesn't work in my browser may
>as well not exist.[/color]

And, being a public site, I guess that excluding part of the
citizens wouldn't be correct.
[color=blue]
>From a site owner's POV, I'm still getting hits from users with Netscape
>3.0, IE 3.01, and WebTV, and what I would consider a significant number
>of users with IE 5.0. You have to consider how many people you intend to
>lock out.[/color]
[color=blue]
>Other usability issues not related to HTML:
>Instructions on the page say to use "Limit and Sort", but ...[/color]
<snip>

I will try to bring it to their atention, but their response has
been that *they* don't have any problems.
[color=blue]
>What sort of system did you design for, anyway? Your page requires a
>screen wider than 1024 pixels to fit without a horizontal scroll bar (thus
>inconveniencin g over three-quarters of users).[/color]

I noticed the same problem on the new dedicated terminals that they
put on the library branches. Until last week the default display only
opened as a window, which made it even harder to manage for users that
did not maximaize the display; it seems that now the default is a full
screen display.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Geo

[GEO Me@home.here]

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:41:31 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
>>
>> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer 6.02 or
>> later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher use
>> MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
>> Netscape 7.1."[/color]
>
>I would not ever put a "works best" statement on my pages. Why?
>Because they work in *all* browsers... PDAs... mobile phones...[/color]

Thank you for the comments. It looks as if their new page is already
obsolete. <g>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
>> you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
>> following some agreed upon standards?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Ahem. You must first code to some standards.
><http://validator.w3.or g/check?verbose=1 &uri=http%3A//catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/>
>That page has 201 errors on it. Begin there.[/color]

Thanks. It is not my page, but I have been trying to point these
problems to them rather unsuccesfully. As I only know a little about
HTML and standards, I wanted the opinion of some people that know more
on the subject.
[color=blue]
>To make that a clickable link so we don't have to copy and paste:
><http://catalogue.calga rypubliclibrary .com/>[/color]

Thank you, I'll do that in the future.

Geo

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Standards

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, GEO <Me@home.here >
said:
[color=blue]
> And, being a public site, I guess that excluding part of the
> citizens wouldn't be correct.[/color]

Indeed. In many countries, it is illegal for a site to not be accessible
to all users.

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[GEO Me@home.here]

Re: Standards

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:40:42 -0500, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\ "@-@-@XXXupsdell.com "> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
>>
>> "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
>> 6.02 or later[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>I trust that you realize that there is no such thing as IE6.02. The
>latest version is IE6.0.[/color]

I was reminded of a previous message in which I had copied what the
main page said on the 25/Dec/2004, and still says:

< http://www.calgarypubl iclibrary.com/>

'This website is best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 and
up, or Netscape Navigator 4.7 and up for PC, and Internet Explorer 5.5
for Macintosh. '

And someone replied(Garner Miller):[color=blue]
> ... I find the "Best viewed with...IE 5.5 for Mac" especially comical
> on the Mac side, since 5.2 was the last version of IE for the Mac.[/color]

Geo