Re: The state of our web site and standards

[Dennis Lee <dennisle swbell net>]

I also am not subscribed to the hacker list so I may have missed 
something; but I would like to to say with our audience we have no 
excuse for not adhering standards. May I suggest reading a few words 
from one of the best designers on the web. 
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/journey/

I belive all new content at http://www.alistapart.com presents one page 
type, and all (all) browsers can view the content from your cell phone 
up; go a head and run it through http://validator.w3.org/

Other articles on the subject:
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/tohell/

There is more if you look around. I like the print style sheet, by 
planning ahead and sain use of css when you print you only get the 
content not any navigation trash. Tell me we would not be hero's if when 
someone points and clicks print; all they get is content, and nothing 
but the content.

Dennis



digitect wrote:

> I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with compliance to W3C HTML,
> XHTML, XML, etc. standards for the (new) GNOME web page. They may not be
> perfect, but they're about as impartial as you're going to get. We (the
> gnome-web-list) had been progressing along this route.
>
> I'm not subscribed to gnome-hackers, so I've apparently missed any/all
> objections to this point of view. Was below a cross-post?
>
>
> > > Plus, that Bobby thing just gets anal to stupid extremes. The last
> site
>
> > > I wrote and ran through it, I was marked down because I didn't
> include
>
> > > the size of images in the alt tag. (NB, some of the Bobby things are
> > > useful, but not all of them.)
>
> Never used Bobby, but "anal" extremes do NOT include alt tags. This is
> the perfect example of someone not understanding the problem that alt
> tags resolve. I know they can be a big pain, but standards are written
> to prevent the mainstream from offending those in conditions we didn't
> think about. If you're a web designer whose been too obtuse to consider
> folks outside of the visual (or even graphical) browser, you're HTML
> deserves a lower grade.
>
> I thought the general mood here on gnome-web was full W3C compliance,
> and I've not seen any comments (generated from this specific list) that
> advocate anything else. Am I wrong? Let's proceed as planned and forget
> this nonsense.
>
>
> Steve Hall  [ digitect mindspring com ]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-web-list mailing list
> gnome-web-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list