Re: [WSG] Site Critique
Russ wrote, Would be good for the group to add/edit this list so that we could have a solid checklist - WSG's things to check during development. Excellent checkpoints Russ and it certainly got me thinking of additions but I fear more coffee is needed at this end. PS: I always look forward to your (some light reading) messages, which in themselves have upped my education. Regards, JG * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * _ Still Paying $35 for a .COM, .NET or .ORG Web Address? iDotz.Net offers Cool Domains @ Great Prices! Starting @ $8.75 Go: http://www.idotz.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Site Critique
Sure that wasn't a Bacardi Coke there Bob ;o) Mike Pepper -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen Sent: 29 May 2004 14:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Critique The voices are telling me that LC 55 said on 5/29/2004 2:29 AM: Russ wrote, Would be good for the group to add/edit this list so that we could have a solid checklist - WSG's things to check during development. Excellent checkpoints Russ and it certainly got me thinking of additions but I fear more coffee is needed at this end. Just had a Coke, so I've got a caffeine buzz and a sugar buzz, so I may wade in (or perhaps step into it). I've been thinking about this one to figure out how to say it. I think a developer should at least visit Bobby/CLiFsays/whatever. This may not be the proper group on which to say that I think our developer should also do what's necessary to pass Bobby, etc., including the unmeasurable suggestions, but I do think that. And I think it's sensible for someone evaluating a site to run it through Bobby (etc.) and see if the evaluation shows any sillies. Yes, I definitely think my brain was stretched thin trying to get around that one. Let's try again. While I don't personally agree that you can ignore Bobby's advice, I can see how some people could agree, and I don't want to have that fight here. Indeed, I respect their opinions. However, a developer who doesn't at least *look* at what Bobby says hasn't done the job, imho. -- Rev. Bob Bob Crispen bob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra Weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ Some people just don't know how to drive... I call these people Everybody But Me * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] CSS editor
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote: The voices are telling me that t94xr.net.nz webmaster said on 5/28/2004 9:55 AM: Topstyle Pro 3.10 Pro is a better bet. ...and Nick is a decent guy who really supports his products. TS3.10 is the best I've seen. It's a very good (X)HTML and perhaps the best CSS editor. Supports XHTML 1.1 (there is no default template for XHTML 1.1, but adding one is at most a one minute job), supports Ruby (though I'm nor sure how useful that is), can be configured to work as an external CSS editor, and more. Nick's support is top notch; not only does he read questions and feature requests, he personally responds! (Does Gates, Jobs, et al, do that?) He also advocates Web standards (my vain attempt to keep this thread on topic). TS 3.11 should be released soon, and TS 4 isn't too far off. TS 4 promises to be an even better XHTML editor (many of the feature requests point in that direction). * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Site Critique - developer checklist
After asking everyone not to hijack a topic, it seems I have done the same. Apologies all (especially Mike). Rev Bob, I'd be very careful about Bobby. This has been discussed on-list a few times, but here is a recap: There are other accessibility tools that have better reputations than Bobby now. Bobby has received growing criticism over the last few years - here is an example: http://www.evolt.org/article/Why_Bobby_Approved_is_not_Enough/4090/9278/inde x.html?format=print Here are some other online accessibility tools: WAVE http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp UsableNet: http://www.usablenet.com/ Ask Alice: http://askalice.ssbtechnologies.com:8080/askalice/index.html Colour Contrast Analyser: http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp 'cynthiasays' http://www.cynthiasays.com Accessify tools and wizards http://www.accessify.com/tools-and-wizards/default.asp Checklist of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html Russ Yes, I definitely think my brain was stretched thin trying to get around that one. Let's try again. While I don't personally agree that you can ignore Bobby's advice, I can see how some people could agree, and I don't want to have that fight here. Indeed, I respect their opinions. However, a developer who doesn't at least *look* at what Bobby says hasn't done the job, imho. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
