Clarence wrote:
>A simple HTML page without js should be EASY to write and would display
>on all browsers whether images are included or not, wouldn't it ?
>
>What's the problem with the "Anybrowser" standard ?
>Is there a legitmate NEED for js ?
>Is there a legitimate USE for flash or shock ?
Hi,
The following is most of a message I sent to a local company:
I looked at your website recently and am sure it could be
made more effective. Please consider the following points:
* Reliance on Flash animation: Bad Thing!
Flash gives small file-sizes for what it offers, but
locks out those with the "wrong" browser, plugin or OS.
It's an entertainment medium.
* Flash content is not spidered by the search engines.
Therefore, as I found, you don't have a prominent Web
presence.
* Simple maintenance may require outside help.
Suggestions:
Use a basic first page which includes a brief statement
about your business and all contact details (like a
Yellow Pages entry). This info should tally with the
meta tags for the page, which will convince the search
engines you're not a spammer.
Offer links to:
* A text page, designed to re-size to any window without
countermanding user settings for colours etc. The whole
current site content could comfortably fit on one page.
This sort of "non-design" gets bonus points from "serious"
Net users. It would be very quick to produce, allowing
your Web presence to be established as quickly as possible.
* Conventional pages, which could be a close analogue of the
Flash through the use of JavaScript mouseover effects. These
pages would be attractive and usable by almost all visitors.
* Alternative language versions. Well worth paying for.
* Retain a link to the Flash pages.
(The company develops non-destructive test equipment for
European customers involved in anything from gas-supply to
yacht design. Their completely Flash site is difficult to
print and has no features unique to that medium -- apart
from the usability issues.)
=============================================================
Re: Arachne's CSS support, even if it's very partial that at
least is more than no CSS e.g. Netscape3. I've also spent too
long paying attention to solving rendering issues across a
range of browsers. CSS frees you from that, if you accept that
the non-supported user will get the bare bones information
and the finer points of layout are left to CSS. Even so, I
prefer fluid design e.g. relative font-size where possible,
but Arachne seems currently to only interpret point sizing.
Arachne can only use its own fonts, equivalent to Arial/sans-serif
and Courier/monospace (I've not checked whether font-family: monospace
renders with Arachne's fixed width font). Font-sizing jumps
between Arachne's available sizes, so there won't be the finesse
available in mainstream browsers. For better equivalence to the
page rendering of Windows browsers, closer attention should be
paid to Arachne's font sizes. The nearest I've been able to get
is by using a combination of Arial and Times New Roman for the
different sizes.
Many simple pages have very little use for CSS, but one trick is
p {text-align: justify} to smarten up the page for style aware
browsers, while using conventional font declarations.
I'm seeing a lot of bloated document-level CSS recently -- every
page containing the presentation rules within <style> tags in the
page head, typically costing 70% of the filesize. Maybe it's a
reaction against the difficulties of saving complete pages (try
ZBM), but the "all eventualities" CSS should be external. Any
local tweaking may done within the document -- which is where
the "cascading" comes in: a document-level style sheet takes
precedence over external CSS.
Jake
