Yes I was thinking the same really. We cannot say this is a case of
"bad design principles" without being fully aware of the requirements
of the site. For example; if the point of the site was simply to be
referred to in correspondence or if they wanted to have something for
people who checked their site after receiving an
@hansermusicgroup.com email etc, but did not want to get random
search traffic then it may be appropriate (except of course for
individuals with accessibility issues!).
Also, I wouldn't even say it "looks bad" as visually it's much better
than a lot of sites (aside from little things like overly faint and/
or small text). With that in mind the only way to really say it is
bad design is if it is inappropriate to it's requirements... which we
don't know.
I'd say it's a little simplistic to run every site through a
standards checklist without knowing its real intentions.
Nick
With all of that said, it's always difficult to judge a site from
the outside, except on superficial grounds. Knowing the intent of
the site is important, and the audience, so I would put one big
caveat around the above two paragraphs and say "It _looks_ bad, but
it might be right for the audience".
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
