RE: [WSG] Site Check: VVE

[Tatham Oddie \(Fuel Advance\)]

All,

 

Just a quick ping to say that we've
finished version 0.5 of the site which should include 95% of the feedback I
received on the list.

 

  http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/



 

 

Thanks,

 

Tatham Oddie

Fuel Advance - Ignite Your
Idea

www.fueladvance.com











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tatham
 Oddie (Fuel Advance)
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 10:58
AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Tom
 Harvey
Subject: [WSG] Site Check: VVE



 

Guys
n’ gals,

 

In
light of the Broadleaf discussion/brawl the other week, I have a new proposal
for you. In this case, bandwidth was critical due to the existing site’s
traffic base and formed a major design goal.

 

 
http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/


 

There
are still some oddities in IE6, however I have posted to CSS-D about this.

 

What
I was mostly interested in some feedback on was the mark-up, etc… I was
just wondering if anybody had any pointers about how to improve it.

 

Thanks
in advance! And I’ll try not to start a punchup this time. ;-)

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

Tatham Oddie

Fuel Advance - Ignite
Your Idea

www.fueladvance.com

RE: [WSG] Site Check: VVE

[Tatham Oddie \(Fuel Advance\)]

David,

One of the main advantages of XHTML for us is that we can use XML storage
for the CMS, and just plug this straight into the page. The whole thing is
XML. :-)



Thanks,

Tatham Oddie
Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea
www.fueladvance.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Laakso
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 4:31 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: VVE

Tom Livingston wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:36:39 -0400, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>
>> No, this page  
>> <http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/Dashboard/Default.ashx> is not  
>> breaking in any of my browsers.
>> Regards,
>> David Laakso
>
>
> So, XHTML 1.1 is bad because?
>
Hi Tom,
Tatham has a  good -- readable, usable, accessible, content driven--  
page going. You might say it is 'cool.' I do not know that XHTML 1.1 is 
good or bad. I am asking an academic question: what doctype is best for 
Tatham's 'cool' page?
Regards,
David Laakso

-- 
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com/


**
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] Site Check: VVE

[Tatham Oddie \(Fuel Advance\)]

Peter,

> Is there an issue that XHTML 1.1 should be served as media type
> application/xhtml+xml and should not be served as text/html?

Correct.

However, if you send IE6 application/xhtml+xml it doesn't think it's a web
page and shows the file download window instead.

By the same token, if you send Firefox text/html and an XHTML1.1 doctype you
fall back into quirks mode.

Solution? Send IE6 text/html, and all other browsers application/xhtml+xml.
This needs to be done via server-side sniffing, which is exactly how we've
implemented it. Fire up an HTTP sniffer and do the request in IE6 and FF1
and watch what happens.



Thanks,

Tatham Oddie
Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea
www.fueladvance.com


**
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 Check: VVE

[Peter Williams]

> From: Tom Livingston
> 
> So, XHTML 1.1 is bad because?

Is there an issue that XHTML 1.1 should be served as media type
application/xhtml+xml and should not be served as text/html?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

As I understand it current browsers aren't well equipped to deal
with the former media type and thus XHTML 1.1 is not a sensible
choice for documents served to the web using public.

-- 
Peter Williams
**
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 Check: VVE

[David Laakso]

Tom Livingston wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:36:39 -0400, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:


No, this page  
 is not  
breaking in any of my browsers.

Regards,
David Laakso



So, XHTML 1.1 is bad because?


Hi Tom,
Tatham has a  good -- readable, usable, accessible, content driven--  
page going. You might say it is 'cool.' I do not know that XHTML 1.1 is 
good or bad. I am asking an academic question: what doctype is best for 
Tatham's 'cool' page?

Regards,
David Laakso

--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com/


**
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 Check: VVE

[Tom Livingston]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:36:39 -0400, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

No, this page  
 is not  
breaking in any of my browsers.

Regards,
David Laakso


So, XHTML 1.1 is bad because?

--
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
**
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 Check: VVE

[David Laakso]

Tom Livingston wrote:



On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:35:34 -0400, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



readable, usable, accessible content



Is the page breaking in one of your browsers?


No, this page 
 is not 
breaking in any of my browsers.

Regards,
David Laakso

--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com/


**
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 Check: VVE

[Tom Livingston]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:35:34 -0400, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


readable, usable, accessible content


Is the page breaking in one of your browsers?


--
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
**
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 Check: VVE

[David Laakso]

Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote:


David,

 


Tidy Online will eliminate all the white space on your file.
   



The page is dynamically generated, hence all the weird tabbing that steps in
an out. I'll get a server side filter working shortly that does that kind of
stuff.

 


Why are you using XHTML 1.1?
   



Why not? Am I missing something newer or cooler?

 


Tatham,
I think 'cool' is readable, usable, accessible content. I'm *asking*  
if  XHTM 1.1 is the best way to deliver 'cool' content?

Regards,
David Laakso

--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com/


**
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 Check: VVE

[Tatham Oddie \(Fuel Advance\)]

David,

> Tidy Online will eliminate all the white space on your file.

The page is dynamically generated, hence all the weird tabbing that steps in
an out. I'll get a server side filter working shortly that does that kind of
stuff.

> Why are you using XHTML 1.1?

Why not? Am I missing something newer or cooler?



Thanks,

Tatham Oddie
Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea
www.fueladvance.com



**
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 Check: VVE

[David Laakso]

Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote:

In light of the Broadleaf discussion/brawl the other week, I have a 
new proposal for you. In this case, bandwidth was critical due to the 
existing site’s traffic base and formed a major design goal.


http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/ 



There are still some oddities in IE6, however I have posted to CSS-D 
about this.


What I was mostly interested in some feedback on was the mark-up, etc… 
I was just wondering if anybody had any pointers about how to improve it.


Tatham Oddie




Tidy Online will eliminate all the white space on your file. Why are you 
using XHTML 1.1?

Regards,
David Laakso

--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com/


**
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 Check: VVE

[Andrew Krespanis]

> 1. Maybe use "search" instead of query as a label for the search form.

Maybe use "Find" instead of search or query (then again, your target
audience is developers, so query is part of their vocab). 'Search'
suggests that a 'hunt and peck/ hit and miss" activity will follow.

More important than that -- how about adding a notice in the footer
"Virtual Earth is a trademark of Microshlop. This site is neither
endorsed nor affiliated with Microsoft".

After all, they are the lawsuit type ;)

Cheers,
Andrew.

http://leftjustified.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 Check: VVE

[Bert Doorn]

G'day


 http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/
   


Pretty good (looks clean, code and layout wise).   I don't like using as 
many classes as you do, but that's personal preference.


The only real problem I see is accessibility - a number of links with 
the same text [read more] going to different URL's.   (Checkpoint 13.1)


And there's a couple of errors and warnings in the CSS.

Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Web Developer
Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/



**
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 Check: VVE

[Terrence Wood]

v. nice. Nothing really needs changing but you might consider:

1. Maybe use "search" instead of query as a label for the search form.

2. Your CSS issues may come form the use of multiple classes, which 
some browsers don't handle very well (I'll leave the css-d folks to 
look into this)


3. You might want to save some bytes by combining your CSS image 
related declarations. e.g


background-color: white;
background-image: url(Assets/HeaderBase.jpg);
background-position: right top;
background-repeat: no-repeat;

is the same as:
background: #fff url(Assets/HeaderBase.jpg) no-repeat right top;

kind regards
Terrence Wood.

On 2 Aug 2005, at 12:58 PM, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) wrote:


Guys n' gals,



In light of the Broadleaf discussion/brawl the other week, I have a new
proposal for you. In this case, bandwidth was critical due to the 
existing

site's traffic base and formed a major design goal.



  http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/




There are still some oddities in IE6, however I have posted to CSS-D 
about

this.



What I was mostly interested in some feedback on was the mark-up, etc. 
I was

just wondering if anybody had any pointers about how to improve it.



Thanks in advance! And I'll try not to start a punchup this time. ;-)







Thanks,



Tatham Oddie

Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea

www.fueladvance.com


**
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 Check: VVE

[Darren Wood]

Great work Tathan!

The markup is very tight indeed!  there is very small thing - that is
you've left out the type attribute on the link tag at the top of the
document.



Otherwise its great.  It looks good and behaves well!

D

On 8/2/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Guys n' gals, 
> 
>   
> 
> In light of the Broadleaf discussion/brawl the other week, I have a new
> proposal for you. In this case, bandwidth was critical due to the existing
> site's traffic base and formed a major design goal. 
> 
>   
> 
>   http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/ 
> 
>   
> 
> There are still some oddities in IE6, however I have posted to CSS-D about
> this. 
> 
>   
> 
> What I was mostly interested in some feedback on was the mark-up, etc… I was
> just wondering if anybody had any pointers about how to improve it. 
> 
>   
> 
> Thanks in advance! And I'll try not to start a punchup this time. ;-) 
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
>   
> 
> Tatham Oddie 
> 
> Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea 
> 
> www.fueladvance.com
N�ŠÇ.²È¨žX¬µú+†ÛiÿünËZ�Ö«vÈ+¢êh®Òyèm¶ŸÿÁæ쵩Ýj·l‚º.¦Šàþf¢—ø.‰×¥Šw¬qùŸ¢»(™èbžÛ(žš,¶)උazX¬¶­¶)à…éi

[WSG] Site Check: VVE

[Tatham Oddie \(Fuel Advance\)]

Guys
n’ gals,

 

In
light of the Broadleaf discussion/brawl the other week, I have a new proposal
for you. In this case, bandwidth was critical due to the existing site’s
traffic base and formed a major design goal.

 

 
http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/vve/


 

There
are still some oddities in IE6, however I have posted to CSS-D about this.

 

What
I was mostly interested in some feedback on was the mark-up, etc… I was
just wondering if anybody had any pointers about how to improve it.

 

Thanks
in advance! And I’ll try not to start a punchup this time. ;-)

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

Tatham Oddie

Fuel Advance - Ignite
Your Idea

www.fueladvance.com