Pippi wrote:
>I contact and annoy webmaster who have inaccessible sites. Not the
>personal sites, just the professional ones.
>I hate to hear "law requiring" and "website" in the same sentence.
I feel that govermental funded websites *should* be accesible for everyone
and such a law wouldn't change anything else but nearly the policy in which
pages are created. Of course a law is something we shouldn't strive to get
since it would be much easier if these people woke up someday.
I would recomend anyone that wants to create a webpage to try and use it
with a 28k8 (or maybe 33k6) modem before launching it to a wider audience.
Using several browsers would also be a good thing, with and without images
turned on.
The problem that is growing bigger every day is the fact that webmasters
use FrontPage and that that program locks (please note that I didn't wrote
"locks") the page(s) to a certain resolution.
Common errors:
1. Locks frames (no slidebar, Arachne is the only browser AFAIK that works
OK anyway in most cases). I thereby miss the last part of some frames (I've
mailed several companys about this, but they just claim that they aren't
interested in me as a client if I don't have a minimum of, often, 1024*768
in resolution. Since my video card doesn't have enough memmory for that
(6MB required for 1024*768*16M I think) they will not get any of my money
that's for sure).
2. Locks tables very annoying since they thereby make the page bigger and
often I need to scroll to the right/left to actually see the content.
3. BReaks text without use. In the
middle of the
text they just add a lot of <BR> without any
use.
Thereby the text looks uggly and is harder to read (this text was an
example, not a typo).
4. Gigantic images that are image maps (granted only one page
http://www.airwolf.org/) but I fear this is going to be a trend soon.
Of course some of these problems are working the other way as well. Ex.
http://www.starwars.nu/ (swedish "nu" = english "now") doesn't work with
anything above 640*480 and that's an interesting approach.
Then there are always the problems that more and more are just images and
no text, no frame free sollution (not that it changes anything I see),
ShockWave (or other 3rd part plugin as QuickTime player).
I mailed the Swedish Television that I wanted to be able to see all the
pages they create and either change some setting or get some new program
(and demand a refund since Frontpage clearly doesn't do what they want).
Still waiting for an answer, but I doubt I'll get any. Hmm... a more
official approach might be more interesting. If I get enough annoyed I'll
go ahead and do that.
In one computer magazine I read this guy had sent a mail to the staff there
where he told them he was laughing since he couldn't believe that someone
would actually create webpages without Frontpage and instead use something
like Notepad.
Strangely enough the editor didn't told him that it's:
1. The professional approach (see if you can get a job at ex. AltaVista or
why not RazorFish after only knowing FrontPage)
2. Faster
3. More reliable
4. Most common
But I guess that's just as all the computer magazines. The reporters aren't
even good at writing, and would probably not know the diffrence between a
computer and a screen if asked. Much less to actually write about something
more complicated. The only computer magazines are better these days are the
photagraphers so they just have a lot of nice pictures everywhere instead
of interesting material.
Another gimmick here seems to be to get some good looking woman to take of
as much clothing as possible and put her together with a computer on the
front page. If was looking for such a paper don't they think I would buy
one of those instead, they are often very close in the store anyway so I
don't see the point.
//Bernie
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
