> Looks stable in Safari 1.2.4 and Mac/Firefox but the news inner containers
> are missing their backgrounds in Mac/IE5.2.8. I can send screenshots offlist
> if needed.
hmm. I dont know that screenshots will be needed, since I can pretty
much assume what you are talking about and know what it looks like.
The question is, why? My best guess is that I have a line break in my
code at a weird moment to make it more readable for me while getting
around an IE issue:
<div class="ContentWrapper">
<div [snip]><div [snip]>[snip]</div></div><div
style="background-image:url('images/content-bg.gif')[snip]">
the new line between the "<div" and the the "style=..." might be what is
causing the issues in the Mac/IE5.
I've gotten rid of the newline and any tabs and reuploaded the files for
the news section. Could you check and see if that fixed the issue
(if it doesn't, I wont keep asking, dont worry)?
> The other comments are accessibility ones so take them as you wish - they
> may not be part of the mission for this site's audience.
For the most part, because of the target audience for such a site, accessibility
has taken a back seat to design and wow factor. But the comments are still
welcomed and noted, thankyou.
> 1. The continuous scrolling animated text is very irritating and makes it
> hard to read the text on the page - the eye is constantly being distracted.
> This may not matter to the target audience coming to your site, but for
> people with reading difficulties, this could present an accessibility
> barrier. It could also be considered a usability issue. If it irritates
> people, and they find it distracting, then it may be worth addressing.
At somepoint, yes, that whole 'plot of land' will be redone, it was a quick
fix job so the site could be put up sooner. I haven't found it distracting, but
I know it can become so very easily, and it should be address when I am
not so busy with other priorities.
> 2. If people do not have flash, do they have any way of navigating the site
> at all? If accessibility to a wider audience is considered important (and
> from the topic this may not be the case) then a non-flash navigation option
> might be worthwhile.
Is there a way to provide non-flash content if and only if flash is
not available
for that user? like the <noframe> tag for frames?
> 4. Finally, again this may be irrelevant for this site, it doesn't work well
> on a text-browser or screen reader. You get the following information:
>
> "sorry dude, your browser doesn't support Iframes.
> sorry dude, your browser doesn't support Iframes.
> image image image image image image image"
>
> If nothing else, a null or blank alt attribute would be better than an alt
> attribute with "image", as this wouldn't be read out aloud to screen reader
> users.
I actually do have some images with blank alt attributes, but just as many with
"image", as you've noted (this inconsistency was through using old code from
different sites I've previously made). It does sound worthwhile to change those
"image" ones to blank. Only takes 20 seconds to do anyway. Thanks.
The <noframe> message was from... sheesh.. 4 or more years ago at least. I
should have changed the message to a more useful and helpful one long long
ago.
Thanks for the helpful reply!
-Levi
> 2c
> Russ
>
> > No replied after 13 days... yeesh. Was it that bad or that good? no
> > comments at all? worked perfect on everyone's computer/browsers?
> >
> > here is the url again: http://ffxi.anime-madness.com
> >
> > -levi
>
> ******************************************************
> 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
******************************************************
