123c5f778462
tech



Hello Roy - 

--8<--cut 

RJT>> I have, from time to time, been dropping notes to
RJT>> webmasters with my opinions and comments on their sites.
RJT>> Sometimes I even get a reply. Sometimes
RJT>> "webmaster{at}whatever.com" isn't a valid address, since
RJT>> they seem to have become a target for spam. I've been at
RJT>> this for somewhat longer than a year. 

CA>> I mean _discuss_ this with webmasters. Not just drop them
CA>> a comment or two or three but _discuss_ the pros and cons
CA>> and reasons why. 

RJT> There haven't been too many of them that seem to be open
RJT> to such discussion... 

My own experiences have been that the _female_ webmasters are
more willing to discuss standards than the male. Not unlike
FIDO there are a few zealots and general misfits that become
insulting but not all are that way. 

--8<--cut 

RJT>> Case in point: For some folks, a suggestion (which a
RJT>> browser tag is more often than not) isn't good enough.
RJT>> They can say what font they want to use, and what size,
RJT>> and so forth. But suppose you don't have that font on
RJT>> your machine? 

CA>> The established practice is to specify three different
CA>> fonts just in case your preferred font is unavailable on a
CA>> particular machine. 

RJT> Yep. One of the things that tends to bulk up pages
RJT> unnecessarily. Why not let me decide what font I want to
RJT> use here? 

To a degree 'fit' is a consideration. Some fonts aren't kerned
to the degree that others are and text may or may not fit
within the allocated spaces if the font type changes. 

RJT>> The solution (and there are times when I *hate* that
RJT>> word!) on a lot of sites is to load a graphic to
RJT>> substitute. This is _OFTEN_ done for menu items,
RJT>> typically going down the left side of the page. 

CA>> I've never found a webpage that defaults to graphics if a
CA>> font is not available. 

RJT> They didn't specify a font in these cases, just the "ALT="
RJT> tag to say some text if you didn't get the graphic.
RJT> Sometimes I feel like I'd be better off viewing these
RJT> pages in text-only mode... 

CA>> Webmasters I have communicated with put graphics into
CA>> those menus intentionally with no intent to use text at
CA>> any time. 

RJT> Yep. Which leaves some folks out entirely. Those who are
RJT> visually-impaired ferinstance. 

The "ALT" tag you mention is intended as an aide to the
visually impaired to allow their screen readers to read the ALT
tags aloud. 

RJT>> Now, my eyes aren't quite what they used to be. I really
RJT>> like the feature of firefox where you can hit a single
RJT>> keystroke and make the type get bigger. But when the
RJT>> menus and such are all graphics rather than words, this
RJT>> doesn't work. Which makes it hard for me to view those
RJT>> sites. 

CA>> Use OPERA, it will enlarge both text _and_ graphics for
CA>> you. :-) 

RJT> Payware, ain't it? :-) 

There is a version that is adware supported (free) if I
remember correctly. 

RJT>> Thier loss, I'll get what I want somewhere else... 

RJT>> Once a lot of those people realize that I have that
RJT>> choice, maybe they'll wake up. 

CA>> Those who sell webpages _do_ realize that you have that
CA>> choice which is why many take the time to learn how to
CA>> code the most generic code possible considering the
CA>> variety of browser support  for various code. They test
CA>> with multiple browsers or have others test for them. 

RJT> All too often this isn't the case, though. The most
RJT> concession people seem to be willing to make is IE or
RJT> Netscape... 

CA>> Not unlike Microsoft dropping support for 'older'
CA>> software, the webmaster will eventually decide that
CA>> such-and-such a browser has outlived it's useful lifespan
CA>> and stop making concessions for that browser's problem
CA>> areas. 

CA>> Granted there are some webmasters who out of arrogance or
CA>> ignorance write webpages that only one browser can
CA>> accomodate and those who do their work in that fashion are
CA>> helping no one, not even themselves. 

RJT> Exactly my point. 

RJT> I far prefer "best viewed with ANY browser" and similar
RJT> pages.  :-)

My own webpages at my 'tech' website are 'any-browser'
compatible but I also have another website that requires
minimal javascripting to be fully appreciated. All pages will
_display_ properly but something will be lost on _certain_
pages without javascripting at the 'entertainment' website. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/