Oh, *pooh*.

One of the websites I visit most often has burst at the seams and 
spilled out of the sides of my browser window.

BBC.co.uk is currently trialling a 'beta' version of its home page, and
despite having used a sensible 800px page-width for years, the new
version has gone all bloaty and exploded to 1024px in width, with
seemingly no graceful fluid downsizing possible. And, on top of this, it 
also seems to have succumbed to an attack of portalitis as well, and 
no longer (in my opinion) actually looks or 'feels' like "The BBC" any 
more. In fact, it reminds me more than anything of Netscape's somewhat 
heavyweight portal during the terminal decline of that company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/beta/


Now, I have an not-exactly-ungenerous 1280x1024 screen display, which
would indeed accommodate the new lard-butt website, but one thing I've 
always done when browsing the web (or indeed, when doing pretty much 
anything with my computer) is have at least two windows open for 
cross-referral, or copying and pasting, or what have you; you know,
/multitasking/. Browser window widths of 800px work pretty well for 
that, you can have two pages displayed adjacently to each other, which 
only overlap slightly (and most pages are designed so that the overlap only 
obscures navigation bars or the like which you are generally not 
actually reading/using at that time). If my monitor (and my eyes) could 
stretch to a non-flickery 1600px-wide screen, things would indeed be 
just great. 

But now the BBC joins the sadly growing number of websites which demand 
an excessive amount of my attention (and screen space) - hey, I'm doing 
more than one thing at a time here, get /out/ of my way! - and would 
require me to invest in a new graphics card and monitor to return to 
the same level of utility as I had before. I suppose I should at least 
consider myself lucky (for a change) that I'm still using a desktop box 
and aren't trapped on a laptop with no way to upgrade to accommodate 
web bloat, without having to fork out bigtime for a whole new model.

At least, at this time, BBC News does not appear to have succumbed to
the new design (and for the time being remains a very good example of 
how to fit the maximal amount of information into a non-excessive amount
of space), but I worry to think just how long it will last before also
starting to leak out of my browser window..


-- 
David M. -- Edinburgh, Scotland. --[en,fr,(de) <-- corrections welcome]
*Please remove quotes not needed for context and interleave reply text*
*No-context, excess-quoted, slug-trailed, zero-content posts filtered.*

On Dec 28, 9:46 am, David M <da...@bogus.domain.dom.invalid> wrote:
> Oh, *pooh*.
>
> One of the websites I visit most often has burst at the seams and
> spilled out of the sides of my browser window.
>
> BBC.co.uk is currently trialling a 'beta' version of its home page, and
> despite having used a sensible 800px page-width for years, the new
> version has gone all bloaty and exploded to 1024px in width, with
> seemingly no graceful fluid downsizing possible. And, on top of this, it
> also seems to have succumbed to an attack of portalitis as well, and
> no longer (in my opinion) actually looks or 'feels' like "The BBC" any
> more. In fact, it reminds me more than anything of Netscape's somewhat
> heavyweight portal during the terminal decline of that company.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/beta/
>
Well the site should not really be useing Px widths at all, they
should use ether % or em units so the site will stretch according to
screen size.

> Now, I have an not-exactly-ungenerous 1280x1024 screen display, which
> would indeed accommodate the new lard-butt website, but one thing I've
> always done when browsing the web (or indeed, when doing pretty much
> anything with my computer) is have at least two windows open for
> cross-referral, or copying and pasting, or what have you; you know,
> /multitasking/. Browser window widths of 800px work pretty well for
> that, you can have two pages displayed adjacently to each other, which
> only overlap slightly (and most pages are designed so that the overlap only
> obscures navigation bars or the like which you are generally not
> actually reading/using at that time). If my monitor (and my eyes) could
> stretch to a non-flickery 1600px-wide screen, things would indeed be
> just great.
>
> But now the BBC joins the sadly growing number of websites which demand
> an excessive amount of my attention (and screen space) - hey, I'm doing
> more than one thing at a time here, get /out/ of my way! - and would
> require me to invest in a new graphics card and monitor to return to
> the same level of utility as I had before. I suppose I should at least
<snip>
As I said if the site was designed properly then it would fit on
almost any window size.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<David M>
<Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:46:39 +0000>


> BBC.co.uk is currently trialling a 'beta' version of its home page, and
> despite having used a sensible 800px page-width for years, the new
> version has gone all bloaty and exploded to 1024px in width
> 

Well done the bbc .

For your information old chap - its called progress .

Although it is clear they need to work on the layout .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

David M wrote:
> 
> BBC.co.uk is currently trialling a 'beta' version of its home page, and
> despite having used a sensible 800px page-width for years, the new
> version has gone all bloaty and exploded to 1024px in width, with
> seemingly no graceful fluid downsizing possible. 

There's even a link to lots of "display options" which change text sizes 
and colours, but nothing to set a new display width.


-- 
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444         Mob: 07976 263827

"David M" <david@bogus.domain.dom.invalid> wrote in message 
news:slrnfn8aqf.82d.david@pepper.local.lan...
>
> Oh, *pooh*.
>
> One of the websites I visit most often has burst at the seams and
> spilled out of the sides of my browser window.
>
> BBC.co.uk is currently trialling a 'beta' version of its home page, and
> despite having used a sensible 800px page-width for years, the new
> version has gone all bloaty and exploded to 1024px in width, with
> seemingly no graceful fluid downsizing possible. And, on top of this, it
> also seems to have succumbed to an attack of portalitis as well, and
> no longer (in my opinion) actually looks or 'feels' like "The BBC" any
> more. In fact, it reminds me more than anything of Netscape's somewhat
> heavyweight portal during the terminal decline of that company.

6 of one and 2x3 of the other; fixed width is AKA lazy design/structure no 
matter what size you opt for. I'm with the 1024 crew if asked for my 
half-dozen.

---dE|_---

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.21decec9bf9a0e798b0e1@news.newsreader.com...
> <uk.net.web.authoring>
> <David M>
> <Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:46:39 +0000>
> 
>
>> BBC.co.uk is currently trialling a 'beta' version of its home page, and
>> despite having used a sensible 800px page-width for years, the new
>> version has gone all bloaty and exploded to 1024px in width
>>
>
> Well done the bbc .
>
> For your information old chap - its called progress .
>
> Although it is clear they need to work on the layout .
>

If you dont like the layout you can move it about yourself.

Appart from the over rounded courners, making it look a bit babyish, I quite 
like it.

AC

On 29 Dec 2007, 08:57, "dE|_"  wrote:

>  I'm with the 1024 crew if asked for my
> half-dozen.

I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).

This new "portal" design repeats all of the bad mistakes of a few
years ago, in contrast to the News site, still an exemplar of how to
do things. I smell dezyners inside the Beeb having to justify their
existence by redesigning flagships, for no reason other than their
need to look busy.

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message 
news:f74f923a-e1d3-4291-96b6-977fa7a19117@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Dec 2007, 08:57, "dE|_"  wrote:
>
>>  I'm with the 1024 crew if asked for my
>> half-dozen.
>
> I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).
>
> This new "portal" design repeats all of the bad mistakes of a few
> years ago, in contrast to the News site, still an exemplar of how to
> do things. I smell dezyners inside the Beeb having to justify their
> existence by redesigning flagships, for no reason other than their
> need to look busy.

Err www.bbc.co.uk/mobile ....

On 2 Jan, 11:54, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> "Andy Dingley"  wrote in message

> > I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).

> Errwww.bbc.co.uk/mobile....

Yes "Errr...." indeed.

_Why_ does any page need a "mobile" or a "printable" version?  Such a
thing is an admission that your basic page implementation is broken.
It's just not necessary, with competent CSS work.

Secondly, what do you mean by "mobile"?  If there's any justification
for mobile-specific pages, then they're surely at the 200px-wide
"phone size" level, not the 800px-wide "handbaggable palmtop" level
like the Nokia? I don't want my device sniffed, treated as "mobile"
then subjected to some postage-stamp sized page. I've got 800 pixels
and a decent browser here - I don't need the same compromises my phone
does, just because I'm walking around outdoors with it.

Thirdly, that mobile site implementation sucks badly. A mix of XML and
<font>? That's no use to man nor beast, let alone mobile devices.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
>
>> > I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).
>
>> Errwww.bbc.co.uk/mobile....
>
> Yes "Errr...." indeed.
>
> _Why_ does any page need a "mobile" or a "printable" version?  Such a
> thing is an admission that your basic page implementation is broken.
> It's just not necessary, with competent CSS work.
>
> Secondly, what do you mean by "mobile"?  If there's any justification
> for mobile-specific pages, then they're surely at the 200px-wide
> "phone size" level, not the 800px-wide "handbaggable palmtop" level
> like the Nokia? I don't want my device sniffed, treated as "mobile"
> then subjected to some postage-stamp sized page. I've got 800 pixels
> and a decent browser here - I don't need the same compromises my phone
> does, just because I'm walking around outdoors with it.
>
> Thirdly, that mobile site implementation sucks badly. A mix of XML and
> <font>? That's no use to man nor beast, let alone mobile devices.

Are you joining the club of BBC persecution victims?

---dE|_---

On 2/1/08 5:46 pm, in article
95cd8275-11c6-40de-80e5-6aff31e573e1@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "Andy
Dingley"  wrote:

> On 2 Jan, 11:54, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
> 
>>> I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).
> 
>> Errwww.bbc.co.uk/mobile....
> 
> Yes "Errr...." indeed.
> 
> _Why_ does any page need a "mobile" or a "printable" version?  Such a
> thing is an admission that your basic page implementation is broken.
> It's just not necessary, with competent CSS work.

Because that's life.  It's not always 'dezyners' calling the shots, it's
mostly men in grey suits who've just signed up to Facebook and want their
web sites to look all web 2.0 or iGoogle.

Turn stylesheets off if design is not important to you.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 3, 6:46 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 2/1/08 5:46 pm, in article
> 95cd8275-11c6-40de-80e5-6aff31e57...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "Andy
>
> Dingley"  wrote:
> > On 2 Jan, 11:54, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> >> "Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
>
> >>> I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).
>
> >> Errwww.bbc.co.uk/mobile....
>
> > Yes "Errr...." indeed.
>
> > _Why_ does any page need a "mobile" or a "printable" version?  Such a
> > thing is an admission that your basic page implementation is broken.
> > It's just not necessary, with competent CSS work.
>
> Because that's life.  It's not always 'dezyners' calling the shots, it's> mostly men in grey suits who've just signed up to Facebook and want their
> web sites to look all web 2.0 or iGoogle.
>
> Turn stylesheets off if design is not important to you.
>
That's not really a very good answer.
You can make sites that look good and that are still functional, it
just takes a little bit more of a plan of where you want items to be
in the layout.
You really should know all this as you say on all your sites that they
are accessible.
The bad part for you is that your main site a long with some of your
others fale to be accessible even though you claim they are.
While your site is accessible (according to some automated tools) you
fale to use some rather baysic web design methods to make sure that
content including text is re-sizable. The text re-sizeing issue is one
of the werst sticking points that make a lot of site un-readable.
The main point that Andy was trying to make in his last post, (which I
agree with) is that with good CSS it is not hard to get around a lot
of these problems.
As an example the BBC use a lot of alternative pages for changeing
simple things like font size which would just not be needed with
decent CSS.
You can view my main site as an example of this.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On 3/1/08 12:24 pm, in article
9ae21d65-9da8-4377-8ad0-603021f1b180@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Jan 3, 6:46 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On 2/1/08 5:46 pm, in article
>> 95cd8275-11c6-40de-80e5-6aff31e57...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "Andy
>> 
>> Dingley"  wrote:
>>> On 2 Jan, 11:54, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>>>> "Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
>> 
>>>>> I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).
>> 
>>>> Errwww.bbc.co.uk/mobile....
>> 
>>> Yes "Errr...." indeed.
>> 
>>> _Why_ does any page need a "mobile" or a "printable" version?  Such a
>>> thing is an admission that your basic page implementation is broken.
>>> It's just not necessary, with competent CSS work.
>> 
>> Because that's life.  It's not always 'dezyners' calling the shots, it's
>> mostly men in grey suits who've just signed up to Facebook and want their
>> web sites to look all web 2.0 or iGoogle.
>> 
>> Turn stylesheets off if design is not important to you.
>> 
> That's not really a very good answer.
> You can make sites that look good and that are still functional, it
> just takes a little bit more of a plan of where you want items to be
> in the layout.

I've asked before and I'll ask again.  Does anyone have examples of sites
that look good and are completely accessible?

If they use fluid widths then the number of words on any line shouldn't
exceed the 8 to 12 guide that, IIRC, the RNIB state.  Is it me or is this
funny:

http://www.fortune-cookie.com/

This is the only new media company that the RNIB list as having undergone a
web accessibility audit by RNIB.

They also shouldn't look like a dogs breakfast when you increase the text
size.

> You really should know all this as you say on all your sites that they
> are accessible.
> The bad part for you is that your main site a long with some of your
> others fale to be accessible even though you claim they are.
> While your site is accessible (according to some automated tools) you
> fale to use some rather baysic web design methods to make sure that
> content including text is re-sizable. The text re-sizeing issue is one
> of the werst sticking points that make a lot of site un-readable.
> The main point that Andy was trying to make in his last post, (which I
> agree with) is that with good CSS it is not hard to get around a lot
> of these problems.
> As an example the BBC use a lot of alternative pages for changeing
> simple things like font size which would just not be needed with
> decent CSS.
> You can view my main site as an example of this.

It cannot be done.  In order to make a site 100% accessible compromises have
to be made.  It doesn't matter how good your CSS skills are, compromises
will have to be made at some point if you want any degree of control over
the design - something that most paying customers insist on.

And sorry Chaddy, if I walked into a client using your web site and
portfolio I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.  They may all be more
accessible than the most accessible thing on accessible pills but they have
no design value at all.

Your site also breaks at lower widths so it ain't perfect.  Also, I don't
know if you use max width but at 1200 px wide you're looking at a content
width of 840 pixels which puts the number of words on a line much greater
than would be recommended.  That also leads to a discussion I had at a DDA
seminar with a very poorly sighted woman who said that her biggest problem
wasn't text sizes as she had software to magnify everything.  Her problem
was that her eyes tended to drop over the length of longer lines and she had
problems finding her place on the next line when she got to the end of the
last.

As the good book says: Accessibility is ultimately a human endeavour.  I've
spoken to one human who would say that my site with it's fixed width and
fixed fonts sizes is more accessible to her than yours would be.

And what we also need to remember is that, AFAICS, the law doesn't actually
demand that we have 100% accessible web sites, only that we have systems in
place should there be a problem.  What I can guarantee won't happen is that
I'll get a demand for compensation land on my doormat before I've been given
the opportunity to rectify the situation.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 4, 7:44 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 3/1/08 12:24 pm, in article
> 9ae21d65-9da8-4377-8ad0-603021f1b...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 6:46 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 2/1/08 5:46 pm, in article
> >> 95cd8275-11c6-40de-80e5-6aff31e57...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "Andy
>
> >> Dingley"  wrote:
> >>> On 2 Jan, 11:54, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> "Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
>
> >>>>> I'm not.  Much of my BBC access is from a Nokia 770 (800px wide).
>
> >>>> Errwww.bbc.co.uk/mobile....
>
> >>> Yes "Errr...." indeed.
>
> >>> _Why_ does any page need a "mobile" or a "printable" version?  Such a
> >>> thing is an admission that your basic page implementation is broken.
> >>> It's just not necessary, with competent CSS work.
>
> >> Because that's life.  It's not always 'dezyners' calling the shots, it's
> >> mostly men in grey suits who've just signed up to Facebook and want their
> >> web sites to look all web 2.0 or iGoogle.
>
> >> Turn stylesheets off if design is not important to you.
>
> > That's not really a very good answer.
> > You can make sites that look good and that are still functional, it
> > just takes a little bit more of a plan of where you want items to be
> > in the layout.
>
> I've asked before and I'll ask again.  Does anyone have examples of sites
> that look good and are completely accessible?
>
> If they use fluid widths then the number of words on any line shouldn't
> exceed the 8 to 12 guide that, IIRC, the RNIB state.  Is it me or is this
> funny:
>
> http://www.fortune-cookie.com/
>
> This is the only new media company that the RNIB list as having undergone a
> web accessibility audit by RNIB.
>
> They also shouldn't look like a dogs breakfast when you increase the text
> size.
>
> > You really should know all this as you say on all your sites that they
> > are accessible.
> > The bad part for you is that your main site a long with some of your
> > others fale to be accessible even though you claim they are.
> > While your site is accessible (according to some automated tools) you
> > fale to use some rather baysic web design methods to make sure that
> > content including text is re-sizable. The text re-sizeing issue is one
> > of the werst sticking points that make a lot of site un-readable.
> > The main point that Andy was trying to make in his last post, (which I
> > agree with) is that with good CSS it is not hard to get around a lot
> > of these problems.
> > As an example the BBC use a lot of alternative pages for changeing
> > simple things like font size which would just not be needed with
> > decent CSS.
> > You can view my main site as an example of this.
>
> It cannot be done.  In order to make a site 100% accessible compromises have
> to be made.  It doesn't matter how good your CSS skills are, compromises> will have to be made at some point if you want any degree of control over
> the design - something that most paying customers insist on.
>
> And sorry Chaddy, if I walked into a client using your web site and
> portfolio I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.  They may all be more
> accessible than the most accessible thing on accessible pills but they have
> no design value at all.
Well yes I know they are rather plain.
But I think I would rether have a site that's a bit plain looking then
one I can't read well due to the text being to small.

>
> Your site also breaks at lower widths so it ain't perfect.  Also, I don't
> know if you use max width but at 1200 px wide you're looking at a content
> width of 840 pixels which puts the number of words on a line much greater
> than would be recommended.  That also leads to a discussion I had at a DDA
> seminar with a very poorly sighted woman who said that her biggest problem> wasn't text sizes as she had software to magnify everything.  Her problem
> was that her eyes tended to drop over the length of longer lines and she had
> problems finding her place on the next line when she got to the end of the> last.
Yes well.
Regarding the max width issue I do use it on the handheld stylesheet
to make sure that content will fit on the smaller screen.
BTW on all pages a part from the home page all content will fit in a
smaller width. It could also be argued that if a user is having
trouble with reading text on the screen that they could always make
the window smaller so all the content could be read easily.
As for a site that looks good and that is quite accessible:
http://www.deakin.edu.au

>

> As the good book says: Accessibility is ultimately a human endeavour.  I've> spoken to one human who would say that my site with it's fixed width and
> fixed fonts sizes is more accessible to her than yours would be.
Not really, she probly doesn't know how to drag her browser window to
make content more readable. That is a thing the user should know.

>
> And what we also need to remember is that, AFAICS, the law doesn't actually
> demand that we have 100% accessible web sites, only that we have systems in
> place should there be a problem.  What I can guarantee won't happen is that
> I'll get a demand for compensation land on my doormat before I've been given
> the opportunity to rectify the situation.
>
That is all very interesting.
It's not that hard to make a site that both looks good and that is
accessible, it's just that it's easier not to make thing un-accessible
by setting widths in absolute units (that's why sites break a lot)
they use fixed widths and then people change the font size and things
just go all over the place. If you have a site that will stretch to
begin with then you don't have as many of those problems.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On 4/1/08 4:24 am, in article
01e93db1-2a21-4754-afaf-36948048973f@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Jan 4, 7:44 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On 3/1/08 12:24 pm, in article
>> 9ae21d65-9da8-4377-8ad0-603021f1b...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
>> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 6:46 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> And sorry Chaddy, if I walked into a client using your web site and
>> portfolio I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.  They may all be more
>> accessible than the most accessible thing on accessible pills but they have
>> no design value at all.
> Well yes I know they are rather plain.
> But I think I would rether have a site that's a bit plain looking then
> one I can't read well due to the text being to small.

You might, and that's perfectly valid.  I'm just saying that the type of
clients I deal with don't give a rats fart for accessibility.  They want
whatever they think is 'in'.  And these are decision makers for large
organisations.  I go as far as I can to educate them but it's got to be
evolution, not revolution.

We can put it to the vote if you want. We post 5 URLs of sites that we've
built and people here say whether they think the people who pay our wages
would choose me or you to design their next site.

> 
>> As the good book says: Accessibility is ultimately a human endeavour.  I've>
>> spoken to one human who would say that my site with it's fixed width and
>> fixed fonts sizes is more accessible to her than yours would be.
> Not really, she probly doesn't know how to drag her browser window to
> make content more readable. That is a thing the user should know.

So what you appear to be saying is that it's alright to expect visitors to
adjust their behaviour/settings to overcome the limitations of your site but
not mine?

And my argument still stands.  I've found a user that could use my site
exactly as it is.  They don't have to do anything.

That's the problem.  Once you find an exception then it messes all the rules
up.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 4, 6:47 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 4/1/08 4:24 am, in article
> 01e93db1-2a21-4754-afaf-369480489...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 7:44 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 3/1/08 12:24 pm, in article
> >> 9ae21d65-9da8-4377-8ad0-603021f1b...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> >> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> >>> On Jan 3, 6:46 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> And sorry Chaddy, if I walked into a client using your web site and
> >> portfolio I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.  They may all be more
> >> accessible than the most accessible thing on accessible pills but they have
> >> no design value at all.
> > Well yes I know they are rather plain.
> > But I think I would rether have a site that's a bit plain looking then
> > one I can't read well due to the text being to small.
>
> You might, and that's perfectly valid.  I'm just saying that the type of> clients I deal with don't give a rats fart for accessibility.  They want> whatever they think is 'in'.  And these are decision makers for large
> organisations.  I go as far as I can to educate them but it's got to be
> evolution, not revolution.
Interesting point.

>
> We can put it to the vote if you want. We post 5 URLs of sites that we've
> built and people here say whether they think the people who pay our wages
> would choose me or you to design their next site.
That is an interesting idea, although you and I have very different
goals with this web design thing, not to mention different markets.
For one thing most of what I do is working with organisations to help
improve their sites.
The main difference though is that you make a living off this stuff
(but I treet the web design stuff) as more of a hobbie. I am a Uni
student (as I have written in these groups before.

>
>
>
> >> As the good book says: Accessibility is ultimately a human endeavour.  I've>
> >> spoken to one human who would say that my site with it's fixed width and
> >> fixed fonts sizes is more accessible to her than yours would be.
> > Not really, she probly doesn't know how to drag her browser window to
> > make content more readable. That is a thing the user should know.
>
> So what you appear to be saying is that it's alright to expect visitors to> adjust their behaviour/settings to overcome the limitations of your site but
> not mine?
Not really, I am saying that if a user has limitations (such as the
text being to small for them to read, then it is easier for them to
ajust and less likely to break the design on my site then on some of
yours.

>
> And my argument still stands.  I've found a user that could use my site
> exactly as it is.  They don't have to do anything.

>
> That's the problem.  Once you find an exception then it messes all the rules
> up.
>

You have a good point their, the other issue is that some people in
these NG's break sites so that they can see what works and what does
not, go to any site you like and increase the font size about 5 or 7
times and whatch what happens.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On Jan 4, 6:47 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 4/1/08 4:24 am, in article
> 01e93db1-2a21-4754-afaf-369480489...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 7:44 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 3/1/08 12:24 pm, in article
> >> 9ae21d65-9da8-4377-8ad0-603021f1b...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> >> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> >>> On Jan 3, 6:46 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> And sorry Chaddy, if I walked into a client using your web site and
> >> portfolio I'd be out of business in a heartbeat.  They may all be more
> >> accessible than the most accessible thing on accessible pills but they have
> >> no design value at all.
> > Well yes I know they are rather plain.
> > But I think I would rether have a site that's a bit plain looking then
> > one I can't read well due to the text being to small.
>
> You might, and that's perfectly valid.  I'm just saying that the type of> clients I deal with don't give a rats fart for accessibility.  They want> whatever they think is 'in'.  And these are decision makers for large
> organisations.  I go as far as I can to educate them but it's got to be
> evolution, not revolution.
>
> We can put it to the vote if you want. We post 5 URLs of sites that we've
> built and people here say whether they think the people who pay our wages
> would choose me or you to design their next site.
<snip>
I have been thinking about this voteing thing.
Maybe if we post three URL's to sites we have built and get people to
decide on who they would hire. Although due to the market that I
design for we would need to limit it a bit to organisation who do not
have as much money to spend on web design related items.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

David M wrote:

> If my monitor (and my eyes) could stretch to a non-flickery 1600px-wide
> screen, things would indeed be just great.

I must have the same monitor as you. It goes up to 1600x1200, but only at 
60 Hz, which hurts my eyes. I think "Hertz" are inversely proportional to 
"hurts".

Overall, I like the idea of the new home page in principle, but it could 
be improved in many ways. Liquid layout and flexible font sizes would be 
much better. As would getting rid of that dratted clock.

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 5 days, 3:55.]

                      Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
          http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

dE|_ wrote:
> "Andy Dingley" wrote in message
>>
>> Secondly, what do you mean by "mobile"?  If there's any justification
>> for mobile-specific pages, then they're surely at the 200px-wide "phone
>> size" level, not the 800px-wide "handbaggable palmtop" level like the
>> Nokia? I don't want my device sniffed, treated as "mobile" then
>> subjected to some postage-stamp sized page. 
> 
> Are you joining the club of BBC persecution victims?

More to the point... why is Andy carrying about a handbag?

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 5 days, 4:00.]

                      Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
          http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

On 4/1/08 4:47 pm, in article hi4255-c21.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk, "Toby A
Inkster"  wrote:

> dE|_ wrote:
>> "Andy Dingley" wrote in message
>>> 
>>> Secondly, what do you mean by "mobile"?  If there's any justification
>>> for mobile-specific pages, then they're surely at the 200px-wide "phone
>>> size" level, not the 800px-wide "handbaggable palmtop" level like the
>>> Nokia? I don't want my device sniffed, treated as "mobile" then
>>> subjected to some postage-stamp sized page.
>> 
>> Are you joining the club of BBC persecution victims?
> 
> More to the point... why is Andy carrying about a handbag?

Probably a man-bag.  Ice and a slice anyone?

Andy

On 4/1/08 9:30 am, in article
ce7e7619-fa5f-466c-9fa8-1793adad8479@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

<snip>
> <snip>
> I have been thinking about this voteing thing.
> Maybe if we post three URL's to sites we have built and get people to
> decide on who they would hire. Although due to the market that I
> design for we would need to limit it a bit to organisation who do not
> have as much money to spend on web design related items.


Ok, do we need seconds? :o)

http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk
http://www.sbwsd.co.uk
http://www.fairtradechichester.co.uk
http://www.puef.org.uk

That's 4.  1 is obviously my main site, two is mine but aimed at small
organisations who want a simple web presence without paying loads up front,
the third is a non profit organisation so the site cost them next to nothing
and the fourth is a charity so ditto.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 5, 4:45 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 4/1/08 9:30 am, in article
> ce7e7619-fa5f-466c-9fa8-1793adad8...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > <snip>
> > I have been thinking about this voteing thing.
> > Maybe if we post three URL's to sites we have built and get people to
> > decide on who they would hire. Although due to the market that I
> > design for we would need to limit it a bit to organisation who do not
> > have as much money to spend on web design related items.
>
> Ok, do we need seconds? :o)
>
> http://www.redcatmedia.co.ukhttp://www.sbwsd.co.ukhttp://www.fairtradechichester.co.ukhttp://www.puef.org.uk
>
> That's 4.  1 is obviously my main site, two is mine but aimed at small
> organisations who want a simple web presence without paying loads up front> the third is a non profit organisation so the site cost them next to nothing
> and the fourth is a charity so ditto.
>
Ok here are mine:
http://freewebdesignonline.org
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/wdto
http://rockradio.freewebdesignonline.org (my newest project.
Most of the other web work I have done is consulting type work.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On Jan 5, 4:45 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 4/1/08 9:30 am, in article
> ce7e7619-fa5f-466c-9fa8-1793adad8...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > <snip>
> > I have been thinking about this voteing thing.
> > Maybe if we post three URL's to sites we have built and get people to
> > decide on who they would hire. Although due to the market that I
> > design for we would need to limit it a bit to organisation who do not
> > have as much money to spend on web design related items.
>
> Ok, do we need seconds? :o)
>
> http://www.redcatmedia.co.ukhttp://www.sbwsd.co.ukhttp://www.fairtradechichester.co.ukhttp://www.puef.org.uk
>
> That's 4.  1 is obviously my main site, two is mine but aimed at small
> organisations who want a simple web presence without paying loads up front> the third is a non profit organisation so the site cost them next to nothing
> and the fourth is a charity so ditto.
>
I had a look at both sites. They do look good (the graphic design guy
you have working for you does seam to know what he's doing).
However the sites fall to bits if you increase the font size two or
three times.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On 6/1/08 7:44 am, in article
541aaa36-44bb-428c-bb62-e4793d01c0bb@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Jan 5, 4:45 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On 4/1/08 9:30 am, in article
>> ce7e7619-fa5f-466c-9fa8-1793adad8...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
>> 
>> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> <snip>
>>> I have been thinking about this voteing thing.
>>> Maybe if we post three URL's to sites we have built and get people to
>>> decide on who they would hire. Although due to the market that I
>>> design for we would need to limit it a bit to organisation who do not
>>> have as much money to spend on web design related items.
>> 
>> Ok, do we need seconds? :o)
>> 
>> http://www.redcatmedia.co.ukhttp://www.sbwsd.co.ukhttp://www.fairtradechiches
>> ter.co.ukhttp://www.puef.org.uk
>> 
>> That's 4.  1 is obviously my main site, two is mine but aimed at small
>> organisations who want a simple web presence without paying loads up front,
>> the third is a non profit organisation so the site cost them next to nothing
>> and the fourth is a charity so ditto.
>> 
> I had a look at both sites. They do look good (the graphic design guy
> you have working for you does seam to know what he's doing).
> However the sites fall to bits if you increase the font size two or
> three times.

Absolutely.  I think we have things more or less right from a design point
of view.  Bear in mind, 2 years ago we were still building sites using
tables.  I reckon we're about 75% there from an accessibilty point of view.
Ok, some of the bits we're weak on have a large impact but we'll get there.
You can't learn all this stuff overnight.  I'm just pleased with the fact
that we know we have weaknesses and are moving in the right direction.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 7, 12:42 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 6/1/08 7:44 am, in article
> 541aaa36-44bb-428c-bb62-e4793d01c...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 4:45 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 4/1/08 9:30 am, in article
> >> ce7e7619-fa5f-466c-9fa8-1793adad8...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
>
> >> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> <snip>
> >>> I have been thinking about this voteing thing.
> >>> Maybe if we post three URL's to sites we have built and get people to
> >>> decide on who they would hire. Although due to the market that I
> >>> design for we would need to limit it a bit to organisation who do not
> >>> have as much money to spend on web design related items.
>
> >> Ok, do we need seconds? :o)
>
> >>http://www.redcatmedia.co.ukhttp://www.sbwsd.co.ukhttp://www.fairtrad...> >> ter.co.ukhttp://www.puef.org.uk
>
> >> That's 4.  1 is obviously my main site, two is mine but aimed at small
> >> organisations who want a simple web presence without paying loads up front,
> >> the third is a non profit organisation so the site cost them next to nothing
> >> and the fourth is a charity so ditto.
>
> > I had a look at both sites. They do look good (the graphic design guy
> > you have working for you does seam to know what he's doing).
> > However the sites fall to bits if you increase the font size two or
> > three times.
>
> Absolutely.  I think we have things more or less right from a design point
> of view.  Bear in mind, 2 years ago we were still building sites using
> tables.  I reckon we're about 75% there from an accessibilty point of view.
> Ok, some of the bits we're weak on have a large impact but we'll get there> You can't learn all this stuff overnight.  I'm just pleased with the fact
> that we know we have weaknesses and are moving in the right direction.
>
That's one of the best answers I have noticed on this subject over
recent years.
BTW I have only been useing CSS for layout for about 2 years myself
(well probly more like a year and a half.)
But I think it has helped a lot in improving my overall design
skills.
But I for one agree with what you say Andy about not being able to
learn all this stuff overnight. I for one am still working on my PHP
skills and other stuff such as Flash which can be good for a few
things.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org