Re: [seul-edu] Re: Web Site Prototype

["Viron, Michael" <mviron@wsdo.sao.uwf.edu>]

On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Doug Loss wrote:

> Michael Viron wrote:
> > 
> > That's fine--it is very easy to fix that--I was planning on replacing the
> > text menu along the side with graphics anyways.
> 
> I _strongly_ advise against doing anything that's graphics only.  The
> whole point of HTML and the World Wide Web is to present information in
> a pleasing way that degrades gracefully depending on the capabilities of
> the user's browser.  Gratuitous use of graphics for elements that are
> just as easily represented textually is the bane of many people using
> text-only browsers.  These include the blind, people with less-powerful
> systems (often in less developed countries), and web indexing programs. 
> Even if they don't constitute a large percentage of our reading
> constituency, I feel we must be accessible to them.
Apropriate use of ALT tags makes this a moot point--even with the use of
graphics, people with Lynx & most other browsers will not be missing
anything important.

The main reason for the graphics along the side for the menu-bar is to
make sure that the text on the menu bar stays essentially the same size
for people with larger monitors--if you use text, it becomes puny at like
1024 x 768.
> 
> > Actually, a stylesheet (i.e., a CSS file) is only retrieved once for an
> > entire site, regardless of where it is referenced.  If you use inline
> > stylesheets, then the browser has to load (and parse) the stylesheet with
> > every page it loads.  (not to mention it is terrible maintenance-wise.)
> 
> > Actually, the styles that I am using in the prototypes style sheet are
> > supported by at least Netscape 4.05 and later, and Internet Explorer 4.0
> > and later.  I've been very careful not to use any style element that is not
> > supported by both browsers.
> 
> I agree with all of this.  I think judicious use of stylesheets are a
> major win for a site's appearance and maintainability.  And of course,
> the content is still available to browsers that don't use stylesheet
> suggestions.
> 
> > You have to be very careful how you set % widths--That's fine provided you
> > don't have an image with a set pixel width as your "title".
> 
> Are we talking table title or top-of-the-page title?  For
> top-of-the-page, I don't see the problem.  Of course, I have the general
> problem (as alluded to above) with images of text rather than text
> itself.
If you have a page that is set up as a table, and as the "title" for the
page you use a graphic that blends in with the sidebar to have
something like this:

-------
|
|
|

You have to be very careful--if the screen is too big, you lose cohesion
(i.e., you have this big blank space between the image that you created
and the sidebar) 
> 
> > The biggest problem is where do we want to stop?  Do we want to design a
> > page that is just text--so that it will totally work with lynx? or do we
> > want to help ease the task of maintaining the site?
> > 
> That's kind of a straw man argument.  You don't have to design a page
> with just text to work properly with lynx or w3m.  You just have to be
> careful that the graphics you use have appropriate ALT attributes, and
> that proper use and navigation of the site doesn't depend on things like
> javascript or java applets.  You can use all that stuff, you just have
> to be sure that their lack doesn't break the site's usability.  I find
> that running a site through Bobby <http://www.cast.org/bobby/> gives a
> very good idea of where it needs to be modified to meet these
> specifications.  Personally, I'd never consider putting a page on-line
> without checking it through Bobby first.
> 
> -- 
> Doug Loss                 The difference between the right word and
> Data Network Coordinator  the almost right word is the difference
> Bloomsburg University     between lightning and a lightning bug.
> dloss@bloomu.edu                Mark Twain
> 

Mike