Standards

[GEO Me]

I am not sure if I am putting this question correctly, and if it is
the right place to ask it, but here it goes:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."

Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?
Thank for you comments.

Geo

PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

"GEO" [e-mail] wrote:

I am not sure if I am putting this question correctly, and if it is
the right place to ask it, but here it goes:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer 6.02 or
later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher use
MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."
I would not ever put a "works best" statement on my pages. Why?
Because they work in *all* browsers... PDAs... mobile phones...
Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?
Ahem. You must first code to some standards.

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/>

That page has 201 errors on it. Begin there.
Thank for you comments.

Geo

PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/

To make that a clickable link so we don't have to copy and paste:
<http://catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

I would not ever put a "works best" statement on my pages. Why?
Because they work in *all* browsers

Well, yes, but "works best" or "optimized for" _really_ stands for
'we only looked at the pages on'.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Andy Dingley]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:56:03 GMT, "GEO" [e-mail] wrote:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
No.
Considering that this is the page of a public institution...
Who are frequently the worst offenders, but react pompously and
defensively if challenged, rather than cheerfully and ignorantly as
the Flashbunnies do.
Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?

No, quite the opposite. In fact it says "We don't follow standards,
but we looked at it afterwards and in these browsers it wasn't
completely b0rken"

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

"GEO" [e-mail] wrote:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:
http://catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/
"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."

Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?

Absolutely not. This has nothing to do with "standards" of any kind.
It's a short list of "some frequently used browsers", nothing more.

And most users have no idea which browser they're using; they just
"klick on that desktop icon to get on the internet". So the message will
only confuse them.
Matthias
--
Swiss Blogs:
http://www.blog.ch/
Bloggertreffen 19.03.2005 in Basel:
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/ale...ertreffen_2005

[Lachlan Hunt]

"GEO" [e-mail] wrote:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."

You forgot all about Firefox, Mozilla, Opera (for PC, Handhelds and
Voice), Konqueror, OmniWeb, iCap, Lynx, Mozaic, Amaya, AtomNet, Beonex,
Cyberdoc, Home Page Reader, JAWS, NetCaptor, Voyager, WebExplorer, WebTV
and a few hundred others that I couldn't be bothered listing.

http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, it was written:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."
My first hunch was that it meant "we extruded this with \name of
expensive package\ and here's what the vendor says the package
supports". But a search with Google suggests that the above
excuse text is rather specific to this one site. So I guess I was
wrong. The product seems to be http://www.dynix.com/products/hip/
and they can't even get their own CSS right, though it's not as bad
as the library's version.

Oh dear, a "portal". My heart sinks when I stumble on that phrase.
But I digress...

Indications are that the company has jumped on the
XHTML-served-as-HTML bandwagon without bothering to understand
Appendix C. I'm guessing that the library portal pre-dates that
piece of nonsense.
Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?
Well, it contains gratuitously defective CSS. It contains no DOCTYPE,
which (whether I like that circus with quirks mode or not) means it's
likely to work better with old, defective browsers than with new,
specification-conforming ones (if you see what I mean). And, even
if generously assumed to be HTML/4.01 transitional, it contains
gratuitously defective HTML, and fails even the simplest of
accessibility guidelines.

Lynx also says that its cookie is illegal, as well as its HTML.

[spacer.gif]
Click here to Sign In Sign In View my List of Titles My List - 0 Help
Help
[spacer.gif]
[tab_lt.gif] [spacer.gif] [tab_rt.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] Find [spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[tab_lb.gif] [spacer.gif] [tab_rb.gif]
[NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] My Account [spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
[NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] Top Topics [spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif]
[spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
[NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]

pffffffffffffffffft.
PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/

[Stan Brown]

"" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."

Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?

No, this is a warning that the site is NOT following standards but
instead is coding to the bugs of particular browsers.

It is a sign that the "Web designer" has done a slipshod job, by
assuming that if it works ina couple of versions it's okay.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

[C A Upsdell]

"GEO" [e-mail] wrote:

I am not sure if I am putting this question correctly, and if it is
the right place to ask it, but here it goes:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later

I trust that you realize that there is no such thing as IE6.02. The
latest version is IE6.0.

[^demon]

This is why we hate spacer images...for those of us using Lynx.

[Kimba W. Lion]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:56:03 GMT, "GEO" [e-mail] wrote:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."

Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?

More like it shows that the page doesn't follow any standards.

From a user's POV, I will upgrade my browser when it suits me to do so,
not when it suits some site. Any site that doesn't work in my browser may
as well not exist.

From a site owner's POV, I'm still getting hits from users with Netscape
3.0, IE 3.01, and WebTV, and what I would consider a significant number
of users with IE 5.0. You have to consider how many people you intend to
lock out.

Other usability issues not related to HTML:

Instructions on the page say to use "Limit and Sort", but nothing is
labeled "Limit". How can I use "Limit" if it's not there? And is "Sorting"
the same as "Sort"?

(If you think those are dumb questions, put an email link on the page.)

Oh, and your Help mentions "User Defined Limits", but I don't see any way
to use that function.

What sort of system did you design for, anyway? Your page requires a
screen wider than 1024 pixels to fit without a horizontal scroll bar (thus
inconveniencing over three-quarters of users).

[Barbara de Zoete]

On 26 Jan 2005 06:56:10 -0800, ^demon <in************@gmail.com> wrote:

This is why we hate spacer images...for those of us using Lynx.

This is why we[1] hate Google forum users ... for breaking the netiquette to
quote properly :-P
[1]pluralis majestatis
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <41***************@news.ucalgary.ca>, on 01/26/2005
at 04:56 AM, "GEO" [e-mail] said:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site: "For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."
IMHO, it would be far better to use http://validator.w3.org/check and
to put in a reference to that. But it would be appropriate to indicate
what it had been tested against.
Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?

No. If you want to be standards compliant, look to W3C.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to sp******@library.lspace.org

[Dan]

"GEO"[e-mail] wrote:

PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/

So the Calgary Public Library is a commercial entity?

--
Dan

[GEO Me]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:23:05 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

<snip>

The product seems to be http://www.dynix.com/products/hip/
and they can't even get their own CSS right, though it's not as bad
as the library's version.
<snip>

As I only have a passing knowledge I suspected it, but thank you for
confirming that their own pages are not well designed. It seems to me
that if you go to the link for their customers
<http://customer.dynix.com/users/logon.asp> the login procedure is
not secure. Is that so?

Lynx also says that its cookie is illegal, as well as its HTML.

[spacer.gif]
Click here to Sign In Sign In View my List of Titles My List - 0 Help
Help
[spacer.gif]
[tab_lt.gif] [spacer.gif] [tab_rt.gif]
[spacer.gif] <snip> [NW0-blue.gif] [spacer.gif] [NE0-blue.gif]

pffffffffffffffffft.

And I noticed an abundance of spacers on the pages of Dynix as well,
so it might be a company standard. <g>
Thank you for your comments.
Geo

[Lady Chatterly]

In article <lg********************************@4ax.com>
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote:

No.
Did you guys are pathetic.
Who are frequently the worst offenders, but react pompously and
defensively if challenged, rather than cheerfully and ignorantly as
the Flashbunnies do.
Be specific.
No, quite the opposite. In fact it says "We don't follow standards,
but we looked at it afterwards and in these browsers it wasn't
completely b0rken"

Are you sure?

--
Lady Chatterly

"Hey sparky.......... Chatterley IS S BOT! Amazing that it is s k00ks
bot and YOU don't know it." -- Kenneth Pangborn

[GEO Me]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:40:42 -0500, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\"@-@[e-mail]"> wrote:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later

I trust that you realize that there is no such thing as IE6.02. The
latest version is IE6.0.

Thank you. I didn't know that. I would mention it to them, but they
no longer answer my calls. <g> I was going to mention to the Help
Desk that some of the links don't work on the terminals provided at
the library branches (scripting not enabled?), but I am still waiting
for someone to call me back.

Geo

[GEO Me]

On 26 Jan 2005 08:49:19 -0800, "Dan" <da*@tobias.name> wrote:

"GEO:

PS: The page in question is //catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/

So the Calgary Public Library is a commercial entity?

It looks as if someone registered the name before the library
thought of it. Their old address used to be:
<http://public-library.calgary.ab.ca>, but for some unknown reason
they changed it to the current **.com.

Geo

[kchayka]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

we[1] hate Google forum users ...

These days I tend to be more general with
"we[i] hate Google groups-beta"

They took a perfectly fine, quite usable system and tried to make it
kewl. They just made it suck instead. :-(

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:49:55 -0600, kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

we[1] hate Google forum users ...

These days I tend to be more general with
"we[i] hate Google groups-beta"

They took a perfectly fine, quite usable system and tried to make it
kewl. They just made it suck instead. :-(

Isn't it ironic, that just now AOL drops support for usenet on its own servers,
because (one of the reasons) Google gives such good and complete access?

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[GEO Me]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:57:12 -0500, Kimba W. Lion
<ki*******************@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:56:03 GMT, "GEO" [e-mail] wrote:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher
use MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."

Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?
More like it shows that the page doesn't follow any standards.

Thank you. The Library has told me the opposite. Originally the page
only mentioned IE 6.02 and Netscape 7.1. Apparently they have made
some changes since I first saw it.
From a user's POV, I will upgrade my browser when it suits me to do so,
not when it suits some site. Any site that doesn't work in my browser may
as well not exist.
And, being a public site, I guess that excluding part of the
citizens wouldn't be correct.
From a site owner's POV, I'm still getting hits from users with Netscape
3.0, IE 3.01, and WebTV, and what I would consider a significant number
of users with IE 5.0. You have to consider how many people you intend to
lock out. Other usability issues not related to HTML:
Instructions on the page say to use "Limit and Sort", but ... <snip>

I will try to bring it to their atention, but their response has
been that *they* don't have any problems.
What sort of system did you design for, anyway? Your page requires a
screen wider than 1024 pixels to fit without a horizontal scroll bar (thus
inconveniencing over three-quarters of users).

I noticed the same problem on the new dedicated terminals that they
put on the library branches. Until last week the default display only
opened as a window, which made it even harder to manage for users that
did not maximaize the display; it seems that now the default is a full
screen display.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Geo

[GEO Me]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:41:31 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer 6.02 or
later and Netscape 7.1 or later. For MAC OS 10.3.1 or higher use
MAC Netscape 7.1 or MAC Safari 1.2.1 (1.25.1). For Linux use
Netscape 7.1."
I would not ever put a "works best" statement on my pages. Why?
Because they work in *all* browsers... PDAs... mobile phones...

Thank you for the comments. It looks as if their new page is already
obsolete. <g>

Considering that this is the page of a public institution... Would
you find that a page that says the quote above can claim to be
following some agreed upon standards?

Ahem. You must first code to some standards.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/>
That page has 201 errors on it. Begin there.
Thanks. It is not my page, but I have been trying to point these
problems to them rather unsuccesfully. As I only know a little about
HTML and standards, I wanted the opinion of some people that know more
on the subject.
To make that a clickable link so we don't have to copy and paste:
<http://catalogue.calgarypubliclibrary.com/>

Thank you, I'll do that in the future.

Geo

[Mark Parnell]

Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, GEO <[e-mail]>
said:

And, being a public site, I guess that excluding part of the
citizens wouldn't be correct.

Indeed. In many countries, it is illegal for a site to not be accessible
to all users.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[GEO Me]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:40:42 -0500, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\"@-@[e-mail]"> wrote:

Is it correct standards-wise to say about a site:

"For PCs this software works best with Internet Explorer
6.02 or later

I trust that you realize that there is no such thing as IE6.02. The
latest version is IE6.0.
I was reminded of a previous message in which I had copied what the
main page said on the 25/Dec/2004, and still says:

< http://www.calgarypubliclibrary.com/>

'This website is best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 and
up, or Netscape Navigator 4.7 and up for PC, and Internet Explorer 5.5
for Macintosh. '

And someone replied(Garner Miller): ... I find the "Best viewed with...IE 5.5 for Mac" especially comical
on the Mac side, since 5.2 was the last version of IE for the Mac.

Geo