|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] PLUG Website Maintenence
|
My apologies,
The reason I am confusing you is because I am responding to Gabriel
Rosenkoetter's post, not directly to yours. I should include what I am
responding to in my response.
I happen to agree with alot of your points. In fact, I am still scouring the
net and posting to CMS lists to get an answer. Thus far, I have actually
found something in Zope that might help (thanks to the poster who mentioned
Zope). I fact, I briefly looked at the sight in lynx, and it looked pretty
good.
Check out: http://cms.zope.org
Iman Mayes
----- Original Message -----
From: "multiple seriousity" <msimons@slackware.com>
To: <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUG] PLUG Website Maintenence
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Iman Mayes wrote:
> > 1) I'm sure there are plenty of sites that are "HTML Compliant" that
won't
> > look right in lynx, particularly ones that support the more modern
standards
> > (CSS, DHTML, etc).
>
> Looking right, and looking good are two different things. Looking
> "right" implies that it doesn't look like the designer designed it to look
> in a graphical browser. However, a site should look "good" or at least be
> reasonably functional and decently laid out in the two major text browsers
> (lynx and (?)w3c) the various versions of netscape, IE, and if you want to
> test for it, things like opera and konqueror -- at very LEAST whenever I
> do a site, I test on Lynx, Netscape 4.x, and IE. I know people who test
> on browser versions far back.. 1.0, etc. and even different age of
> computers, and speeds of connections.
>
> Heck, I just got DSL and commented to a friend of mine how a friend of
> his's site looked good, and while it had a lot of pictures on it, I
> thought that it was reasonably designed (such as the pictures werent too
> big) because it loaded fast. Then I remembered, I wasn't on dialup
> anymore. I've also seen pages that people poorly design not thinking that
> not everybody has a 19"+ monitor, or increase the browser window to full
> screen. Lots of people have 15" monitors, and most people probably do not
> surf with the browser full-screen.
>
> It's given that a site with a complex design won't look the same way it
> looks in Mozilla 1.x.x as it does in Lynx, but when one pays attention to
> these issues, one can make a usable, viable, site that at least looks
> acceptable in a text browser, or without the graphics, and is accessible
> by those with disabilities.
>
> Read:
http://www.evolt.org/article/Why_Bobby_Approved_is_not_Enough/4090/9278/
> and try http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
> Note: darxus, as far as I can tell, never tried for bobby
> compliance.. just for HTML standards compliance.
>
> Coding, and testing also helps one learn how different tags operate and
> how different tags are interpreted.. I don't remember exactly what tags it
> was, but when I was coding my site a while back (it's no longer up due to
> the system it was on, went down) I tried nesting various tags and found
> that while they could both nest inside one another, one would influence
> the other in different ways, and that it also helped me understand the
> logic behind various tags, and how they are interpreted.
>
> > 2) As far as feelings about having a more graphical site, I respect your
> > opinion and would like to hear from others. What's the problem with
browser
> > detecting? If your using a browser that can identify itself via the HTTP
> > protocol, you shouldn't have a problem.
>
> A graphical site, and browser detecting are two different things. Browser
> detecting implies matching your site to the browser. It implies coding
> for the browser rather than expecting the browser to seek standards
> compliance. It implies either coding more than one site, or coding for
> whatever the browser-of-the-day is.
>
> One thing that you said before that I wanted to respond to, but held off
> on was when I initially suggested making it so that the site looked good
> in text, you responded something about having two sites. That is not what
> I meant. I meant we should have one site that looks good in both text
> browsers, and graphical browsers, and graphical browsers with image
> loading turned off, and in other browsers (say, for the visually
> impared.) one shouldn't have to code more than one site [disclaimer: I
> have never coded a site for a mobile device, or for WAP.. so I do not know
> what it takes to code for that.]
>
> You pick up on this below at #4 but I am confused by what you say
> below. When I previously referenced keeping the old site up and making
> links between the matching pages, it is not so that we have and
> continue to maintain the old site for text, and the new site for graphics,
> it is so that any prexisting links do not break, and that they properly
> forward and inform the people of where the new applicable pages are.
>
> read "Pages must live forever" http://www.useit.com/alertbox/981129.html
>
> > 3) The mailing list is good for being a mailing list. If you think it is
all
> > you need, then there is no need for a website. Does the mailing list
have
> > archives? Is it searchable? Obviously, a website could give you more
> > functionality (and I'm not just talkin perty graphics).
>
> I am not sure what you are referencing to. I assume someone said
> something you are responding to here. We do have a searchable mailing
> list. (I believe it may still be broken on the website, although I haven't
> checked lately. We recently had to switch mail servers.)
>
> > 4) The current format does look great in text browsers, which is why I
feel
> > that if there is a new site it should still work fine in in that case.
> >
> > Trust me, I'm not trying to drag the site kicking and screeming where
the
> > group does not want it to go. I want this to be a *group* decision. I
think,
> > however, we can if need be get to a happy medium.
>
> It's not a matter of it going where it doesnt want to go, or anything like
> that. A graphical site is fine (heck, at very least, I've always wanted
> the old neon-plug graphic back), being able to edit different parts of the
> site by different people is good too (the how-to pages, etc.) but in
> design, one needs to be aware of and pay attention to all these
> issues.. we're (probably) very happy to have someone interested in
> volunteering to help and get involved with the website, and PLUG in
> general, or for that matter, any good effort, we just want people to
> understand these design and interface/programming issues.
>
> I guess that's it for now.
>
> --
> msimons@slackware.com INFORMATION*MEDIA*PHOTOGRAPHY msimonsmail@yahoo.com
> Creative Arts Resource Project : PTMaterials Exchange : www.pleasetake.org
> A 501(c)3 Non-profit Organization Arts and Environmental Resource Network
> Shopping Online? Use http://www.igive.com/carp/ make donations at no cost!
> Do you like what I do? Consider donating resources to CARP; Ask me how!
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
> Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
> General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|