O/T: Web Design

[Lew Hodgett]

Just curious, any of you web design gurus have any comments about below?

some of their utilities that I have found helpful for me.

Lew

[SonomaProducts.com]

[willshak]

Lew Hodgett wrote the following:

It's a good design, but that's not why you wanted me to visit the site, is it?

[Lew Hodgett]

-------------------------------- As a matter of fact, that kind of input was exactly what I was interested in getting.

Thank you.

Have you used the stuff?

Lew

[Dave Balderstone]

Haven't used them. Won't. Flash sucks rhino.

[Doug Miller]

I'd be a little leary about taking web site design advice from an outfit that can't even design its *own* pages properly -- running that URL through the HTML validator at

shows 139 errors and 55 warnings.

[Elrond Hubbard]

[e-mail] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:hi0je2$2tu$ [e-mail]:

Would that be Timothy's great-grandson, or what?

[Doug Miller]

LOL -- obviously I meant leery... Next time, I'll just write "wary" or "cautious" -- I know how to spell those!

[Lew Hodgett]

---------------------------------------------- Interesting.

Thank you.

Lew

[Doug Miller]

You're welcome. And for those who may not know it, w3.org is the web site of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which is the body that develops standards for the internet -- IOW, w3.org is *the* authority for what meets standards and what doesn't.

But wait -- there's more: This particular design outfit is using the HTML 4.01 Transitional document type on their pages. The standards for Transitional are a *lot* easier to meet than the standards for Strict, yet they still have nearly 200 errors and warnings. (For comparison purposes,

shows no errors, no warnings, checked against XHTML 1.0 Strict.)

Further still, the site uses the JQuery JavaScript library, which... ummmm... has a few problems. Do a Google Groups search on comp.lang.javascript for "JQuery" if you're curious.

[GarageWoodworks]

The 'validator' you reference is either way too picky or validating incorrectly.

Microsoft.com

has 395 Errors, 34 warning(s) Adobe, the creator of the web designer favorite, 'Dreamweaver' has 74 Errors, 54 warning(s) has 42 Errors, 2 warning(s)

I found it hard to find a website with few errors.

[Doug Miller]

Neither, actually. w3.org is the web site of the international body that sets standards for the Internet; they are *the* authority on what's valid and what's not.

So Microsoft doesn't comply with industry standards. (Gasp!) Imagine my surprise.

Dreamweaver generates bloated HTML; granted, it's not quite as bad as FrontPage, but it's not exactly good HTML. No big surprise there either.

So Google doesn't comply with industry standards either (although they do a better job than Microsoft). Imagine my surprise.

That's because it's hard to find web developers who know (or adhere to) standards. :-) Some succeed, though: ibm.com -- zero sony.com -- zero w3.org -- zero mit.edu -- zero xkcd.com -- zero navy.mil -- zero errors, two warnings, both trivial craigslist.org -- one error, one warning

[Hoosierpopi]

I use MS Frontpage.

Although the tool referenced reports 45 errors, the site

appears to work well enough for my purposes.

But, thanks for the "checker" as I will use it to clean up some of the errors I introduced when adding non MSFP bits to the site.

[GarageWoodworks]

Nice try...

Sony.com is their opener which directs to --->

has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s) w3.org is not clean either but better. Try --> Errors 5 Errors, 31 warning(s) xkcd.com store ---> ---> 798 Errors, 29 warning(s) ---->5 Errors, 31 warning(s) --->21 Errors, 28 warning(s)

[GarageWoodworks]

s)

21 Errors, 28 warning(s)

That wrapped funny after posting. Here it is again:

Sony.com is their opener which directs to --->

has 352 Errors, 23 warning(s)

w3.org is not clean either but better. Try -->

Errors

5 Errors, 31 warning(s)

xkcd.com store --->

---> 798 Errors, 29 warning(s)

---->5 Errors, 31 warning(s)

--->21 Errors, 28 warning(s)

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:04:25 -0800 (PST), the infamous Hoosierpopi scrawled the following:

Page Affront? Joys!

--== Friends don't let friends use Front Page ==--

-- We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

[Doug Miller]

5 Errors

OTOH, with the exception of w3.org, none of those sites are attempting to advise people on web page design, either... I stand by my original comment, that I'd be suspicious of a web design service that can't get its *own* pages right; there's rather little reason to believe they'd do any better for a customer.

[LDosser]

Do you like Their web site?

[LDosser]

Best business advice I ever got was 'stick to your knitting'. What is their Knitting? If you say 'software development', you got it wrong. Their 'knitting' is marketing and selling a bunch of stuff that never made it to number one or even number ten. Some of it may even be packaged freeware. A company with a very similar name recently lost a class action suit for sending customers "FREE SOFTWARE" that was, in fact, not free. Be wary.

[Lew Hodgett]

I can relate.

They bought out some utility software I used several years ago from an outfit in Denver, and moved it.

Somebody updated it and they are selling it under their logo.

I bought the updates and have been happy with them.

Long ago recognized that my days engineering things were best kept in the "funzie" category, I've moved on to other things.

Appreciate the comments.

Lew