Thanks for that.   All the pages did validate until my boss decided he 
wanted some changes done and everything uploaded by the end of the 
day, so a few mistakes were made - these are corrected now and 
everything validates as it should.

I had always felt that it was good to have the validation logo's at the 
bottom of the page, as it told the user that we'd at least taken some time 
and effort on the site.  What you say is equally valid, so I'll take the logos 
off.    

Does the same apply to the Bobby logo?

Denise

On 7 May 2003 at 6:26, Craig Harding wrote:

> Nice start. I like the basic look and feel. Let's look at the index page
> first. For starters, if this page isn't part of a class on html where the
> instructor insists on W3C logos on the bottom of the page consider losing
> them. Validators are tools for the designer, not part of a Website to be
> viewed by the public. The visiting public could care less whether or not
> your code is valid HTML, XML, strict or transitional. If they take that
> link, they might be confused, wondering what all that nonsense has to do
> with Raworths Solicitors and they'd be right. That valition information has
> nothing to do with Raworths and when that visitor clicks on that W3C logo,
> that hard earned visitor just left Raworths.
> 
> They might not come back. Secondly, when clicking on the XHTML button, the
> validation is false. In other words, the page doesn't validate XHTML, CSS or
> otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The address and contact info doesn't show in my MSIE browser but does show
> in Netscape 4.7. The horizontal lines, both top and bottom don't show in
> Netscape 4.7 but do show in MSIE.
> 
> 
> 
> Your typestyle doesn't show in Netscape 4.7, nor does your positioning. Your
> links are all justified to the left. If your intent is to appeal to older
> browsers, you need to totally rethink your CSS implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> Netscape 7.0 looks the same as MSIE where the contact info at the bottom
> doesn't show, yet does display those silly W3C and Bobby logos.
> 
> 
> 
> It's up to you, but I'd personally remove the whole page on accessibility.
> It has little to do with Raworth Solicitors and:
> 
> 1. Most people who have accessibility problems know how to adjust their
> browser's text size.
> 
> 2. Almost nobody changes browser settings to view one site differently from
> the way they're already viewing other sties.
> 
> 3. A professionally designed site ought to be accessible without user
> intervention on the part of the visitor. Emphasizing otherwise would seem to
> me to be an admission of an inability on the part of the designer. (just my
> opinion)
> 
> 
> 
> What I guess I'm trying to say is that all this stuff about validation,
> Bobby and whatnot is not about Raworth but about the design of the site. If
> this is a site that is being built as an example to show one's skills in
> designing accessible sites, meant to be an example for ones portfolio, then
> I guess it's ok; but if this is being built for and being paid for by the
> client, then I'd certainly remove all those unrelated items. One can talk
> clients into things like allowing the inclusion of W3C logos, but that
> doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, one should always ask, "[i]s this link relevant to my client and is
> this information that a visitor would want to see when they're looking for
> information about my client?"
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also remove the "links" page. There is absolutely no reason to invite
> people to leave a client's Website by taking a non-relevant link, like
> "Weather" and "London Tube maps." IMO, it might be better to have a resource
> page where only links to sites, which are completely relevant to Raworths,
> are displayed and only links, which might be needed and which do not invite
> hard earned visitors to leave for no real reason.
> 
> Basically, once cleaned up, this site looks professionally designed with a
> nice clean feel. Good luck in your endeavor.
> 
> Obligatory Disclaimer: The above is strictly my opinion and should be taken
> as such.
> 
> Viewed with: MSIE 6.0, Netscape 7.0, and Netscape 4.7. Sony 19" monitor and
> Matrox 550 at 800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x1024 at 32 bit depth. Machine
> type - dual 2000 Athlon MP with 1 gig DDR, Connection type - T1.
> 
> Craig T. Harding
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "denise" <denise(at)amun-ra.demon.co.uk>
> To: <hwg-critique(at)hwg.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:40 AM
> Subject: critique on solicitors website
> 
> 
> > Hello all
> >
> > I'd be grateful for input on www.raworths.co.uk - a website for a small
> firm
> > of solicitors in North Yorkshire, UK.
> >
> > So far, the site validates as XHTML 1, and valid CSS and Bobby AA.   It
> > looks fine in Opera, IE and Netscape (latest versions, I
> > don't have access to older ones) and Mozilla 1.2, but since the new
> > versions of Mozilla have come out, there have been problems with the
> > grey line across the top of the page disappearing and my H1 ending up
> > between the menu and logo.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Denise
> >
> >
> 
> 

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA