Criticise: Hosting Business Site - Page 2

Cranky · 17th February 2005

They'll have to warn me first then, and I'll add them after that.

It's mainly risk assessment emails they ignore me for, usually moan a bit and they sort it. I'm leaving anyway soon so have no problem with it.

s-p · 17th February 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by othellotech

Increase the font size across the board - some of us like to be able to read the content/words

If we're talking about accessibility, then we best convert the site to css/xhtml and provide the user with the opportunity to change the font size so that they can accomodate for users who run unsuitable resolutions relative to the quality of their eye site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by othellotech

If it increases load time thats a *bad-thing* (tm)

Of course follwing the advice wil actually decrease load time which is good

Quite clearly you knew what I meant and I hope Crockett did as well. However, if we're going to be pedantic about the matter, changing some of the text in images to pure text may actually increase load time due to the increase in content (html) to process. One image vs one image + text *could* result in the one image loading quicker (despite being slightly larger in size). Obviously load time in this scenario does not equal the time taken to transfer the site to the customer's web browser, but the actual execution of the site within the browser once all data has been received.

Quote:

Originally Posted by othellotech

That will generally be a given requirement as you actually need the logo owners *permission* to use the logo's or for the usage/publishing of the logo to be goverened by their press-pack T&C's

Fair enough, I haven't read the terms and conditions of each manufacturer Crockett's company uses, but as he hasn't listed them that would be rather difficult...

I'm only trying to provide some ideas as to where the site could improve from a customer point of view (not a compliance view). No need to pull my post apart now was there?

Karl · 17th February 2005

I don't see the harm myself in a slight increase in load time to make a page accessible, in fact, after you've done a conversion to CSS based layout and made it accesible, then you'll probably end up with a smaller sized page + elements than with a normal tables based layout - plus you'll be complying with disability laws etc. and not only that, you'll be doing your part in making someone someonewheres web browsing experience a better one.

s-p · 17th February 2005

I couldn't agree more Karl. But unfortunately due to the nature of Internet Explorer and the vast majority of users operating on this browser I would personally stray away from trying to use pure css/xhtml on a commercial site. There are of course solutions that do work for most web browsers, but for those not entirely fluent in css/xhtml (i.e. someone like myself) it make take a fair bit of work.

Karl · 17th February 2005

It takes a lot of work for someone fluent in it as well, I can tell you that. I've just been working on a site, and it is a chore to make it work in IE as well as Opera and FireFox, but I think it's worth it.

voxunity · 18th March 2005

I agree with the comments