|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 02/16/07 17:41
On 16 Feb, 16:13, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:
<http://homepage.mac.com/taliesinsoft/Adams/>
> But the fact remains that the website, whether one likes it or not, displays
> in every browser tested, six of them, *exactly* as intended.
That's not even a web page, it's just a picture of a web page.
It fails in one of the most important user-agents of all, Googlebot.
It's totally inaccessible for anything or anyone who isn't happy with
a pure-image fixed-size rendition. You don't even show the title or
credits banner in text, just as an image!
> If the results
> are as wanted, why should I be concerned about the underlying code structure
You haven't even seen the results (or ever will). You've seen one
possible result, for one possible user. If you try hard, you might see
a handful more. You've still not seen how I see it, or how the guy in
another thread with VT100-only access sees it. That's why it's
important to understand the underlying principles and technology, and
to work at that level (or with a tool that works at that level).
Pretty soon you'll probably switch to the logical fallacy of proof by
example.
"It doesn't matter if images are sized in pixels"
"This website is about images"
"This website works fine in pixel sizes"
which leads to the erroneous generalisation
"All websites can be sized in pixels"
> [responding to my giving a reference to a site produced with Freeway Pro that
> passed "strict" validation]
You should fix up the mis-use of <a> name and id attributes though.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|