|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 01/26/06 20:30
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc wrote:
> Anyone know much about these guys?
>
> http://www.ukwda.org/
>
> I find it interesting they're trying to promote standards yet their own
> website is table based and using a transitional doctype...
In addition to the points already made on the thread:
font-size 70% for quite a lot of stuff, and 60% for legalese? I think
that oversteps the threshold that qualifies them for the notorious
"aargh! - microfonts" award. (A pat on the back to Chris Pederick, by
the way, for implementing the "disable minimum font size" feature in
latest versions of the web developer extension for Moz - makes it
*so* much easier to defend oneself against microfonts in normal
browsing, while still being able to review sites at a click).
The page insisted on throwing a left-right scrollbar, instead of
fitting itself calmly into the window I'd provided. That's rude.
The page seemed to take an interminable time to complete loading, even
on broadband, although they'd "got away with it" by getting some
content displayed up-front to promote reader interest. The
cacheability engine says they did some nasty things to defeat
cacheability, including cache-control on the main page, plus
attempting to set a cookie.
Aside from that, most of the components seem to have proper
last-modified and Etag data, so they ought to be cacheable, and they
weren't particularly large - I don't really understand why it took so
long. Perhaps I shouldn't attempt to comment on their web server
being IIS...
It didn't do too badly on WAI/508 checks, though.
Last-modified checks on the included objects suggest that the design
may date back a couple of years. I'm not sure if that's really far
enough back to "cut them some slack" for retaining transitional
features. That's a judgment call, really. Some of the other points
criticised seem to me to be more important than that.
YMMV, just my personal reactions.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|