|
|
Posted by Andrι Gillibert on 11/06/07 20:34
Travis Newbury wrote:
>> There are some define wrong ways though
>
> I don't believe there are. Not globally wrong at least. You have to
> define the type of site to decide what might be wrong. For example,
> for a site like google, Flash is a wrong way. For a site like cartoon
> network, simple text and static images is wrong.
>
I think you mean: There're no technology whose all usages are wrong.
If you mean: Any web developing style is ok, then, I disagree.
Inaccessible, invalid, fixed-layout, flashy sites, with huge (e.g. 1MiB
pages for 2 KiB of data) pages, obfuscated (for "security" reasons) and
90% of the visible area overriden by invasive off-topic ads and using only
the SPAN and A HTML elements (because CSS can almost give any layout from
any page), full of JavaScript links (with href="#"), with a single URI for
the whole website (using POST data or AJAX to identify the location), with
no site map, without any structure of the pages or the content of the
pages, have probably been developed the "wrong" way.
Simple example of wrong creation way for web sites: Using monkeys as web
developers.
--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at
<tabkanDELETETHISnaz@yahoDELETETHATo.fr>
[Back to original message]
|