iWeb Discussion
I get a number of visitors to this site, and a number of comments to my articles (see the bottom of each one for the comments section), and in nearly twelve months, I have not had to moderate or delete any offensive or adverse comments, or had to moderate or delete any comments at all for that matter. OK, so we're talking small numbers, but for a first-try amateur site, I would like to think that people seem to like my site.
It's clear though that some people don't like it at all.
So I thought I'd post a thread of discussion that occurred a few months ago. I've anonymised the other posters in the thread, but I think you can get the gist of what is being said here. Comments welcome.
"You Have All Chosen A Very Bad Tool To Create Your Web Sites"
Posted: 17-Sep-2006 23:47
mwong "iWeb: You Have All Chosen A Very Bad Tool To Create Your Web Sites"
You Have All Chosen A Very Bad Tool To Create Your Web Sites
Hi All
I'd thought I'd post this and get your comments, as fellow iWeb users. This is an extremely long post which you may wish to print out and read later, and it may well get deleted by the moderators anyway, but I would also welcome their comments because it affects all iWeb and Apple users.
Have a read of his email here:
> Please enable Javascript to view this page properly.
> iWeb hints, iWeb tips, iWeb tricks
>
> A website born in only two weeks...
> Well, I went from having a 15 month old holding page doing
You appear to have chosen a very bad tool to create your web site. If you validate it with www.validator.w3.org you will find many errors, including well-formedness errors which would cause a real XHMTL browser (IE is not one) to abort on the page. These occur because you've included scripts in ways that only work with HTML, not with XHTML (IE treats XHTML as slightly broken HTML).
Other problems are:
- it doesn't use markup properly, e.g. it uses <div class="paragraph" when it should use <p>;
- it appears to set all alt attributes to an empty string;
- it puts foreground content into background images, resulting in a page that is unusable text only and almost certainly unusable by the assistive technology used by blind users;
- it makes excessive use of inline style attributes;
- it uses pixel size units (this means the page will not scale to work on high resolution displays, or to allow reading by someone with poor eyesight, and is also likely to prevent it being reflowed into resized windows).
> absolutely nothing to an actual clickable website in less than two
Producing clickable web sites is extremely easy. You can do it simply by adding a elements to an almost purely plain text file.
The email was unsigned, but it was from somebody called ___, email address ___ and whose own website is ___.
Needless to say, this email upset me greatly. Firstly, it was the first negative comment about my site I had had since setting it up just over 6 months ago. There were also quite a few unjust criticisms that are not my fault, but related to the way iWeb works and publishes code. But also, I had spent a lot of time and effort on my site - it's not just a case of plonking a few photos and videos on a page, and for someone to start criticising unjustly was too much.
Anyway, I had a think about what this man said, and looked at his 'site' (which is basically just one plain text page about Linux/Unix, with links going to elsewhere on the page, or externally). I replied to his email.
I said several things. Firstly, I said I was very well aware of the validation errors you get when you run many of my pages through w3's validator http://validator.w3.org/ [update: my pages now do validate, even the ones with extra HTML additions] - I said I wasn't too bothered as long as the pages rendered satisfactorily in the mainstream browsers. If you look at a lot of sites that claim to be validated, they also have errors. It seems to be that only people whose job it is to write websites for a living are actually bothered by this issue. It hasn't stopped the thousands of people who had visited the site from doing so. Even mainstream sites like BBC, Apple, CNN, Digg all fail validation, so why didn't he get off my case?
I said why don't you tell this to the thousands of iWeb users around the world currently using iWeb - I don't think they're going to drop using it and move to text editors are they? I said that I do *now* know about making webpages out of plain text files, but to be honest, that is not exactly going to draw an audience is it? I said if you want a boring plain text page with links that validates well, well stick with it - I don't want that.
I also said a lot of the 'problems' he had discovered were part of iWeb's normal output - and please could he feed this back to Apple? I'm only the user here - perhaps he'd likewise like to criticise the 90% of MSIE users because they use MSIE rather than something else? Or perhaps the 90% of Windows users because he'd rather have them use Linux?
And finally, I said I didn't ask for any unannounced critique of my website thank you very much, and what business was it of his to police mine? He also had javascript switched off and I said that I've only known 'web professionals' to go round sites with javascript deliberately switched off. 99% of my users keep it on. And as a dig against his 'site' I finally said it's 2006 now, not 1997. Goodbye.
So that was my reply.
Anyway, some days later, I get a visit according to my statcounter from the Disability Rights Commission referred by a posting from the very same person ___ on w3.org's Accessibility forum http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/
If you read his forum post, you will see what he thought of my reply to his original email in a post entitled: "___".
Here are the links to his previous emails leading up to the post, for your reference: ___ and ___.
Personally, I hadn't been that bothered by what happened under the hood, and when I started being bothered, I have got used to what iWeb code looks like. Although it seems hard to follow, the use of divs means that everything is neatly packaged. I do admit however that the text formatting code leaves a lot to be desired, and could certainly be streamlined. Despite the complex code, a plain vanilla iWeb site will validate. That means the code has been checked as being formatted correctly.
But perhaps the most galling point he made in his forum posting was this: "I haven't written HTML code professionally for several years". So here was somebody with a one page plain text site dating from 1997 who hadn't written any code for some years slating my site that I had lovingly worked on for months.
Subsequently to his posting on the w3.org forum, some del.icio.us member (___) has bookmarked his forum posting on del.icio.us for all to see: ___ and ___. So my site is out there listed as a bad example.
I am not happy. Here I am trying to do the best for myself with my first ever site (in reality a family site with some articles as thanks to iWeb and its users), and there are clearly people out there who don't like Apple, don't like iWeb or its users' sites: (an extract from the complainants posting follows): "Although the real problem is with Apple, who are most unlikely to pay any attention to a complaint from a, non-customer, member of the public, I thing [sic] the iWeb part of this site is worth a look because it gives an idea of web designer psychology by listing the sorts of characteristics of web sites that designers consider important enough to want to work round the tools. Accessibility, of course, is not one of them."
And they are going round bringing us (well me anyway) to the attention of accessibility experts/consultants and Disability Rights Organisations. A family site for goodness sake, not a commercial site, or a business site, or the site of a profit making organisation.
So I am sitting here, expecting more visits from these sorts of people, and then perhaps a letter in the post taking me to court for not catering for people with disabilities...
I'm sorry, it's been such a long post with such a lot to read - it's nearly as long as one of ___'s posts ;-) but I think it's important enough for all iWeb users to have a think about.
I'd be grateful for any comments from fellow iWeb users about what they think of this. Am I being too sensitive? Am I thinking too much about this? Is it a fuss over nothing? Have any other iWeb users had such feedback about their sites on these specific issues? Have any iWeb users looked at the technical aspects of making their site completely accessible, compliant and validated? Are there any tools out there that you use for this purpose? Do you care? Does Apple care about this? Please let me know.
If this post or thread gets deleted, I'll post a version on my site and refer forum users there.
[And if you've been wondering where I've been these last few days - I've been hard at work on my site(!)]
With the warmest and best of wishes to all fellow iWeb users.
Michael Wong
THREAD CONTINUES BELOW >>