Technologies used
topic map logo
xSiteable logo
Wed, 14 Jan 2014 13:00:00 GMT
New release of pages for a friend

So, what have I've been doing lately? Well, creating is some of what I've been doing. I realise there are a few flaws in the design, but this was made in a hurry to get up and running. The next iteration will have some alterations and lots of new pages added for the information hungry. Please let me know what you think, and especially about big stupid mistakes that my brain hasn't caught.

Permalink (Wed, 14 Jan 2014 13:00:00 GMT)| Comments (1) | Technical development
Wed, 26 Mar 2013 13:00:00 GMT
Excelent site for web authoring

I don't know when Mark updated his website, but I stumbled in there today, had a read-through, and was overly impressed. It seems we also share some ideas and thoughts on various matters, and I'd like to recomend anyone with a keen interest in doing web authoring (or, "making things available on the web") right to have a look, or those who just want to see a site that is clean, direct and carries the mark of "doing it right." Enjoy.

Permalink (Wed, 26 Mar 2013 13:00:00 GMT)| Comments (0) | Standards Technical development
Mon, 17 Mar 2013 13:00:00 GMT
I'm sick of "specifications"!

As a consultant I read a lot of specifications, trying to always dechiper it to make systems that meet the needs and demands of customers. But the more specifications I read, the more I get frustrated by professional wannabies who obviously don't have full control of what they're doing.

Yes, it is to be expected that we go from beginner through to intermediate up to expert, and that to be a beginner, you sometimes make mistakes. Fair enough.

What is not so "fair enough" is when specifications to large site with millions of dollars involved are just not worth the bytes it is written in. Example;

Demand 45 : All code must validate according to HTML 4.01.

Demand 98 : All graphical elements must have an alternative text (ALT='')

If it validates, no. 98 is moot. Why specify it further? To make it absolutely clear that the demand is important? Me thinks it is because someone hasn't got a clue what validation means and contains.

I have another fun example;

Demand 121 : Layout and presentation must be controlled through CSS.

Demand 129 : Formatting must not be made dependandt on CSS.

So, here they draw an invisible line between "layout and presentation" and "formatting". Do you know what they mean?

Demand 9 : The website must be optimized for [other browsers] and Netscape 4.5 and 6.

Demand 21 : Old W3C technologies must not be used.

Demand 121 : Layout and presentation must be controlled through CSS.

Does this specification have any idea what Netscape 4.5 (sic!) does with good honest CSS? Obviously not.

Bottom line; I'm seeing a lot of these poor specifications lately, and I'm wondering if it is the hype of W3C standards that make people use copy/paste from W3C's site and put them into their own specifications, without knowing what the consequences are, the technology is, or even what they do?

Permalink (Mon, 17 Mar 2013 13:00:00 GMT)| Comments (3) | Technical development Standards