Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
Disclaimer: my company Gruden, is partnered with PTG. We've enjoyed working with them for a number of years and I think the results have been good. Anyway enough of that rubbish. I don't really know much about Certified Usable so I won't way into that debate - maybe someone from PTG could jump on and answer any questions about that. I do however know about their site as I was involved in putting it together. Robbie: Yes the drop down level nav requires Javascript, however you can access every page on the site without Javascript. Click a top level item in the header and you get the sub items down the left. Steve: Link is fixed. Kay & Steve: Yup guilty on the validation stuff. However I am going to blame the CMS. The site is currently running Shado 6 which has some glitches such as: - limited access to the head section (hence in the body & bodgy XHTML on some meta elements), - the insertion of proprietary elements () and - issues with the WYSIWYG editor (s, image attributes, etc..). We've been pestering Straker (the makers of Shado) about this for years and to their credit they have listened - there is a more recent version of Shado (version 7) which fixes these issues. We are planning on upgrading the PTG site to this version some time in the next 3 to 6 months. Disclaimer 2: Gruden are also Shado partners. On 3/20/06, Kay Smoljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/20/06, Steve Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Their page is generated from the "Shado CMS built by Straker > > Interactive Ltd" so I assume getting real WAI validation would be > > nearly impossible for their own web site. > > Just a quick note: I've played a little with Shado CMS and I'm fairly > certain that it allows you to create your templates however you wish - > I'd be willing to bet that this is one case where the problems > *cannot* be blamed on the CMS. > > -- > Kay Smoljak > http://kay.zombiecoder.com/ > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > -- Mark Stanton Gruden Pty Ltd http://www.gruden.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
Reminds me of McDonalds trademarking the '100% Australian Beef' thing... did you trust them? At 02:06 PM 20/03/2006, you wrote: Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify the usability of their websites: http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp In an article on the AIMIA website, Craig Errey, manager of PTG, says "we're apparently the first group, worldwide, who can confidently state whether a product is usable or not, and stand by that claim." http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=1755 To me that all sounds very dodgy. Nobody can guarantee the usability of their website. I mean, alright, let's define "Usability". If PTG are talking about the ability of a user to open the homepage of the website, read the content and click onto one of the sub-sections, fair enough, it's probably safe to say that their sites are "usable". But then again, even my mum would be able to create a website that is "usable" with the help of Microsoft Frontpage. "User-friendly", that's something different. And in my opinion nobody can guarantee the user-friendlyness of a website to all users in the world. Any thoughts? Andreas Boehmer User Experience Consultant Addictive Media Phone: (03) 9386 8907 Mobile: (0411) 097 038 http://www.addictivemedia.com.au Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** Best Regards Ray Cauchi Manager/Lead Developer ( T W E E K ! ) PO Box 15 Wentworth Falls NSW Australia 2782 | p:+61 2 4757 1600 | f:+61 2 4757 3808 | m:0414 270 400 | e:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | w:www.tweek.com.au ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
Steve Olive wrote: On 20/03/2006, at 2:06 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify the usability of their websites: http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp I quickly validated their page with HTML Tidy (Firefox extension) and the page about "Certified Usable" has 2 errors and 44 warnings for "" That just shows how useless HTML Tidy is as a validator. There are actually many more errors than that. However, the article is talking about *usability*, not validity and their site may indeed be very usable; although I doubt it's very accessible. (after getting past the 100 odd empty lines) with upper and lower case tags. There's nothing wrong with using uppercase tags in HTML, although given that they use an HTML 4 DOCTYPE that triggers quirks mode, an xmlns attribute and XML empty element syntax, they really haven't got a clue what they're doing with markup. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
On 3/20/06, Steve Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Their page is generated from the "Shado CMS built by Straker > Interactive Ltd" so I assume getting real WAI validation would be > nearly impossible for their own web site. Just a quick note: I've played a little with Shado CMS and I'm fairly certain that it allows you to create your templates however you wish - I'd be willing to bet that this is one case where the problems *cannot* be blamed on the CMS. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.zombiecoder.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
On 20/03/2006, at 2:06 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify the usability of their websites: http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp "User-friendly", that's something different. And in my opinion nobody can guarantee the user-friendlyness of a website to all users in the world. Sorry for troll response/rant I think it is just a marketing ploy in association with http:// www.aimia.com.au trying to make the AIMIA sound official and important - sorry if you think it is. I quickly validated their page with HTML Tidy (Firefox extension) and the page about "Certified Usable" has 2 errors and 44 warnings for "DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">" (after getting past the 100 odd empty lines) with upper and lower case tags. Their page is generated from the "Shado CMS built by Straker Interactive Ltd" so I assume getting real WAI validation would be nearly impossible for their own web site. Their link from this page "http://www.ptg-global.com/products/get-it- right-the-first-time/get-it-right-the-first-time_home.cfm" to the "Certified Usable" goes to the "XPEyetrack" page. If this is the most useable page from AIMIA members I wouldn't want them designing web pages for me. Steve Olive Bathurst Computer Solutions e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 0407 224 251 Web: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au _ ... (0)> ... / /\ .. / / .) .. V_/_ Linux Powered! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE hacking.
Alastair Steel wrote: We are an open source based software development company who deal mostly with SME businesses. We write mostly to the standards for CSS2 and deploy with Firefox, Mozilla or Safari. Not having to hack everything for IE has meant we can develop faster and cheaper. Do you at least test the sites in IE to make sure they degrade gracefully and are fully accessible and usable, even if it doesn't look perfect? We now have a potential client that, for reasons beyond reason, wants to use IE. If you could find out their reasons for choosing to stay with IE, I'm sure those of us involved with either marketing and/or developing Firefox (or any other browser) could use the information to address their needs better. Of course, it's likely that Firefox does already addresses their needs better than IE does and they just don't know it yet. So my questions are? i/ Is it possible to just look at the CSS which controls the layout of the whole app and just hack that for them. This is preferable as each user has their own language file which calls their language and CSS. Whoever does it would need to see your HTML templates, CSS and any relevant JavaScript that modifies the DOM in ways that affect the rendering. ii/ Or is it necessary to look at each page of the application (over 100) and hack the CSS to make them work? As long as the templates cover all the different kinds of markup and styles used, they won't need to see all pages. iii/ Or worst case scenario are there changes that may be required in the HTML. (I don't see why as everything that is to be displayed in the app is in a DIV and all DIVs are controlled with CSS). There's nothing special about div elements, they're just like almost any other element, except that they have very little default styling. Besides, statements like that make me think you may be suffering from divitis (or div-mania). It may be as simple as using Dean Edwards' IE7 script or it may be as complex as doing a complete CSS overhaul. However it's done, I'd recommend you just use a conditional comment rather than modifying the existing style sheets that alread work for other browsers. iv/ If we go to all the trouble for IE 6 will it all work in IE7. Or is this going to be a separate hack. There's no guarantee that anything will work in IE7 until the site has been tested in it. It may or may not require additional hacks. It's entirely possible that IE7 won't require any hacks for the site to work, but you won't know until it's been tested. (AFAIK, the first IE7 preview that isn't a complete joke will be released in a couple of days after MIX 06.) I also need to work out the approximate costs of all the above so we can pass it on to the client. That depends on how much work is required, which depends on how bad it looks in IE and how good or bad the existing markup and CSS is to work with. I suspect that whoever offers to take on this work will need to see it before they can give such a quote. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE hacking.
A little OT here, but 1) "the client is always right" seems a good place to start with a POTENTIAL client, and 2) Most people use IE and see no earthly reason not to, no matter what our opinion of it. Your customers are not web designers and are quite reasonably uninterested in standards or design principals. They just want something that works (or in the case of IE, appears to work!). Laurie Alastair Steel wrote: We now have a potential client that, for reasons beyond reason, wants to use IE. Any assistance appreciated. Thanks, Alastair. -- Laurie Savage = Student Assessment, Reporting and Tracking Pascoe Vale Girls College, 03 9306 2544 Lake Ave, Pascoe Vale, Victoria, 3044 = ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] IE hacking.
Hi all, We are an open source based software development company who deal mostly with SME businesses. We write mostly to the standards for CSS2 and deploy with Firefox, Mozilla or Safari. Not having to hack everything for IE has meant we can develop faster and cheaper. We now have a potential client that, for reasons beyond reason, wants to use IE. We have no intention of hacking the application for this purpose but may consider paying someone else who has the experience to do this for us. So my questions are?i/ Is it possible to just look at the CSS which controls the layout of the whole app and just hack that for them. This is preferable as each user has their own language file which calls their language and CSS. ii/ Or is it necessary to look at each page of the application (over 100) and hack the CSS to make them work? iii/ Or worst case scenario are there changes that may be required in the HTML. (I don't see why as everything that is to be displayed in the app is in a DIV and all DIVs are controlled with CSS).iv/ If we go to all the trouble for IE 6 will it all work in IE7. Or is this going to be a separate hack. I also need to work out the approximate costs of all the above so we can pass it on to the client. Any assistance appreciated. Thanks, Alastair.
Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify
the usability of their websites:
http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp
In an article on the AIMIA website, Craig Errey, manager of PTG, says "we're
apparently the first group, worldwide, who can confidently state whether a
product is usable or not, and stand by that claim."
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=1755
Bleh! Little more than a company tyring to gain market share by dubious
means.
Certification and peusdo-science ("90% of the sample of end users can
complete 90% of key tasks" and "x minutes +/- 10%") provide the illusion
of competency and rigour - it you need it to sell yourself, I inherently
distrust you.
Creating a certification and then being the one who decides on it? As a
commerical venture? Conflict of interest anyone?
Mike
(feeling more cynical than usual)
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
its got the foetid, rotting stench of "marketing ploy" all over it. The front page of their site contains 20 validation errors. The image link in the left sidebar doesn't have title attributes (thought that would have been required? or at least best practice for 100% usable site?) Disabling _javascript_ means their drop-down menu at the top only displays "a-Level" navigation. If their own website isn't usable...how can they proclaim others to be (or not). 'nuff said.
[WSG] Certified Usable
Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify the usability of their websites: http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp In an article on the AIMIA website, Craig Errey, manager of PTG, says "we're apparently the first group, worldwide, who can confidently state whether a product is usable or not, and stand by that claim." http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=1755 To me that all sounds very dodgy. Nobody can guarantee the usability of their website. I mean, alright, let's define "Usability". If PTG are talking about the ability of a user to open the homepage of the website, read the content and click onto one of the sub-sections, fair enough, it's probably safe to say that their sites are "usable". But then again, even my mum would be able to create a website that is "usable" with the help of Microsoft Frontpage. "User-friendly", that's something different. And in my opinion nobody can guarantee the user-friendlyness of a website to all users in the world. Any thoughts? Andreas Boehmer User Experience Consultant Addictive Media Phone: (03) 9386 8907 Mobile: (0411) 097 038 http://www.addictivemedia.com.au Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
To play a bit of devil's advocate here... Lea de Groot wrote: 5 chars doesnt worry me when it is so clearly a usability aid to say 'web page' to the user constantly; so clearly...any evidence? to Joe Public who is savvy enough to look at the URI they are clicking on, the two things seem at odds...all the Joe Publics I know never even noticed the browser's status bar before. everything that we know, a .html extension clearly implies 'Click here to see a web page about xxx - nothing tricky is going to happen, you will just get a simple page which won't do nasty things to your machine' and improve the probability of click. but then "cool URIs don't change", so you need to ensure that, once you change to something like PHP or similar, you keep the .html file extension and then force the server to parse through all files with that extension as well; why not just sidestep the issue? I usually do multiviews in apache, but add an extra closing slash to the URL even if it's a single document. Works a treat and looks tidy in the address bar - only got to watch out for issues with relative paths and images/stylesheets. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Lachlan Hunt wrote: What's flaky about it? Apache MultiViews is the easiest way to not require file extensions for static files, with the added advantage of making content negotiation extremely easy to do. The implementation, I should have said :) As you pointed out, IE doesn't cache properly. I made a list of problems with it at one point, but I can't put my hand on it right now. Not a long list, but enough that it isn't worth the effort. 5 chars doesnt worry me when it is so clearly a usability aid to say 'web page' to the user constantly; to Joe Public who is savvy enough to look at the URI they are clicking on, but not techie enough to know everything that we know, a .html extension clearly implies 'Click here to see a web page about xxx - nothing tricky is going to happen, you will just get a simple page which won't do nasty things to your machine' and improve the probability of click. Nothing true in that implication, of course, but that doesn't stop me from giving my users a simple clear message :) IMHO Lea ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
I think this article pretty much cover it and seems to be the 'best practice' method. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/urls/ This accommodates eliminating the extension - which would please our Grandaddy Tim Berners-Lee http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI as well as avoids dumping individual files in their own folders - which is an inefficient way to do it. R :o) - Original Message - From: "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice Lea de Groot wrote: * the page-name.some-technology, in implimentation. I tend to end all my pages in html no matter what I am using server side because a) it says 'webpage' and Then it adds 5 unnecessary characters to the end of the URI that serve no real purpose. I don't like including the file extension on any URI at all and if it wasn't for the annoying IE caching bugs I've experienced when leaving extensions of images, CSS and JS (i.e. IE apparently won't cache the files at all), I wouldn't include those either. It's also annoying when changing implementation. Like when I switched from blogger to WordPress. Blogger used static .html files and gave no way to configure links to be written without file extensions, even though I had MultiViews turned on. WordPress stores everything in the DB and has no file extensions in URIs. I ended up having to use mod_rewrite to accept .html on the end of any article URI so that no existing links/bookmarks wouldn't break. It would have been much less hassle if blogger had let me turn off file extensions in the first place. b) the technology for turning extensions off is flakey and What's flaky about it? Apache MultiViews is the easiest way to not require file extensions for static files, with the added advantage of making content negotiation extremely easy to do. I find putting a single page per directory inefficient in workflow - it has to work on both the developers and the users side! Yes, I agree with that. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Lea de Groot wrote: * the page-name.some-technology, in implimentation. I tend to end all my pages in html no matter what I am using server side because a) it says 'webpage' and Then it adds 5 unnecessary characters to the end of the URI that serve no real purpose. I don't like including the file extension on any URI at all and if it wasn't for the annoying IE caching bugs I've experienced when leaving extensions of images, CSS and JS (i.e. IE apparently won't cache the files at all), I wouldn't include those either. It's also annoying when changing implementation. Like when I switched from blogger to WordPress. Blogger used static .html files and gave no way to configure links to be written without file extensions, even though I had MultiViews turned on. WordPress stores everything in the DB and has no file extensions in URIs. I ended up having to use mod_rewrite to accept .html on the end of any article URI so that no existing links/bookmarks wouldn't break. It would have been much less hassle if blogger had let me turn off file extensions in the first place. b) the technology for turning extensions off is flakey and What's flaky about it? Apache MultiViews is the easiest way to not require file extensions for static files, with the added advantage of making content negotiation extremely easy to do. I find putting a single page per directory inefficient in workflow - it has to work on both the developers and the users side! Yes, I agree with that. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Herrod, Lisa wrote: here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they mean when they say that.. :( From http://www.google.com/search?q=define:troll "a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post " Close enough. I hope this thread won't devolve into a debate about trolling - we'd be totally off topic if so. FTR, I agree with most of what Daniel says, except: * the subdomain thing - although I havent experimented with it - * the page-name.some-technology, in implimentation. I tend to end all my pages in html no matter what I am using server side because a) it says 'webpage' and b) the technology for turning extensions off is flakey and I find putting a single page per directory inefficient in workflow - it has to work on both the developers and the users side! warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll :) Tip (to pay for this OT post): Web developer resource list: http://www.listible.com/list/online-tools2C-generators2C-checkers -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herrod, Lisa Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:26 AM To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' Subject: RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they mean when they say that.. :( >-Original Message- >From: Paul Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, 20 March 2006 10:15 AM >To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >Subject: RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice > > >I smell troll > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Herrod, Lisa wrote: here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they mean when they say that.. :( -Original Message- From: Paul Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I smell troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Original Message From: "Daniel Nitsche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re:[WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice Date: 3/19/2006 14:55 > subdomains - avoid if possible (this will probably be contentious :)) Yes you are right... using a subdomain in the manner you've described can be quite confusing to the average surfer, so using them "naked" like that should be avoided. You've given some excellent examples! However, I wouldn't go so far as to tell people to avoid them, but rather explain that they should be used *properly*. Subdomains are intended to be used with another domain name pointing to them (hence the name subdomain). Like in the example you gave of IBM printers. If they absolutely must use a subdomain then they should just go ahead and purchase ibmprinters.com and point it to the subdomain. A lot less confusing lol. Artemis
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
>> >> I smell troll > here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they > mean when they say that.. :( Someone who posts controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to provoke flames. Normally young and male, as surprising as that sounds ;) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they mean when they say that.. :( >-Original Message- >From: Paul Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, 20 March 2006 10:15 AM >To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >Subject: RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice > > >I smell troll > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
I smell troll ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Although there are some good tips in this thread, I'd be more worried about how the user is going to see the addresses, rather than how we structure our filesystems :)Some things that bug me about URIs: page-name.some-technologyWhy does the user care if it's a php, html, asp or whatever file? Either turn extensions off on your server, or use and index file in each seperate directory. Also on this, don't link to, or publicise a URI as /folder-name/index.php, always remove the index.php.information-architecture through foldersIf a folder name contributes some sort of information to the user, then use it, if it doesn't, then dont! For example, a URI of /deptartments/whitegoods. Is the fact that "whitegoods" or whatever is a "department" useful information to the user? If not, then don't include it. The reason some sites use this structure? To keep folders organised... scary. technology based uris www.somedomain.com/some-type-of-script.php?var1=kk3nn3&var2=blahblahblah Ahhh these are the worst! It's basically lazy programming that causes this, and there is little reason not to correct it (unless your using some awful CMS that doesn't let you change this). These URIs are difficult to email and near impossible to read out and/or write down. Bookmarking these can often cause problems as well, because these URIs may only be valid for a short time. This article offers some good ideas on this: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/guide-url-rewritingsubdomains - avoid if possible (this will probably be contentious :)) 1. Most people don't know that www isn't necessary at the front of a web-URI2. www.example.com is instantly recognisable as a URI, sub.example.com isn't necessarily3. More people are familiar with the standard www.example.com/folder/ than sub.example.com4. If you get the "sub" part of sub.example.com wrong, you will get a "server not found" type message. If you get the "folder" part of www.example.com/folder , the server can handle the 404 not found error, and provide a friendly error message.5. Branding issues - eg. www.printers.ibm.com Am I visiting a printer website that sells IBM printers? Or is this IBM's website about their printers? This w3 web quality tip also offers some good points:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/uri-chooseSorry for the rant/thread hijacking :) Daniel NitscheOn 3/20/06, Wendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sarah Peeke (XERT) wrote:>> Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:>>> How do YOU set up your directories?> Hi Joe,>> I agree with Jay, and pretty much use the same structure. >> Regarding images, I also break them up a little by giving them a name> which helps me find them later (certainly useful on larger sites):>> eg> staff_name1.jpg> staff_name2.jpg > ...> staff_name9.jpg>> product_name1.jpg> product_name2.jpg> ...> product_name9.jpg>> etc.>> HTH> Sarah :)>And while this probably makes little to no difference, I label image folders "i" rather than "images" - easier to type, certainly, and justmight save a megamillisecond or two.> BTW I'm certainly no guru either, but thought I'd offer my 2c!!> Me, neither, and me, too!Cheers,Wendy>>**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Sarah Peeke (XERT) wrote: Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: How do YOU set up your directories? Hi Joe, I agree with Jay, and pretty much use the same structure. Regarding images, I also break them up a little by giving them a name which helps me find them later (certainly useful on larger sites): eg staff_name1.jpg staff_name2.jpg ... staff_name9.jpg product_name1.jpg product_name2.jpg ... product_name9.jpg etc. HTH Sarah :) And while this probably makes little to no difference, I label image folders "i" rather than "images" - easier to type, certainly, and just might save a megamillisecond or two. BTW I'm certainly no guru either, but thought I'd offer my 2c!! Me, neither, and me, too! Cheers, Wendy ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org I'm out of the office until 20 March. If you have any urgent matter please contact Alistair Tegart via email on: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
