Great
comments Mordechai
It's
easy to miss some of these elements, such as title tags. I like using the
web development bar by Chris Pederick
http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/ in
Mozilla. I use the outline links without titles, images without alt,
titles, etc funct
Andreas Boehmer wrote: Hi guys,I was wondering whether you could
give me some feedback on a website we havecreated: http://www.jet.org.au.We have tried to make it as
accessible as possible, but better than anyBobby or W3C validation is
probably going through your critique. We arestil
Andreas Boehmer wrote:
Hi guys,
I was wondering whether you could give me some feedback on a website we have
created: http://www.jet.org.au.
We have tried to make it as accessible as possible, but better than any
Bobby or W3C validation is probably going through your critique. We are
still
> > I was wondering whether you could give me some feedback on a website
> > we have
> > created: http://www.jet.org.au.
> From a quick glance, without looking at any code or styles...
> - the small type in the logo is virtually impossible to read (1280x1024
> 17" flat panel)... either you want p
quite good in terms of speedy loading
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/cgi-bin/wso/wso.pl?url=http%3A//www.jet.org.au/phpFiles/index.php
However the CSS http://www.jet.org.au/css/JET.css could be optimised a lot
eg:
background-color:#fff;
background-image:url(../images/orange_left.gif);
backgroun
On 01/06/2004, at 11:26 AM, Andreas Boehmer wrote:
I was wondering whether you could give me some feedback on a website
we have
created: http://www.jet.org.au.
We have tried to make it as accessible as possible, but better than any
Bobby or W3C validation is probably going through your critique.
Hi guys,
I was wondering whether you could give me some feedback on a website we have
created: http://www.jet.org.au.
We have tried to make it as accessible as possible, but better than any
Bobby or W3C validation is probably going through your critique. We are
still working on improving it, but
