> Wow, that was strong. You make some sensible points, but a bit too
> technically led, probably?

Well, when a large organisation with substantial resources does this... 

> I mean:
> 
> > http://www.takeonepicture.org:
> > Tiny default text size. Did anyone actually try viewing the 
> site with
> > larger-sized text before it was launched? It makes a bit of a dog's
> > breakfast of the site, and actually makes it harder to read.
> 
> Very good point. It should work. But it does work well if you totally
> disable the CSS. Not sure if it is really a problem.

Of course it's a problem. Users shouldn't have to fiddle with their settings to visit a site. It's the provider that has to make reasonable adjustments not the user!

> 
> > Perhaps a visit to the validator would be in order too. 
> There's a lot
> > of missing ALT attributes.
> 
> Not that many, in reality. Yes, a validator would fire a lot 
> of errors,
> but the missing ones are on spacers, for which is rather pointless to
> have ALT's. Actually it make things more confusing. It's always a
> problem when a machine reads and pretends to comment on something that
> was created for humans. Accessibility is not a technical feature, it's
> a design one, I believe.
> 

No, it is a problem since assistive software will read out these alt-less images as 'Image' or perhaps use the filename. The correct alt attribute would be "". This is the right way to do it for spacers and such like images.

> > Microdot default text size again. Why should I _have_ to resize the
> > text to maximum just to get it back to IE's (relatively comfortable)
> > default size? Try text at 'largest' here:
> > <http://www.takeonepicture.org/nesw/general.aspx?itemid=1>
> 
> That's taste, I guess. Verdana 10px is perfectly legible, if not, you
> can set your monitor resolution to 800x600 and the site works
> beautifully at that scale.
> 

Verdana 10px is legible to whom? I'm starting to really struggle with small fonts as my eyesight deteriorates, but I have no problem at the moment with the default sizes on this laptop. And what about users who don't have Verdana? They get another sans-serif font which looks even smaller (since Verdana was designed for screen legibility). They haven't set the font size in px, just set the body text as xx-small. That means the largest you can get in IE is the equivalent of the default 'smaller'. 

But why should anyone _have_ to change their settings to accommodate a poorly designed feature? If you are using a TFT screen then resizing is not generally a viable option as the displays are usually rubbish at anything other than their designed resolution -- and that's always assuming you have the necessary administrator privileges to make such changes.

> > alt="spacer", alt="divider" --incredible! No, not incredible, what's
> > the word, oh yes: incompetent.
> 
> Yes, that could be better. Leave them out completely, but then your
> validator would complain.

Well, see above: alt=""

> 
> > Missing closing </li> tags (not allowed in XHTML).
> > Lots and lots of 'click here'.
> > Using styles instead of structural mark-up (<div class="title">).
> 
> That's bad.
> 
> > There's more, but there's a limit to how much I'm willing 
> to type...is
> > this yet more public money spent on sites that can't get the HTML
> > basics right? And don't get me started on the fixed-width design...
> 
> Yes, I wouldn't start. What's exactly wrong with it?
> 

Compare this site maximised with text-size at largest with the same settings on <http://www.theglasgowstory.co.uk/>. On my 1600 x 1200 screen the latter fills the screen, while the former is an isolated small chunk in the middle of the screen. The web was designed with flexibility in mind -- fixed-width designs are a hangover from paper-based publishing. 

> I would think again. There is a lot of work and effort into 
> it, to just
> dismiss it superficially like that. There is MUCH worse around.
> 

I agree that there are worse sites around. This one of course has good worthwhile content. But I really don't think basic errors are superficial.

If our leading institutions with the greatest resources don't make sites that comply with basic accessibility guidelines and web standards, what message does that send to the rest of the museums community, who don't have the time, money and staff resources to devote to their online content? What message does it send to visitors who find the sites difficult or impossible to use? I think the national institutions should be setting an example of good practice. Some do, but they are still in a minority. It's 2004, there really are no excuses left.


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender and ensure it is deleted and not read copied or disclosed
to anyone else. It is your responsibility to scan this email and any
attachments for computer viruses or other defects. East Lothian
Council do not accept liability for any loss or damage which may
result from this email or any files attached. Email is not secure and
can be intercepted, corrupted or amended without the knowledge of the
sender. East Lothian Council do not accept liability for errors or
omissions arising as a result of interrupted or defective transmission.
**********************************************************************


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________