pop art

[Jim web]

OT alert as previous. :-)

In article
<PHEAIHCMJKHMHMOFBPOGAEKICKAA.c.e.macfarlane at macfh.co.uk>, C E
Macfarlane <c.e.macfarlane at macfh.co.uk> wrote:
> See below for further OT discussion, otherwise please ignore ...


> What is needed in web-design is KIS (Keep It Simple), not a desire to
> show off that you can use complex techniques that only modern browsers
> can handle.  

> TBF, the BBC is such a vast organisation that there can be no question
> of designing the entire layout of individual pages by hand, as Jim and I
> can do on our sites, they have to use some sort of Content Management
> System (CMS), and it may be that many of the first type of problem
> originate in that. However, there is no such excuse for the second
> problem.

Accepted. I'd add that the BBC website is actually amazing overall for it
sheer scope and usefulness. Given that along with its sheer size I can
understand why the problems arise. 

I also realise that many of the limitations for RO/NetSurf are down to them
not currently supporting widely-used web methods, etc. In some cases plain
old HTML alone won't do something. But KIS should mean the simplest and
most widely methods for a given task are the ones used unless there is a
strong reason to the contrary. A classic here is the "black text on black
background" because the page code sets both those to black, then adds CSS
to change them... leaving browsers without CSS to display the inside of a
coal bunker. Then there is "using JavaScript for navigation *instead* of
plain anchor links" - which shafts browsers not using JavaScript... and so
on.

Overall, though I think the BBC do pretty well. However the history this
area was why I've personally behaved as I mentioned earlier. I still prefer
RO and its programs for many types of work, but it makes sense to switch to
Linux/FF for the BBC and similar websites.



> >     Similarly I found some time ago that there are at least *two*
> >     versions of the iplayer's schedules day-page listings. One of
> >     which only goes back a week, while the other covers the full month.

> I would have thought that both would be useful.

I'm not sure what the one-week version offers that I can't see from the
longer version.

Note here that by default the same width of FF window/page shows the same
span of days and which items are available 'on demand' *provided* that you
don't take the 'one week into the past' version back beyond a week from
today. So the only difference functionally is that the 'one week' version
won't let you see or access more than a week ago. 

FWIW I was quite confused when I first encountered this as the two versions
look and behave very similarly other than this limitation. I guess it is a
hangover from when the on demand was limited similarly, and no-one had
removed the engine generating the older pages.

I'm now curious so I may try checking again. Maybe they've now removed the
old version.

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html