[mimi]

I designed this site using CSS, it looks fine with IE but the design becomes distorted on Mozilla and Netscape. What I'm I doing wrong? Also, the iframe does not display right with Mozilla. The site is: http://www.dpd.org

[sub]

Most of the content is Flash.
Why not just use Flash for the whole site?

[mimi]

My web designing skills are self taught and I put that together to my best ability, so that layout was what worked for me.

[mimi]

I figured the CSS out but not the iFrame...

[pgo]

Looks the same to me in Firefox 1.5.0.4 and IE6.

How is it designed with CSS - it's all Flash, tables, and tons of JavaScript? I'm going to venture a guess that it was done completely in Dreamweaver Design View?

[mimi]

I used some CSS, but not entirely. Yes, it's DW

[sub]

Frames, tables, Flash. The three deadly sins in one site!
Seriously, you would be better off just doing the whole thing in Flash.

[b v]

Originally Posted by subcircle

Frames, tables, Flash. The three deadly sins in one site!

minus the latter.

[mdude85]

Your site is crazy -- I can't figure out any other way to describe it, so forgive my lack of political correctness. The only thing you could conceivably need Flash for is the moving sky graphic at the top, which is probably not necessary. Your logo doesn't need to be inside the Flash. Since you made your black vertical navigation in static graphic form, why not just make the horizontal menu that way also? There's no reason to have your content window embedded into your Flash object. I don't know where you got the idea to restrict the flow of content into a little window like you did, considering the entire website scrolls heavily at 1024/768 anyway. I'm also unsure why some of your text is selectable and some of it isn't. Just make it either all selectable or all unselectable. My suggestion would be that if you want to get rid of the accessibility problems you're having with alternate browsers, remove your iFrame and let the content flow down the page in a normal fashion. Remove the Flash altogether (except the sky graphic) and replace all your would-be Flash buttons with static graphics. Also no reason to have a small black and white picture embedded into the Flash object. Some sites benefit from Flash, but this isn't one of them.

Oh, and the fonts you use for your yellow buttons are completely out of place from a thematic standpoint. When I look at them I feel like I am browsing a Star Trek fansite.

[sjd]

I was just about to suggest the use of the object tag as a quick fix to replace the iframe, but then I noticed the site is for a charity.

For persons with disabilities.

Holy shit! You are really going to have to make this site accessible if you want it to be vaguely time proof. The laws are coming to get you.

Type 'accessibility' into google (or perhaps 'accessibility US' if you're in the US).

For the bare minimum you should get rid of all the flash, disable css and see if it still makes sense.

[sjd]

Originally Posted by mimi

My web designing skills are self taught and I put that together to my best ability, so that layout was what worked for me.

I think the design's good, particularly for someone who's self taught. It's just about time you start to include CSS in your skillset and take usability & accessibility into account, particularly if you're going to be designing standard sites like these. Flash has it's place, but it's not here.

[mdude85]

Originally Posted by sjd

I was just about to suggest the use of the object tag as a quick fix to replace the iframe, but then I noticed the site is for a charity.

For persons with disabilities.

Holy shit! You are really going to have to make this site accessible if you want it to be vaguely time proof. The laws are coming to get you.

Type 'accessibility' into google (or perhaps 'accessibility US' if you're in the US).

For the bare minimum you should get rid of all the flash, disable css and see if it still makes sense.

This site is almost certainly not designed to be used by people with disabilities. I think it's for people without disabilities who want to learn about the center, find its locations, consider donating to it, or find employment there. It seems like most of the people with disabilities probably have very much trouble using a computer.

[sjd]

Yep, but I'm still of the opinion that sites for organisations which aim to help people with a dissability should be champions of technologies that assist ANY dissability.

Also, if this is a US charity and they want to apply for funding from the government, they may find they have to abide by certain rules and regulations (section 508 stylee).

[pgo]

sjd is on the money.

Originally Posted by mdude85

This site is almost certainly not designed to be used by people with disabilities. I think it's for people without disabilities who want to learn about the center, find its locations, consider donating to it, or find employment there. It seems like most of the people with disabilities probably have very much trouble using a computer.

It doesn't matter. If you're building a site that champions the cause of people with disabilities, you shouldn't make a site as inaccessible as this one. It gives a bad message.

And are you implying that only people without disabilities have jobs, donate money, and have vested interests in charities for the disabled?

• Tables used for layout.
• Embedded JavaScript
• Flash used for important navigational items with no alternatives provided.
• Inline images used for navigation with no alt text.
• Frames

The only way it could get more inaccessible is if all the text was images.

[mdude85]

Originally Posted by pgo

And are you implying that only people without disabilities have jobs, donate money, and have vested interests in charities for the disabled?

All I am implying is that the people who are served by the Department for Persons with Disabilities are likely not to be visiting this website. I'm not trying to make social commentary. When we discuss accessibility, it typically means making the site accessible for people who are blind, deaf, colorblind, people who have limited access to high speed internet, or people who have had prior illness such as a stroke and are not operating with full cognitive capabilities. People who are mentally challenged (PC term) don't usually benefit from so-called "accessible" websites. Websites of all kinds are inaccessible to them.

[LorEye]

it bothers me that the flash banner at the top doesn't reach an end point. It just keeps moving and repeating.

[mdude85]

Originally Posted by pgo

• Tables used for layout.
• Embedded JavaScript
• Flash used for important navigational items with no alternatives provided.
• Inline images used for navigation with no alt text.
• Frames

The only way it could get more inaccessible is if all the text was images.

Use of tables doesn't make a website inaccessible.

[pgo]

Tables are fine - they're great. I use them all the time.

But not as a layout device.

WCAG 1.0, Checkpoint 3.3:

3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. [Priority 2]
For example, use the CSS 'font' property instead of the HTML FONT element to control font styles.
Techniques for checkpoint 3.3

WCAG 1.0, Checkpoint 5.3:

Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version). [Priority 2]
Note. Once user agents support style sheet positioning, tables should not be used for layout. Refer also to checkpoint 3.3.
Techniques for checkpoint 5.3