
April 20th, 2005, 11:55 AM
|
 |
Web-Standards Evangelist
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,522
  
Time spent in forums: 4 Days 23 h 48 m 4 sec
Reputation Power: 8
|
|
Web Standards Man (myself) reviews and grades sites in 4 categories: - Code Validation [ 0 = Disregard for code, 1 = Virtually none, 2 = Some attempt, 3 = Transitional, 4 = Strict, 5 = XHTML1.0 Strict / 1.1 ]
- Aesthetics [ 0 = You can guess, 1 = FrontPage Themes, 5 = CSSZenGarden or better ]
- Accessibility [ 0 = Negative usability (eg JavaScript generated menus), 1 = None, 2 = Alt text, etc.../ some attempt, 5 = True content/appearance separation and renders fine in Lynx and Jaws
- Coding Practices [ -1 = Low-End WYSIWYG tools used obstienciously, 0 = No effort whatsoever, 1 = Excessive tables for layout, etc..., 5 = Semantic XHTML w/ CSS ]
so lets see how your site scores up:
Code Validation:
No DTD given. Fails HTML4.01 Transitional fallback with 68 errors.
CSS has 3 errors and no warnings.
Fails 508 and WCAG straight off. I won't go into those.
1/5
Aesthetics:
Looks like something slapped together using the gradient tool and slicing in Photoshop. The source-code makes mention of ImageReady. There's hardly any effort put into maintaining a sense of consistency accross this site. It seems like a massive cheap knock-off advert.
2/5 (I stress this is a "lower 2", even FrontPage Theme sites can look good when done properly)
Accessibility:
As I said, fails WCAG and 508. No images provide alternative content, little evidence of any attempt at cross-platform compaitiblity. (There are more browsers than Trident IV-based ones y'know)
1/5
Coding Practices
What coding? This thing was made using ImageReady's slicing tools. The code is full of bad-semantics, such using <span> for headers, using the evil <marquee> element, and so on.
-1/5
Total Score: 3/20
|