Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

Almost 1 in 6 people in the UK is affected by one form of disability or another. You can choose to laugh with them or take the piss out of them. You should concentrate on the former, because the latter ain't terribly amusing.

FFS. I don't care what browsers people are using. This isn't a browser issue. It's about ensuring accessibility however people choose to access the site. That means it shouldn't matter whether they're using IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Browsealoud, JAWS, Lynx, OSX spoken word, PDA, WAP etc. etc. they'll still get a decent user experience and access to the information they want.

It's not hard to achieve and it doesn't compromise the look/feel/style of the website whatever tosh people try and put into it. If you design it properly everyone can use it. If you take this half-arsed backwards design design design standards-compliance=boring and ugly perspective that everyone (except Forgotten Sanity, to his credit) seems so keen on here then you risk excluding people, which doesn't seem very 'dirty'. Or didn't anyway.

Simon

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

Hey I'm all for well-designed and easily accessible websites. I absolutely hate it when all kinds of pretty pictures and flashy animation and "clever" navigation gets in the way of me getting to the information. If I, as a non-visually impaired person, can't even get to the info I want someone isn't doing his job properly. And yes they should be (obviously) viewable in every browser.
That being said, being a dick about it isn't going to make it any better. Maybe wait until we actually have some final designs may be a good idea. I haven't really seen ayone here argue against good and accessible design so I don't really get what you're getting so worked up about.

btw let's also realise that most people are not webdesigners and don't know all the technicalities of standards compliance. Also, as you said probably most (all?) people here don't have visual defects so if you say that the news page has 200 problems I'm sure you're right, but to me (and others) it looks fine so I can't really criticise it.

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

You've seen a bundle of people argue that standards-compliant = text, or boring, or monochrome, or for lynx only, and dirty has traditionally put visual "design" (there's those quotes again) way above accessibility as a priority.

If people are ignorant about standards compliance and the benefits of accessibility, as most here appear to be, and the users who most benefit from it considered as a joke, it doesn't bode well, does it?

As before, I gently pointed out the benefits of standards-compliance, and some tips on how to achieve it; I wasn't the one who over-reacted, but will always respond to ignorance and short-sightedness.

Simon

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

Which is why I provided links to useful information. :rolleyes:

I said that 1 in 6 in the UK have some form of disability; that might be a vision-impairment or it might be motor difficulties. Either way, that's over 16% of the potential audience for dirty. Quite a chunk.

Put it this way; if you came to a site and you couldn't read the text, or it didn't work with your preferred browser technology would you stay and use it? Of course you wouldn't, so why should someone who's colour blind be any different?

Simon

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

i meant it looked like it was standard compliant right now. if yannick keeps on expanding from what he has right now to incorporate his design then everything should be okay. i think most major problems come around when people use front page for the CSS and then it ends up being coded improperly on purpose (cause M$ are arses)...

anyhow. compliant web sites are becoming more and more necessary. i think simon is getting taken wrong. i think he thinks exterior design is good, but will not work properly if it isn't designed properly on the inside via. CSS

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

Spot on.

Simon

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

oh ffs goldfish. i make a joke about the website looking rubbish on a text based browser and you take it way too seriously. dont try and make out that im laughing at disabled people either and try to take some moral ground that isnt even there.

to take the subject of the website seriously i too favour content and accessibility over style and this is the last comment i will be making, especially if youre gonna jump on any eroneous comments i might make on the subject.

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

Goldfish, if you want to preach, go get a fucking pulpit and a bible. It's a website for chrissakes, and calling people pricks, ignorant and short-sighted isn't going to get you anywhere because all its going to do is damage your credibility amongst the more civil people around here. It doesn't matter that we agreed on your point, what matters is that you can't walk into this or any forum and start lighting people up, and expect whatever respect you believe in your own eyes is due to you.

If I was you, I'd try curtailing the explicit arrogance you parade around with, lest some of your better points down the road fall on deaf ears...

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

Who gives a fuck about credibility? The people here who know me, know me, and the people who don't, don't. Likewise the people I respect, get respect (and let's hope a few more of 'em find their way back here soon), and the rest I won't lose any sleep over.

Bizarre as this may seem to a n00b (and it's slightly out of context in this discussion), I actually care about dirty and its community. However, over the last year or so (breaks notwithstanding) it seems to be slowly being sacrificed to the egos of a small minority, and left to them and the fanboys, at the expense of the philosophy and the people that made dirty.org an interesting place to be.

Gee thanks, I'll try to bear that in mind.

Simon

Re: www.dirty.org/underworld/
 

i think the issues that you're having with the site and the issues on the site itself are disproportionate.