Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Anyone know much about these guys? /

I find it interesting they're trying to promote standards yet their own
website is table based and using a transitional doctype...



Marc wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I know very little about them, but I bet useless oiks sign up for some
crappy "certification" that they claim helps get work.



Once upon a time *Marc* wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

......and renders in Quirks Mode! :)


Beta is Latin for "still doesn't work."


On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

In addition to the points already made on the thread:

font-size 70% for quite a lot of stuff, and 60% for legalese?  I think
that oversteps the threshold that qualifies them for the notorious
"aargh! - microfonts" award.  (A pat on the back to Chris Pederick, by
the way, for implementing the "disable minimum font size" feature in
latest versions of the web developer extension for Moz - makes it
*so* much easier to defend oneself against microfonts in normal
browsing, while still being able to review sites at a click).

The page insisted on throwing a left-right scrollbar, instead of
fitting itself calmly into the window I'd provided.  That's rude.

The page seemed to take an interminable time to complete loading, even
on broadband, although they'd "got away with it" by getting some
content displayed up-front to promote reader interest.  The
cacheability engine says they did some nasty things to defeat
cacheability, including cache-control on the main page, plus
attempting to set a cookie.

Aside from that, most of the components seem to have proper
last-modified and Etag data, so they ought to be cacheable, and they
weren't particularly large - I don't really understand why it took so
long.  Perhaps I shouldn't attempt to comment on their web server
being IIS...

It didn't do too badly on WAI/508 checks, though.

Last-modified checks on the included objects suggest that the design
may date back a couple of years.  I'm not sure if that's really far
enough back to "cut them some slack" for retaining transitional
features.  That's a judgment call, really.  Some of the other points
criticised seem to me to be more important than that.

YMMV, just my personal reactions.


Alan J. Flavell wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Surely an association promoting standards (even if they mean business
standards in selling and such like as opposed to standards in HTML/CSS)
should at least have a website which doesn't "date back a couple of years"?



I signed up about 3 months ago and still im not a member and no emai

from them. I think its a pile of crap


*Kind Regards




Supported By 'Google Adsense

( /), Drive Ads To Your Sit
Bill's Profile: =
View this thread:


Bill wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Did you have to pay or is membership free?

What made you decide to join?



On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:04:54 +0000, Marc wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I like the "Get Internet Explorer" link.  That's probably indicative of
something or other.  :)

Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:


Blinky the Shark wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, I noticed that... how worrying...


Site Timeline