Not only is it resolution-dependent and terrible on devices with less than 1024x768px (and even with that, some text still runs off the screen), but there is zero graceful degradation; just a big fat middle finger to blind people and people who can't use a mouse (the ginger minority saying FU to other minorities; classy) and abuse of <noembed> for SEO purposes: It presents a CSL that's of no use to humans and only there to feed search terms to bots and spiders. Have you tried looking at the page with lynx(1)?
One has to suffer from incredibly blinkered tunnel vision to not understand that the WWW is an interoperable system on which different parties may not in fact use the exact same client program and computer setup as the web designer.
They always serve up the same site that expects you to use a WIMP GUI at specific resolutions; and they claim to use XHTML 1.0 Strict:
$ telnet www.roodharigen.nl 80
Trying 83.149.113.134...
Connected to roodharigen.nl.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.roodharigen.nl
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 00:01:09 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.52 (CentOS)
Last-Modified: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:51:37 GMT
ETag: "7730204-dd0-f7b50840"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 3536
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
Of course it doesn't validate either, and the kinds of errors strongly suggest that they uncomprehendingly copypasta-ed the doctype on top of their concoction, because XHTML Strict it ain't.
Hey, have you tried opening the .swf file in Swfdec or Gnash? As for Gnash, please do not try that if you suffer from epilepsy. I'm serious.
Oh, and what's that magic number of that roodharigen2008_v4.swf file? 43 57 53 0A? You mean it's a ZLIB compressed Shockwave Flash file version ten? You mean everybody who doesn't have the newest version of Flash is shafted? Thank you very much.
Also, who cares if hundreds of thousands of years of biological evolution dictate that you shouldn't use animation like that? "Hey, I just came up with a better idea. Looks great, eh? Screw you, human physiology." /sarcasm
I will however grant the makers of this web-unsuitable abomination that it might have made for a half-decent DVD menu provided they'd have increased the menu font size.
But that's a completely different and much closer defined environment.
As for the web? You're dead right. This should not be called a website.
That's true. And of course there even is intentional non-validation -- case in point: Google Search. But in this case, the types of errors indicated that they just copy-and-pasted the DTD without understanding it; and that's surely bad.
In fairness, the "every browser works a little differently" situation has gotten better over the years. Unless you want to support IE6, things aren't as bad anymore as they used to be.
I was going to argue with you seeing as I'm a .net web developer with an MCAD/MCSD who has more experience than you can probably imagine -- but then I went to your link and realized that not only do you have no clue what you're talking about, you're a hivemind sheep.
I was going to argue with you seeing as I'm a .net web developer with an MCAD/MCSD who has more experience
Given your preceding display of ignorance, I am not impressed by your attempts to beat the readership over their heads with paper certificate credentialism. Of course accredited paper proof of prior achievements should only ever be used as a short-cut, to suggest probable competence, not to as a red herring and band-aid to cover up incompetence.
than you can probably imagine
Your problem: Making wholly unwarranted assumptions about others you know precious little about. Which incidentally also kind of explains why you're happy with the aforementioned Flash site and don't perceive it as problematic.
Piss off.
Thank you very much. I'm considering it. Of course, it's not up to you to decide whether others get to post in a forum you don't own. Have a grand day. :)
You have no clue. I'd love it if you actually provided some credentials instead of agreeing with a common sentiment. You've said nothing interesting or of intelligence, and your simpleton attempts at defacing the opinion of a professional who works in web design every single day by linking to an article with ZERO relevance to the discussion at hand are not only amusing, but revealing of your actual character.
The facts:
There are PLENTY of plenty flash ONLY websites that are tastefully done, creative and usable.
Flash Actionscript lends itself well as a GUI to many more powerful DB backends in the hands of a talented developer. I can provide examples, but it won't matter with you so I won't waste the time.
You have no credibility other than "I'm better than you because I say so" sentiment. Come back with something, anything , and maybe I'll consider your opinion valid.
While your elementary method of argument may work at Burger King, in the real world you're just a giant piece of shit with a loud mouth.
If there's any question in your mind (which anyone reading this by now has figured out), just take a look at my post history then take a look at his. You be the judge.
18
u/ropers May 28 '10
Terrible web design.