I've more than three decades experience in manufacturing and
construction QA/QC. Thus I know that a good problem report is half the
solution.

I have some questions.
1. Is there a page covering what a webmaster wants to know?
2. As to HTML standards, is https://validator.w3.org/ relevant?
3. Is this an appropriate forum?

My situation:
The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 09:02:00 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> 1. Is there a page covering what a webmaster wants to know?

I think that depends on what you want to do first. What information does it
needs? Getting information without any plan on using it would only consume
storage space.

> 2. As to HTML standards, is https://validator.w3.org/ relevant?
....
> When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
> multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
> explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.

That site (and most others) validates code based only from the latest HTML
specification, instead of from actual web browsers. i.e. ideal vs actual.

> 3. Is this an appropriate forum?

IMO, #1 is more related to web development in general. i.e. not HTML
specific.

In message <sm0p4p$120n$1@gioia.aioe.org> Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
> I've more than three decades experience in manufacturing and
> construction QA/QC. Thus I know that a good problem report is half the
> solution.

> I have some questions.
> 1. Is there a page covering what a webmaster wants to know?

What is not working and how it should work.

> 2. As to HTML standards, is https://validator.w3.org/ relevant?

Absolutely. Despite what some "webmasters" claim, there is absolutely no
reason for any page to have errors. warnings are just warnings, and they
may not need to be corrected, but errors should not be tolerated.

> 3. Is this an appropriate forum?

> My situation:
> The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
> usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
> multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
> explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.

TV stations, IME, have terrible web pages designed by people with no
idea what they are doing. The best way to get action is not to tell them
their page sucks and is full of errors, but to tell them their page is
not compliant with the Federal ADA.

(If a page is generating errors, then it is sure to break screen readers
and other assistive technologies that they are required by law to
support).

--
CURSIVE WRITING DOES NOT MEAN WHAT I THINK IT DOES Bart chalkboard
Ep. 2F11

Lewis wrote:
> In message <sm0p4p$120n$1@gioia.aioe.org> Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
>> I've more than three decades experience in manufacturing and
>> construction QA/QC. Thus I know that a good problem report is half the
>> solution.
>
>> I have some questions.
>> 1. Is there a page covering what a webmaster wants to know?
>
> What is not working and how it should work.
>
>> 2. As to HTML standards, is https://validator.w3.org/ relevant?
>
> Absolutely. Despite what some "webmasters" claim, there is absolutely no
> reason for any page to have errors. warnings are just warnings, and they
> may not need to be corrected, but errors should not be tolerated.
>
>> 3. Is this an appropriate forum?
>
>
>> My situation:
>> The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
>> usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
>> multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
>> explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.
>
> TV stations, IME, have terrible web pages designed by people with no
> idea what they are doing. The best way to get action is not to tell them
> their page sucks and is full of errors, but to tell them their page is
> not compliant with the Federal ADA.
>
> (If a page is generating errors, then it is sure to break screen readers
> and other assistive technologies that they are required by law to
> support).
>
+1
But that only applies if they really care (most do not)

--
Frosted Flake

In message <sm6uj3$4ug$1@dont-email.me> Frosted Flake <no_one@example.net> wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>> In message <sm0p4p$120n$1@gioia.aioe.org> Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
>>> I've more than three decades experience in manufacturing and
>>> construction QA/QC. Thus I know that a good problem report is half the
>>> solution.
>>
>>> I have some questions.
>>> 1. Is there a page covering what a webmaster wants to know?
>>
>> What is not working and how it should work.
>>
>>> 2. As to HTML standards, is https://validator.w3.org/ relevant?
>>
>> Absolutely. Despite what some "webmasters" claim, there is absolutely no
>> reason for any page to have errors. warnings are just warnings, and they
>> may not need to be corrected, but errors should not be tolerated.
>>
>>> 3. Is this an appropriate forum?
>>
>>
>>> My situation:
>>> The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
>>> usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
>>> multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
>>> explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.
>>
>> TV stations, IME, have terrible web pages designed by people with no
>> idea what they are doing. The best way to get action is not to tell them
>> their page sucks and is full of errors, but to tell them their page is
>> not compliant with the Federal ADA.
>>
>> (If a page is generating errors, then it is sure to break screen readers
>> and other assistive technologies that they are required by law to
>> support).

>+1
> But that only applies if they really care (most do not)

TV stations are required to abide by the ADA or they could lose their
broadcast license. If they start hearing ADA violations they WILL take
that seriously.

--
what was supposed to be so special about a full moon? It was only a
big circle of light. And the dark of the moon was only darkness.
But half-way between the two, when the moon was between the
worlds of light and dark, when even the moon lived on the edge...
maybe then a witch could believe in the moon. --Witches Abroad

???? Good Guy ???? <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: utf-8, 39 lines --]

> On 04/11/2021 14:02, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> > My situation:
> > The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
> > usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
> > multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
> > explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.
> >
> First make sure you are using the latest browser. I have seen people
> using some fringe browsers like SeaMonkey or something similar and they
> complain about sites not displaying properly. Surely, SeaMonkey is not a
> proper browser. It is somebody's hobby project like Linx.

> Please Use Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome to start with because these
> two browsers are the ones developers test their sites. Both browsers are
> available for for all three common operating systems - Windows, MacOS
> and Linux Junk.

> You also need to make sure your operating system is still supported by
> its creators. Windows 7 and prior are NOT supported by Microsoft and
> website creators are not not going to waste time testing their products
> on them. They are running a business after all so they need to cater for
> masses not some hobby user who will not upgrade his operating system
> because he can't use latest versions because of all the bells and
> whistles built into them.

Why do we have to upgrade to the (new/lat)est stuff?
--
Dang crazy life! :/
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

SeaMonkey is a serious browser used by professionals.

On 06/11/2021 16:44, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 14:02, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>> My situation:
>> The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
>> usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites
>> report multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background,
>> the explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.
>>
> First make sure you are using the latest browser. I have seen people
> using some fringe browsers like SeaMonkey or something similar and
> they complain about sites not displaying properly. Surely, SeaMonkey
> is not a proper browser. It is somebody's hobby project like Linx.
>
> Please Use Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome to start with because these
> two browsers are the ones developers test their sites. Both browsers
> are available for for all three common operating systems - Windows,
> MacOS and Linux Junk.
>
> You also need to make sure your operating system is still supported by
> its creators. Windows 7 and prior are NOT supported by Microsoft and
> website creators are not not going to waste time testing their
> products on them. They are running a business after all so they need
> to cater for masses not some hobby user who will not upgrade his
> operating system because he can't use latest versions because of all
> the bells and whistles built into them.
>
>
> --
> Windows-10: <news://freenews.netfront.net/alt.comp.os.windows-10>
> Windows-8: <news://freenews.netfront.net/alt.comp.os.windows-8>
> Windows-7: <news://freenews.netfront.net/alt.windows7.general>
> Windows XP: <news://freenews.netfront.net/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
> Windows-XP: <news://freenews.netfront.net/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
> Firefox: <news://freenews.netfront.net/alt.comp.software.firefox>
> Thunderbird: <news://freenews.netfront.net/alt.comp.software.thunderbird>
>
> Google Groups: <https://groups.google.com/g/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>

--

With over 1.3 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

Lewis wrote:
> In message <sm6uj3$4ug$1@dont-email.me> Frosted Flake <no_one@example.net> wrote:
>> Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <sm0p4p$120n$1@gioia.aioe.org> Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
>>>> I've more than three decades experience in manufacturing and
>>>> construction QA/QC. Thus I know that a good problem report is half the
>>>> solution.
>>>
>>>> I have some questions.
>>>> 1. Is there a page covering what a webmaster wants to know?
>>>
>>> What is not working and how it should work.
>>>
>>>> 2. As to HTML standards, is https://validator.w3.org/ relevant?
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Despite what some "webmasters" claim, there is absolutely no
>>> reason for any page to have errors. warnings are just warnings, and they
>>> may not need to be corrected, but errors should not be tolerated.
>>>
>>>> 3. Is this an appropriate forum?
>>>
>>>
>>>> My situation:
>>>> The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
>>>> usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
>>>> multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
>>>> explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.
>>>
>>> TV stations, IME, have terrible web pages designed by people with no
>>> idea what they are doing. The best way to get action is not to tell them
>>> their page sucks and is full of errors, but to tell them their page is
>>> not compliant with the Federal ADA.
>>>
>>> (If a page is generating errors, then it is sure to break screen readers
>>> and other assistive technologies that they are required by law to
>>> support).
>
>> +1
>> But that only applies if they really care (most do not)
>
> TV stations are required to abide by the ADA or they could lose their
> broadcast license. If they start hearing ADA violations they WILL take
> that seriously.
>
>
>
Are spelling, grammar, and usage errors violations of the ADA?
How about lies?

--
Frosted Flake

In message <sm7i4t$mui$1@dont-email.me> Frosted Flake <no_one@example.net> wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>> In message <sm6uj3$4ug$1@dont-email.me> Frosted Flake <no_one@example.net> wrote:
>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <sm0p4p$120n$1@gioia.aioe.org> Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
>>>>> I've more than three decades experience in manufacturing and
>>>>> construction QA/QC. Thus I know that a good problem report is half the
>>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>>> I have some questions.
>>>>> 1. Is there a page covering what a webmaster wants to know?
>>>>
>>>> What is not working and how it should work.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. As to HTML standards, is https://validator.w3.org/ relevant?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. Despite what some "webmasters" claim, there is absolutely no
>>>> reason for any page to have errors. warnings are just warnings, and they
>>>> may not need to be corrected, but errors should not be tolerated.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Is this an appropriate forum?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My situation:
>>>>> The websites of 2 local TV stations [1 commercial, 1 PBS] are barely
>>>>> usable. When submitted to https://validator.w3.org/, both sites report
>>>>> multiple Errors *and* Warnings. To someone with my background, the
>>>>> explanatory comments all but scream *LOUSY WORKMANSHIP*.
>>>>
>>>> TV stations, IME, have terrible web pages designed by people with no
>>>> idea what they are doing. The best way to get action is not to tell them
>>>> their page sucks and is full of errors, but to tell them their page is
>>>> not compliant with the Federal ADA.
>>>>
>>>> (If a page is generating errors, then it is sure to break screen readers
>>>> and other assistive technologies that they are required by law to
>>>> support).
>>
>>> +1
>>> But that only applies if they really care (most do not)
>>
>> TV stations are required to abide by the ADA or they could lose their
>> broadcast license. If they start hearing ADA violations they WILL take
>> that seriously.
>>
>>
>>
> Are spelling, grammar, and usage errors violations of the ADA?

Don't think there is anything kike that in the ADA.

> How about lies?

If lies were forbidden news organizations would not exist, TV news
doubly so.

--
We need a living Komodo dragon so we can cut out its heart. I hear Kanye keeps
one in his New York apartment.

In message <zeWdnamIUK3otRr8nZ2dnUU7-bWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Why do we have to upgrade to the (new/lat)est stuff?

Because you want things to work.

--
I WILL NOT CARVE GODS Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F11