(no subject)

[gothwalk]

The HTML I'm currently working is so bad I could cry. If I ever get my hands on the moron who put it together, I shall carefully strangle him with a printout of all the useless extra stuff he put in here. There are repeated occurences of <font color="#ffffff" face="Arial" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font color="#ffffff" face="Arial" size="2">&nbsp;</font> - when what they wanted was two spaces. And it'd be almost OK if it was consistently Arial, or size 2, or white - but it's not. This guy thought carefully about what size, font and colour his spaces were to be, by the looks of things. And there are random bold tags scattered up and down the documents like ornaments on a Christmas Tree.

Razzle frazzle.

Comments

[gothwalk.livejournal.com]

Frontpage was involved at some point alright, but I'm used to Frontpage by now, and its various awkwardnesses. No, this is a document that was altered, as far as I can see, by several people, possibly all at once, each of whom knew what a few html tags did, but nothing about html otherwise. So there are, for instance, very careful rows of non-breaking spaces which will position things prefectly as long as you're using IE 4.something on Windows 2000 at 800x600.

And worst of all, there are <u> tags in here.

[kajivar]

<u> tags are bad?

[gothwalk.livejournal.com]

From a long-term usability point of view, yeah. Underlines on the web mean links, to the vast majority of people. Underlines that aren't links frustrate people, as a first effect, and then go on to devalue that convention, so that we have to find other ways to indicate links, like "click here", or graphic buttons.

Re:

[kajivar]

Ahhh, understandable. Thanks for the explanation.

[iresprite.livejournal.com]

And worst of all, there are <u> tags in here.

*runs screaming in blind terror*

*returns for a nice hot cup of tea*

I wish you all the best in blowing that doc to oblivion.