Slashdot Mirror

Why would I buy or use an html/web page editor form a company or organization with quite possibly one of the most ugly and ametuerish web sites I have seen in a long time?

I don't mean to be rude (or to sound like Simon Cowell!) but after the excellent web page designs we saw here and most especially here, how could I take any tool seriously when created by people who clearly can't do good web design.

I personally would like to know what Radu used...;)

And for the record, I don't pretend to be a web designer extrodinaire, but I'm quite sure ANYONE could do a better job than that. If I had created an HTML editor, I'd make damn sure the web page I "sold" or "promoted" it on looked a little better than one created by a grade 9 student...

You're missing half the beauty of the design without grabbing the Toggle CSS Stylesheet favelet/bookmarklet and trying it out on the winning site.

Because of the use of proper HTML structure (Hx, Acronym tags) the site is still is very accessible and easy to read.

A minor quibble is the rampant usage of spans with a class named "none" to hide navigation divider pipes ("|") when CSS is on. Something like an unordered list might be better structurally... but that's more of a personal thing.

You're missing half the beauty of the design without grabbing the Toggle CSS Stylesheet favelet/bookmarklet and trying it out on the winning site.

Because of the use of proper HTML structure (Hx, Acronym tags) the site is still is very accessible and easy to read.

A minor quibble is the rampant usage of spans with a class named "none" to hide navigation divider pipes ("|") when CSS is on. Something like an unordered list might be better structurally... but that's more of a personal thing.

You're missing half the beauty of the design without grabbing the Toggle CSS Stylesheet favelet/bookmarklet and trying it out on the winning site.

Because of the use of proper HTML structure (Hx, Acronym tags) the site is still is very accessible and easy to read.

A minor quibble is the rampant usage of spans with a class named "none" to hide navigation divider pipes ("|") when CSS is on. Something like an unordered list might be better structurally... but that's more of a personal thing.

You're missing half the beauty of the design without grabbing the Toggle CSS Stylesheet favelet/bookmarklet and trying it out on the winning site.

Because of the use of proper HTML structure (Hx, Acronym tags) the site is still is very accessible and easy to read.

A minor quibble I have is the rampant usage of spans with a class named "none" to hide navigation divider pipes ("|") when CSS is on. Something like an unordered list might be better structurally... but that's more of a personal thing.

The winning entry is an excellent example that it is possible to create good looking, highly functional, structured websites that are also fully accessible. Congrats to Radu Darvas.

Don't know about you guys, but I'm grabbing a copy of his markup and stylesheets - its packed with a number of excellent tips on creating accessible designs. Apart from one or two miniscule gripes that are not worth mentioning - this is a fantastic example of modern web design.

Also, I do like one of the honourable mentions - very clean looking and easy on the eye.

...but that winning design still needs some massaging. At least that's what the Machead type-designer in me says. The text spacing is pretty off to my eyes, in both Safari and Chimera (nee Camino) 0.6.

In any case, razor blades flying from my LCD at high speeds would probably be better than the W3C site as it stands. It always annoyed me that their CSS2 page was just about the ugliest one on the intarweb. "Look, kiddies! With CSS, your pages can cause bleeding eyes! Semantically!"