[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sheflug] Re: Linux Professional Institute



Chris Johnson wrote:
<snip>

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.  I get it displaying correctly in
Konquerer and Mozilla (both Windows and Linux). <snip>
Interesting ... I loaded up Mozilla 1.6 on Suse 8.3 and got the same really poor view of information as I got in Opera 7.54. Care to publish the version numbers of the browsers you are using?

Apart from the content being
plain I can't see an issue with the presentation.  OK its not well designed
and isn't eye catching but it seems to get the message across.
There are, from web design viewpoints, *huge* issues with it.

It doesn't validate properly for a start. In playing around with fonts for different sections classic poor design faults have occurred. From a typographic viewpoint, the font choices are poor. FWIW the only place I have garamond font here is in my TeX directories.
And they don't call themselves the Linux Professional Institute they just
deliver courses to allow you to take LPI examinations.  They do Microsoft
qualifications as well IIRC and they are not calling themselves Microsoft
either.  There is a big clue at the top of their web page as to what they do
call themselves!  ;0)
My error re the LPI thing. I haven't a clue what the LPI is and I haven't seen a link to it from the site under discussion yet.
Not sure what problems those with issues about the website have.  Are there
overlapping sections?  (I've seen much worse (i.e. text overlapping more
text) from much larger and much more "professional" organisations that
probably have a dedicated web team or have even paid for the bad design.  I
would imagine this site was done in house.
I have published some details about some highly professional sites in opera forums but I hasten to point out not this particular site. I have also pointed out to opera when they are not coming up to scratch themselves. And yes I agree the site was most likely done in house and as I said in previous posts I am aware website production is not their main business task.
Retro: Yes. Basic : Yes. Informative : Yes.  Loads quickly and doesn't need
plugins? : Yes.
Illegible : yes. (So I'd go down to a 1/10 for the attempt at info in some places on that site.)
Non-standard :yes (so it will inevitably fail to display in some browsers and the company will lose market because of it)

Remember: Content over presentation.

Absolutely agree with that concept; but that phrase does not justify very poor presentation whatever the standard of the content, nor the use of poor presentation to cover poor content or to confuse and fudge an issue. :)

Not that I am declaring that said company of said site is doing that, I'm just tired of hearing that phrase being trundled out to justify laziness about or avoidance of presenting and disseminating information clearly and precisely!

Lesley

___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

GNU the choice of a complete generation.