http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/

At some point:[email hidden],
Philip TAYLOR <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Michael -- In Mozilla 1.6, the above URL does /not/
automatically "open the site", and clicking on
the text
=20
Click here if the site does not open automatically
=20
has no effect if JavaScript is disabled. Would it be
possible for the Tour of Britain web site to work
reliably in all modern browsers, whether or not they
have JavaScript enabled ?
=20
Philip Taylor
Webmaster, Royal Holloway, University of London

Try this: http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html

cupra wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Try this: http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html

Oh, I found the page all right : it was more a matter
of trying to bring pressure to bear on the Tour's
Director of Communications to make the Tour's web site
accessible to all ...

** Phil.

At some point:[email hidden],
Philip TAYLOR <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

cupra wrote:
=20
[snip]
=20

Quoted message said:

Try this: http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html

=20
Oh, I found the page all right

It was worth posting in case anyyone else was struggling!

Quoted message said:

: it was more a matter
of trying to bring pressure to bear on the Tour's
Director of Communications to make the Tour's web site
accessible to all ...
=20
** Phil.

Yep - when sites insist on flash/java/popup etc.., I wish they'd have a =
simple HTML version for those who can't/don't want to use the bells and =
whistles!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep - when sites insist on flash/java/popup etc.., I wish they'd have a

simple HTML version for those who can't/don't want to >>use the bells and
whistles!

It's often because the designers simply do not have the skills to do it!

LaoFuZhi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep - when sites insist on flash/java/popup etc.., I wish they'd
have a

simple HTML version for those who can't/don't want to >>use the bells
and whistles!

It's often because the designers simply do not have the skills to do
it!

They don't have the skills to do what? Having the site open in a separate
window is harder to code (though still facile) than not.

in message <[email hidden]>, cupra

(') said:

At some point:[email hidden],
Philip TAYLOR <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Michael -- In Mozilla 1.6, the above URL does /not/
automatically "open the site", and clicking on
the text

Click here if the site does not open automatically

has no effect if JavaScript is disabled. Would it be
possible for the Tour of Britain web site to work
reliably in all modern browsers, whether or not they
have JavaScript enabled ?

Philip Taylor
Webmaster, Royal Holloway, University of London

Try this: http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html

Oh, god, no... I thought that level of incompetence had died out years
ago. If you want text, use TEXT, not fscking text-as-graphics. And
particularly, don't make your text a repeating background... Framesets
have been deprecated since 1998 or thereabouts.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This mind intentionally left blank ]

Quoted message said:

They don't have the skills to do what? Having the site open in a separate
window is harder to code (though still facile) than not.

It can be done using a template with little or no knowledge of HTML ..cut
and paste as Jeremy suggested..

Students do it all the time... And we usually catch em!

LaoFuZhi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep - when sites insist on flash/java/popup etc.., I wish they'd have a

simple HTML version for those who can't/don't want to >>use the bells and
whistles!

It's often because the designers simply do not have the skills to do it!

In this case they also haven't stayed up to date with web design
standards. Frames, ffs. I think some people put copy and paste
JavaScript routines in their web pages to make the bosses think
they're clever.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Jeremy
Collins <[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

In this case they also haven't stayed up to date with web design
standards. Frames, ffs.

There's nothing wrong with frames in themselves, the problem is
incompetent or under-educated designers who use them incorrectly. The
first site in my .sig is based entirely on frames, yet every page
(barring one of the older sub-sections I've not fixed yet) is
bookmarkable just as if frames weren't used. It also has full and up-to
date noframes content, generated by fully automated script. Admittedly
it also has some appalling coding, but bits of it go back to 1999 and
no-one's ever complained about not being able to access it yet. :-)

<fx: goes to look at the tour of Britain site>

Then again, that really is awfully bad. :-(

Quoted message said:

I think some people put copy and paste
JavaScript routines in their web pages to make the bosses think
they're clever.

See the saga over the Accessible Od*on over on uk.net.web.authoring...
:-(

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.

Pyromancer said:

See the saga over the Accessible Od*on over on uk.net.web.authoring...

Yes, I read about that on Slashdot. The bloke *was* collecting
personal information from people; I think this was a justifiable
reason to shut him down, despite his good intentions.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jeremy Collins said:

Yes, I read about that on Slashdot. The bloke *was* collecting
personal information from people;

Evidence?

I don't believe that assertion. More precisely, I don't believe
he'd collect any data under false pretences.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

In article <[email hidden]>,

James Hodson said:

Style
over substance, I presume.

If that's your idea of style. I daresay you could make a bike of gold, too.

Some of us just call websites like that masturbating in public.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

cupra said:

Try this: http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html

Ta for that, Cupra

What, I wonder, is the need for <http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk> when
the not-too-much-longer
<http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html>works just fine? Style
over substance, I presume.

There are far too many sites these days that I don't visit simply
because their scripting behaviour is too much bother to deal with.

James

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:22:40 +0100, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

James Hodson said:

Style
over substance, I presume.

If that's your idea of style. I daresay you could make a bike of gold, too.

Some of us just call websites like that masturbating in public.

I said:

"What, I wonder, is the need for <http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk> when
the not-too-much-longer
<http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html>works just fine? Style
over substance, I presume.

There are far too many sites these days that I don't visit simply
because their scripting behaviour is too much bother to deal with."

Nick, I do think you missed the point. Indeed, I think you missed it
by a long way.

By style over substance I meant that just because one can achieve a
pop-up (the tour of Britain's idea of style) it doesn't necessarily
mean that one should. I intended to mean neither more nor less, and I
thought that this would have been obvious to a normal person from my
post.

Happy masturbating
James

PS May I say Whoosh?

in message <[email hidden]>, Pyromancer

(') said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Jeremy
Collins <[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

In this case they also haven't stayed up to date with web design
standards. Frames, ffs.

There's nothing wrong with frames in themselves

There's masses wrong with frames in themselves. They greatly hamper deep
linking, hamper navigation, work very poorly (or not at all) in user
agents with limited display (e.g. palmtops, mobile phones), and much
else besides.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

in message <[email hidden]>, James Hodson

(') said:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:22:40 +0100, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

James Hodson said:

Style
over substance, I presume.

If that's your idea of style. I daresay you could make a bike of
gold, too.

Some of us just call websites like that masturbating in public.

I said:

"What, I wonder, is the need for <http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk> when
the not-too-much-longer
<http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html>works just fine? Style
over substance, I presume.

There are far too many sites these days that I don't visit simply
because their scripting behaviour is too much bother to deal with."

Nick, I do think you missed the point. Indeed, I think you missed it
by a long way.

By style over substance I meant that just because one can achieve a
pop-up (the tour of Britain's idea of style) it doesn't necessarily
mean that one should. I intended to mean neither more nor less, and I
thought that this would have been obvious to a normal person from my
post.

Before attempting to advise Nick on issues of web design, I think a
little google search for his name might help. Most people who post here
have professional lives which are not connected with cycling, and some
of them are just _a_ _little_ well known in their respective fields.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, James Hodson

(') said:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:22:40 +0100, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
James Hodson <[email hidden]> writes:
> Style
> over substance, I presume.

If that's your idea of style. I daresay you could make a bike of
gold, too.

Some of us just call websites like that masturbating in public.

I said:

"What, I wonder, is the need for <http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk> when
the not-too-much-longer
<http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/h_index.html>works just fine? Style
over substance, I presume.

There are far too many sites these days that I don't visit simply
because their scripting behaviour is too much bother to deal with."

Nick, I do think you missed the point. Indeed, I think you missed it
by a long way.

By style over substance I meant that just because one can achieve a
pop-up (the tour of Britain's idea of style) it doesn't necessarily
mean that one should. I intended to mean neither more nor less, and I
thought that this would have been obvious to a normal person from my
post.

Before attempting to advise Nick on issues of web design, I think a
little google search for his name might help. Most people who post here
have professional lives which are not connected with cycling, and some
of them are just _a_ _little_ well known in their respective fields.

Oi reckon he isn't attempting to advise Nick on issues of web design. Nick
just missed his point. As did you. Off to your local Nike store, and
remember to take the initial 'S' off the 'swoosh' before using it!

cheers,
clive

Clive George said:

Oi reckon he isn't attempting to advise Nick on issues of web design. Nick
just missed his point. As did you. Off to your local Nike store, and
remember to take the initial 'S' off the 'swoosh' before using it!

You've got it, oh baby you've got it.

James

In article <[email hidden]>,

James Hodson said:

Quoted message said:

Oi reckon he isn't attempting to advise Nick on issues of web design. Nick
just missed his point. As did you. Off to your local Nike store, and
remember to take the initial 'S' off the 'swoosh' before using it!

You've got it, oh baby you've got it.

I'm guessing you see something at the site that we don't (not that I
looked hard - it was an obvious candidate for the back-button).

That's a common phenomenon on incompetent websites.

Oh, and I don't get the Nike reference either. I could speculate it
might be some advertising campaign (I wouldn't know - don't have a telly)
or something you saw at the site. But I expect I don't want to know.

--
Nick Kew