You don't *need* to have an index page, it's just a 'standard' way of entering a site and making it easier for people to get there when typing a URL!. It doesn't *really* make that much difference what you call it as long as people type the address correctly. The only thing it means, from a usability point of view, is that…
Marketing: 7.6 Design: 8.1 Accessibility: 7.8 Experience: 8.3 Overall: 7.4 Aside from any 'technical' errors, it's subjective bollax. It doesn't appear to pick up on php or asp linked to scripts which is *very* odd. It told me that I don't have *any* intereactivity on my site when in fact visitors can post comments on news…
Dukester - some hosts or web url providers have a system where your site is hosted inside a frame. The main frame is the url, and the contents of the frame is your site. That would explain both problems.
It is kind of odd. Even though I have not updated/reorganized my site to show more recent work and have a better layout, since I had cerain keywords and links on my site, they went for it like maddogs. Still, I may take into account some of what it had to say when I do go to make changes. Marketing: 8.9 Design: 7.7…
The illegal stuff is based on British disability law and applies to SERVIES. So if you are running an online shop or a government help page, then you need to make sure it follows the guidelines. But you know what? The guidelines are so easy to implement anyway. Basically you need to use CSS, so that you can say…
Ahh Rick, I was hoping you would show up I don't wanna derail the thread, but are you in the mood to answer a few more questions? Just in case... I have a visitor counter that rolled over at 9999 and was at 86 this morning. I emailed techsupport and they corrected it, but also told me this.... Also please be aware that you…
[ QUOTE ] news.bbc.co.uk: 9.5 (still got hit by the disabled part though) [/ QUOTE ] LOL, that is great. If that was a California law and it was a US news based site there would already be a lawsuit.
Basically try using your site in Lynx/w3m, if that works it's "accessible". The only online check you should really worry about is the W3C HTML validator. Anything that runs through that thing without errors or warnings already fulfills 95% of the rules out there. For the rest, adhere to these fundamental rules.
Got bored and threw them the major/popular news sites just to see what they thought: drudgereport.com: 7.6 ABCnews.com: 7.6 CBSnews.com: 7.8 news.google.com: 8.0 Foxnews.com: 8.2 CNN.com: 8.6 news.bbc.co.uk: 9.5 (still got hit by the disabled part though) The quick and dirty page for my program managed to get this:…
Although it makes little sense for portfolio sites: Marketing: 5.4 Design: 9.9 Accessibility: 5.6 Experience: 9.7 Overall: 6.8 I am apparently teh design w1nz0r! I got a 9.7 for "How satisfying the website is likely to be" even though half my page-links are placeholders looping back to the home page? It ranked chronically…