<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Home Inspection for the Web Consultant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/</link>
	<description>Tips and Commentary on Web Accessibility, Usability, and Search Marketing best practices.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:51:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Dolson</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/comment-page-1/#comment-1162</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Dolson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/#comment-1162</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d relate the issue to ease of repair, too.  A skippable splash page, for example, although minor, is also extremely easy to remove.  Simple layout tables, on the other hand, are more pernicious: settled in throughout the design, possibly on hundreds or thousands of pages...

It&#039;s a tough issue, since ultimately I&#039;d prefer to fix everything, but the practical issues sometimes get in the way. It&#039;s hard to decide what issues make a site actually &quot;hazardous&quot; to use - but I think you&#039;re definitely on the right track.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d relate the issue to ease of repair, too.  A skippable splash page, for example, although minor, is also extremely easy to remove.  Simple layout tables, on the other hand, are more pernicious: settled in throughout the design, possibly on hundreds or thousands of&nbsp;pages&#8230;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a tough issue, since ultimately I&#8217;d prefer to fix everything, but the practical issues sometimes get in the way. It&#8217;s hard to decide what issues make a site actually &#8220;hazardous&#8221; to use - but I think you&#8217;re definitely on the right&nbsp;track.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stevie D</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/comment-page-1/#comment-1158</link>
		<dc:creator>Stevie D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/#comment-1158</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s an interesting analogy! I know a lot of accessibility and usability proponents (me included) have a tendency to go mad and expect every tiny thing to be fixed before considering a website worthy, and equally I know that&#039;s not realistic in a commercial setting.

So what kind of issues would you classify as &quot;outdated&quot; rather than &quot;hazardous&quot;?

I&#039;m guessing that it would include &quot;features&quot; such as simple layout tables, accessible frames, skippable splash pages, some degree of non-semantic code ... how does that fit with what you&#039;d put on the list?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s an interesting analogy! I know a lot of accessibility and usability proponents (me included) have a tendency to go mad and expect every tiny thing to be fixed before considering a website worthy, and equally I know that&#8217;s not realistic in a commercial&nbsp;setting.</p>
<p>So what kind of issues would you classify as &#8220;outdated&#8221; rather than&nbsp;&#8220;hazardous&#8221;?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m guessing that it would include &#8220;features&#8221; such as simple layout tables, accessible frames, skippable splash pages, some degree of non-semantic code &#8230; how does that fit with what you&#8217;d put on the&nbsp;list?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

