(rev. July, 2007)
Justification: Current standard; HTML is being phased out in favor of XHTML.
Supporting literature: http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html, http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/standards.html, http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/checklist.htm
Exceptions: Use of the <embed>; tag JavaScript code or CSS IE hacks that might not validate.
Helpful links: W3C’s validator: http://validator.w3.org/ Firefox Web Developer tool: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/60/
Justification: As of this writing, according to http://www.thecounter.com/stats/ approximately 83% use IE 6, 9% use Firefox, 2% use Safari, and 2% use IE 5. Mac/Windows ratio is 2% to 93%. Stats on www.med are similar, although more skewed toward Macs: 74% for IE 6, 11% for Mozilla/Firefox, 6% for Safari, and 3% for IE 5. Windows accounts for 82% and Mac is at 10% (see http://webdev.med.upenn.edu/stats/general/).
Exceptions: Latest version of Mac IE is very old and rarely used so this is less of an issue; Opera should be considered but less than 1% use it; Exceptions can be made for intranet applications so long as they are clearly spelled out in the “technical requirements” section.
Justification: As of this writing, according to http://www.thecounter.com/stats/ approximately 17% of the population still uses 800x600 screen resolution. However, stats on www.med for 2006 report only 4% at that resolution (http://webdev.med.upenn.edu/stats/general/) so use your discretion.
Exceptions: Intranet applications whose user base is known.
Helpful tools: Firefox Web Developer tool: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/60/ has an auto-resizing tool
Justification: Better consistency with very old browsers - will ignore the style sheet, altogether, rather than attempt to render styles.
Supporting literature: http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/stylesheets/advancedcss.html, http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ImportHack, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html
Exceptions: None.
Justification: Accessibility; cross-browser compatibility; allowing the user to specify font size via his/her browser preferences.
Supporting literature: http://webdesign.about.com/cs/typemeasurements/a/aa042803a.htm, http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/fonts/, http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
Exceptions: None.
Justification: Accessibility
Supporting literature: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/
Exceptions: Sites where the audience is pre-selected to not include those with visual disabilities - e.g., the Admissions Status page or small-scale intranet applications whose user base is known and unlikely to change.
Helpful Links: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/replace_text/
Justification: Aids in search engine indexing
Supporting literature: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/
Exceptions: None.
Justification: Accessibility; printability; Flash content may be hidden to some users and to search engines; the inappropriate use of Flash (e.g., Flash intro pages) may delay the users' ability to get to the content they are looking for; browser features such as "Find in Page" and text translators will not work on Flash content.
Supporting literature: http://www.sibagraphics.com/wp/category/web-design/resources/flash/
Exceptions: Flash, Ajax, etc. may be appropriate for certain limited applications.
Justification: Accessibility; makes printing, bookmarking, and searching difficult.
Supporting literature: http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/frames/goodorbad.html
Exceptions: When there is no viable alternative to using an iframe.
Helpful links: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#alt-frames
Justification: Users may have slower connection speeds or lack the plugin needed.
Exceptions: If an entire list of items is of the same document type, a warning at the top of the list is sufficient.
Justification: The <u> tag has been deprecated; underlining items which are not links is confusing to the user since the convention on the web is that only links are underlined.
Supporting literature:http://webdesign.about.com/od/htmltags/p/bltags_u.htm
Exceptions: None.
Justification: Accessibility; separation of content and format; additional functionality available with CSS-P; XHTML code is less complicated than using tables; allows for more design control in Contribute.
Supporting literature: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS, http://phrogz.net/CSS/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html, http://www.westciv.com/style_master, http://brainstormsandraves.com
Exceptions: Laying out forms may prove easier to do using a table.
Justification: Content used within these technologies is not editable in Contribute, presenting a potential maintenance issue for SOMIS.
Exceptions: Interactive content that requires this technology; small-scale intranet applications whose user base is known and unlikely to change; sites which already have an experienced Web Designer on staff or which plan to contract out for ongoing maintenance.
Justification: Use of custom styles requires that we explicitly allow access to those styles in Contribute (which we don’t normally do since this can be used improperly and requires more setup and user training).
Exceptions: Sites not maintained via Contribute; styles applied outside of editable fields in the Dreamweaver template; custom styles that do not map to an existing HTML tag - in this case, these styles can be placed in a separate style sheet that the editor can access via Contribute.