Canada to Force Re-registration of all .ca Domains

The Register reports that Canada is dealing with URL disputes by setting up a non-profit organization called the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) that will force all .ca domain name holders to re-apply for their domains.

This transfers the responsibility for the registry from the volunteer organization at the University of British Columbia. Part of the plan is to relax restrictions on .ca domain name registration.

"Pre-registration of existing .ca domain names is the only way to ensure that they are transitioned into the CIRA Registry before we can begin accepting new requests under more liberal rules," said Glen Bloom, Co-chair of the CIRA Board.

With a November 1, 2000 deadline, and only a 30-day grace period after that, that doesn't leave much time for the remaining 82,000 Canadian web sites to get their domains re-registered - for another $20. There is a list of certified Registrars at the CIRA web site

There is a press release on the CIRA web site that explains the new policy. You can also comment on the new Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Draft Policy through October 29, 2000.

It seems that before this new organization was set up, only federal companies or trademark holders (of the domain name) could register. The old policy, "Framework for the administration of the .CA domain name system" was put together by the Canadian Domain Name Consultative Committee. This report is from September 15, 1998.

Read More

You Call That Web Site Testing?

I received this spam (scroll to bottom) the other day from a company claiming to audit web sites. Unfortunately, I have no idea what they could actually audit since accessibility, usability, and compliance are not even remotely demonstrated on their own site.

So I offer up this email to you folks (with names changed to protect the offenders) in case you get the same spam. If your boss hears of this and wants to use it, or a client thinks it's worth purchasing, steer them away.

Validation can be done by the W3C validator for free, accessibility features can be tested by Bobby for free, load time can be done with a stopwatch (and that nifty IE5/win add-on that shows all the images and d/l time on a page - try it, or ImageReady, FireWorks, or many other utilities), links can be checked (and should be) by a human or any number of shareware or online utilities (search on "link checking" at download.com for some samples), and usability can be achieved through some pretty simple testing (I refer you to Jakob Nielsen, or an evolt article). You don't need to pay people without a clear understanding to do it for you.

Ultimately, as developers, we are all responsible for testing our own work. Having another set of eyes review it is good, but paying someone to do it is often pointless. Few organizations can stay on top of the technologies if all they do is test, and cultivating in-house talent is always more valuable.

And the worst thing you can do is spam a company who performs very thorough audits with auditing offers, especially when the spamming site indicates a capability on par with some low-level interns.

So I offer this poor soul up for sacrifice on the altar of evolt.org, and hope that my message can only help them see the error in their ways, and help others who neglect to test their own sites with some simple tips. Have I received a response from them you ask? Not yet. Will I? Probably not. I never do...

--------------------

K,

I reviewed your web site to take a look at the services you offer, in particular the web site testing and validation, and was surprised to see that your own site is brimming with errors.

You note that the average Fortune 100 company web site (what about the others?) contains 13 HTML coding errors, when your own site, according to the W3C HTML validator, contains 40 basic errors including improperly nested tags, unclosed tags, unquoted attributes, two body tags, and even the most basic - a missing document type declaration at the start of the document. As a result, I only checked it against the HTML 4.01 Transitional specification since there is no clue what version of HTML the page is supposed to be beyond the use of a number of deprecated and proprietary tags and attributes.

In addition to that, and not covered by a software validator, are many elements that are barriers to accessibility. Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act, enacted on August 7, 1998, requires government sites and government funded or related sites to be accessible to all users. It is conceivable that future case law will make this apply to many public sites as well (consider the AOL class-action lawsuit by blind users). Given this, your site lacks the most basic features for disabled users such as 'alt' attributes in its images, and HTML 4.01 and Web Accessibility Initiative accessibility features in your form elements.

From a usability standpoint, the lack of clear page headers and consistent navigation are just starters on the interface problems with the site. It does not work very well on most of the 80+ browsers on which I perform testing, and its page sizes go beyond the oft-cited 8 second rule, by as much as 41 seconds on a 14.4kbps connection.

I would go on, but if you have the staff to audit sites with the skill level you claim, you might want to turn them loose on your own site. As it stands, your own site does not demonstrate that your organization has the capability to perform audits to the level that we require.

Thank you for your time.

Adrian Roselli
Vice President, Interactive
Algonquin Studios
http://algonquinstudios.com
716.842.1439

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K Foo [kfoo@foo.com]
>  Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:25 PM
> To:  info@
> Subject: Web Site Testing Services
>
> Algonquin Studios,
> With the emergence of e-commerce sites and  the growth of
> business performed over the web, it is critical  for
> companies to have their web sites tested extensively.
>  According to a study by ParaSoft, the average Web page
> operated by a  Fortune 100 company contains 13 HTML coding
> errors, and link errors  occur about once every four
> pages. Furthermore, Zona Research estimated  that U.S.
> companies lose approximately $58 million per month in  e-
> commerce sales due to Web page loading failures. Web
> sites  need to be tested to ensure that they function
> correctly, are compatible  over many different browser and
> operating system configurations and can  handle a large
> amount of concurrent users.
> Foo, Inc. is an  independent testing facility that
> specializes in web site testing and  load testing
> solutions. If you would like us to send you more
>  information about our web site testing and load testing
> services, please  e-mail us at info@foo.com to
> receive further information about our  testing services or
> visit our web site at http://www.foo.com.
>
> Thank you,
>
> K Foo
> Project Manager
> Foo,  Inc.
> E-mail: kfoo@foo.com
> http://www.foo.com

Read More

Adobe to Sue AppleInsider

For those of you who have heard about Adobe Photoshop 6, you may have heard about the sneak preview of it and ImageReady 3 that AppleInsider posted on May 30. If you go back to that page now, the link to the article has been replaced with the text, "Links Removed by the Demand of Adobe Legal."

However, this doesn't quite cover it all. It seems Adobe went beyond just threatening them and telling them to remove the link. Adobe is suing Mac News Network (MacNN, the parent) for much money (maybe in the tens of millions) because they feel customers will now not purchase Photoshop 5.5 if people know 6.0 is in the pipe.

Photoshop may have a case simply because the software is legally confidential and AppleInsider's posting of any information on it is in violation of the California Civil Code.

You will also notice on the AppleInsider page a link to a preview of Word 2001 for Mac that has been replaced with, "Article Remove [sic] 9PM EST By the Demand of Microsoft Corp, Inc."

There is a much more detailed article at The Register, "Adobe lashes out at Mac rumor site."

Read More

BeOS 5 to be Released for Free

Be, Inc. will release BeOS 5 for free download later this quarter (no earlier than March 31). The free download (estimated at between 40 and 60MB right now) will only be available to individuals for personal, non-commercial use. Commercial use will require a separate license.

It appears to be primarily targeted at MSWindows machines, and does not require re-partitioning (which was an issue if you've ever tried it, especially with 3.0) to install. In fact, it appears as a standard executable which you can launch from within Windows that will exit from Windows and boot into BeOS. It can also run without a Windows installation as well. Also of note, the free version will include all the development tools currently bundled with BeOS.

Read the BeOS 5 Information FAQ.

They also have a hardware compatibility list posted to tell you which types of computers will best support it. As of now, G3 and higher Macs will not support it, but Intel-based machines, especially newer ones, should be ok.

Read More

BBB Requests Input on Proposed Online Code

The Better Business Bureau, through its BBBOnline entity, seems to have finally realized that it can leverage its name in the online world to provide basic auditing over online business. Just as a company may display the Better Business Bureau seal on their advertising to tell customers to expect a certain level of service, online business may soon have the same opportunity to display a seal whose source indicates an updated set of guidelines tailored to business on the internet through the BBBOnline Code of Online Business Practices.

The BBB seems to have realized that they cannot account for all situations, and have asked for commentary on their draft. While the code is supposed to apply to all ecommerce models, including online auctions and charity sites, there are no specific provisions geared toward those models. Feel free to peruse their draft. December 30, 1999 is the deadline for comment on the proposed code.

The draft includes five main principles that the BBB expects sites to adhere to in order to display the seal:

1. Disclose! Disclose! Disclose!
   Online businesses shall disclose to their customers and prospective customers, clearly, conspicuously, and in easy-to-understand language, accurate information about the business, any goods or services offered through an online transaction, and, if applicable, the transaction itself. Full details.
2. Tell the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth!
   Online businesses shall not engage in deceptive or misleading trade practices with regard to any aspect of electronic commerce, including advertising and marketing, or in their use of technology. Full details.
3. Have Respectful Information Practices!
   Online businesses shall adopt information practices that are respectful of the consumer's concerns and treat the information with care. They shall post and adhere to a privacy policy based on fair information principles, take appropriate measures to provide adequate security, and respect consumer's preferences regarding unsolicited email. Full details.
4. Aim to Please!
   Online businesses shall make online shopping a positive consumer experience and shall seek to resolve disputes that are raised by their customers, clients, or licensees in a timely and responsive manner. Full details.
5. Take Special Care with Children!
   If online businesses target children under the age of 13, they shall take special care to protect them. Full details.

There are three free regional (US) conferences for people to comment on the code. They are December 1, 1999 in Denver, December 2 in Palo Alto, and December 9 in Washington D.C.

Because of the BBB's name and reputation in the brick and mortar world, many consumers may come to expect to see a BBB seal over time. The only way to guarantee that the seal has any value is if we as web developers take the time to comment on it. We need to ensure that their guidelines are both reasonable and attainable, otherwise we're the only ones to blame if they aren't. When your newest client expects you to post the seal on the site you build, you had better be sure that you and the client agree with, and will support, the requirements to display that seal.

You can visit the site to read about the current BBBOnline seals. The three they currently have are the Reliability Seal, the Privacy Seal, and the Kid's Privacy Seal. Eligibility requirements are linked from each description.

Read More

IE5.0 for Mac Delayed Again

Microsoft has verified reports that Internet Explorer 5.0 will be pushed back from the fall release date to a winter release date. Back in July, Microsoft acknowledged the shift from a summer release date to a fall release date.

According to Microsoft, the delay is due to their attempts to introduce "cool end-user features" while still offering "strict compliance" with the W3C HTML guidelines, although which HTML version was not specified. Full implementation of CSS1 and partial implementation of CSS2 is promised, as well as a plan to have both the Mac and Windows versions use the same DOM.

Putting aside the potential oxymoron of "cool features" and "strict compliance," it will also offer some Macintosh-only features, such as an auction-watch feature, and the ability to scale smaller fonts up so they more closely match those represented in web pages viewed on a Windows version of IE.

Outlook Express 5.0 for Mac is supposedly still on schedule for a fall release.

You can get more information at News.com or at MacWEEK.

Read More

Apple Cinema Display - why bother?

Can somebody please explain to me as a web developer the benefits of buying the Apple Cinema Display?

I've seen a few articles here and there where they tout it as the monitor that web developers will go ga-ga over, like this more balanced one at WebReview.com. But so far, none of them have even remotely justified it, they've just given in to the Apple hype. Perhaps it was marketing genius to make the monitor the big announcement over the new G4 at this week's Seybold Conference in San Francisco, but I don't see it. The audacity of that has certainly brought the monitor into the limelight, and it's not like anyone was going to fail to notice the G4 if they didn't promote it quite as much.

$3,999 for the monitor, or $500 more than a pretty solid G4. It just doesn't make sense. For that kind of money, why not get two good monitors? Or why not get one good 19" and a $100 14" monitor?

One argument is the need to place palettes somewhere. Well, 22" is nice, but you get more area off the 17"/19" and 14" dual monitor setup at a fraction of the price. At home I run my monitor at 800 x 600. The comparable resolution for the Cinema Display is 1,024 x 640. Wow. 224 extra pixels of width and 40 of height. Is that even a full palette? At work, I run at 1024 x 768. The comparable Cinema Display resolution is 1,280 x 800 pixels. Not enough to get me interested, especially since I can have a 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 second monitor dedicated to holding my palettes.

Is some web geek somewhere going to decide that his designs look better at this new 'cinema' style aspect ratio than at the traditional 4x3? Is he going to start bitching about supporting not only 640 x 480, but also a 4 x 3 aspect ratio? Is the two-page display that important to the web developer? If so, what ever happened to all those lovely Radius two-page monitors I used to work on, but have since lost track of?

Plus, it's still a liquid crystal display, and while I know that color accuracy isn't achievable on the web, I'd like to feel more comfortable with it. I will admit, for an LCD, the monitor looks better than most (it had better for that price). But at the same time, how many people can you crowd around your desktop before they're outside of the 160 degree viewing angle (yes, it's good, but it's not good enough for the groups that gather around my machine).

There is the smaller footprint, but I'd still rather have a monitor arm so I can crank it anywhere at any time. Frankly, I don't care what color my computer is, or how pretty it looks. I want a case with a flat top so I can stack stuff, and I want a monitor on an arm so I can swing it around as I adjust my seat. And hey, I wanna put my collection of Smurfs on my monitor as well, it's another shelf to me. I know it sounds silly, but where would I stack them if I got this new monitor?

Still, probably one of the best flat screens I've seen, but not worth the hype or the dollars in my book. Do check out the specs, though, and get jealous at the first geek on your block to get one.

Read More