validator results page - don't break web with fancy features - show information with more clicks

The CSS validator's results page's use of fancy features breaks the
way the web normally works.

The main problem is that that page initially suppresses displaying the
Warnings section and the Valid CSS information, requiring the user to
click on both section title links to see the all the information.

That means that the user has to move the mouse and click two extra
times.


This also breaks the way the web usually works in several ways:

- Even when users explicitly indicate on the submission page that they
   want to see warnings and CSS information (say be looking the options
   and accepting the defaults), they still have to click two more times
   on the results page to get the information they already told you they
   want.

- The user's choices (including the URI of the page to check and the
   checking options) are encoding in the URI of the results pages.

   (That's good, because it lets the user use that URI at any time to
   re-issue the same "command" to re-validate the identified page and
   (supposedly) report the some information).  The user can bookmark
   the URI, e-mail the URI, make a link with the URI, etc.)

   However, the suppressing of the warning and CSS information until
   the user clicks on those links breaks the way things worked:  even
   though the saved URI indicated all the user's choices, the user
   still has to indicate those choices _again_ to "open" the Warnings
   and CSS sections of the web page.

- The user can't open one of those links in a new window and get the
   expected information (the results page with the link's section
   expanded).

   (The page opens in the new window with the information still
   suppressed, so the user has to (plain-)click on the link a second
   time.)


Many bad web pages abuse fancy new features, and many try to do
something helpful but actually cause problems instead.

You are (part of) the W3C.  PLEASE don't make the same mistakes;
and please don't set bad examples.

If the pages of the W3C don't reflect the philosophy of paying
attention to good design (or do reflect faddish or ill-considered
use of powerful features), we can't count on the W3C for guidance
any more.


Daniel

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 17:29:49 UTC