Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

How is this site built??

Jul 17, 2012 3:15 AM

I've seen a couple of sites built like the one below recently but can't quite work out what's happening. It appears as though all the pages are big swf files, or a number of files combined into one, right? But it also has a text alternative if you look at the code, right?



Whats the downside to building a page like this because I have to say its quite punchy, more like a desk top publishing approach. I guess one draw back would be it wouldn't work on the ipad/iphone maybe and the text can't be enlarge in the browser.


I'm trying to build a case against it because I have a potential client that likes it!!!!






PS   What server is this: nginx/1.2.0

  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 6:00 AM   in reply to osgood_

    The most I can help you at the moment is to provide this link I found about nginx:




    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 6:37 AM   in reply to osgood_

    Hi Os


    If you look at this attribute in the doctype, (xmlns:fb="") and follow the link ,you will see that it is to a custom Schema, (who said xhtml is not extensible) and many of the other links are also to external custom stylesheets/javascript/etc that are related to the custom Schema usage.


    I cannot be 100% certain but it looks like the site was a generated conversion of a flash site, similar to using the new feature in flash cs6 to export the site as html5/javascript. There are also a number of 3rd party plug-ins that will do this to swf files, (from flash).


    The arguments against this type of site are -

    • The same can be done using html5/css3, and would be usable on all mobile devices.
    • The site is not accessible
    • Uses excessive inline spans for styling

    As a final 'don't do' it displays the 'use of cookies' info in a position and style that gives a very bad impression to the user, (see image below).




    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 7:33 AM   in reply to pziecina

    pziecina wrote:


    who said xhtml is not extensible





    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 11:46 AM   in reply to osgood_

    osgood_ wrote:


    So are we saying this may have existed originally has a flash site and was exported to the state it is now? If so why would they bother to do that because in it's present form it's no better than flash is it?


    Hi Os



    The main reason for doing so is that the site is now viewable on an iPhone/Pod/Pad. Note the use of  'viewable'. This is because even though the site can be seen, actually navigating the site is virtually impossible.


    You say the site is not assessible but to a screen reader it will be, right, as it has all the base html in the page as well.

    The html is there, but it is not selectable. Try selecting the text and one finds that only certain portions are selectable. When testing on a screen reader such as Jaws, even though html code is translated to the reader when it is not selectable the reader often ignores what is translated. This is a little like using the css hack of placing the text off the screen with -9999px, (does not work by the way) rule in that the reader does not know if it should display the text or not.


    You cant do exactly the same with html5/css3 because the page in question is 'locked' down i.e., it acts more like a dtp page rather than a webpage and unless one is specifically designing with mobile in mind I can't see html5./css3 has any advantages.

    You will have to explain what you mean by, "locked down". But the layout is reproducible in html/css(3), (exactly as in the link, and one can also do this in IE5+ if one wishes) so I can see no advantages of using this type of technique.



    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points