Projects
As my site is only starting to grow: i am going to put the information about the projects i am working on here, in the future with the time, dividing this page into several subpages.
PortWatch 0.2b
I was trying to create some kind of a definition what a modern municipality site in the year 2006 should have – and i came with the idea of the declaring this small list of the standards, which i consider to be important:
- No frames – with all technology available today, it is a stranger to see somebody using them. xHTML standard does not have a DTD for the frames. Future does belong to the frames, because the frames belong to the end of the past century.
- No tables for design – using tables for design also belongs to the past century. So many thousands of the pages have been written on this topic in the past years. Everyone recognizes the importance of the content & presentation separation, but still so few are following it. After a brilliant CSS Zen Garden and all those CSS galleries i think its time to require it. As Molly, Jeffrey Zeldman, Eric Meyer and a lot of others have written about it – if you consider yourself a professional web designer – consider doing a table-less design.
- Good modern doctype – depending on their "religion", people all over the net define that either xHTML (1.0 or 1.1) or the latest HTML (4.01) are the standard to follow at this moment. As of this moment (February 2006) the IE, which dominates over 80% of the browser market does work correctly when being served with the correct xHTML 1.1, and HTML 4.01 is still a recomendation from the W3C – i believe that either xHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01 are both to be worked with. The "stricter" it gets, the better it is =O)
- Valid (x)HTML – everyone has a right to get the municipal information, and it does not depend on the "color of their browser", for standards sake ! =O) Unix, OsX, or any other platform users are no way worse then the vast majority of the Windows users. For example, Safari or Camino are following standards much more precisely then much loved-hated IE.
- Valid CSS – it is nice to have a valid CSS for the very same reasons as the valid (x)HTML, though in the cases of the browser-specific ernhancements i am not sharing the opinion that they dont have a right to exist, especially as such thing as transparency are still at their initial phase.
- Minimum resolution – 800×600 – on some of the sites i still observe enough users with this resolution, and though with every day there are less sites to be found supporting this resolutions, for the governmental organizations, i think the exception must be done. We are approaching an era of more advanced and available portable devices, so their resolutions must be considered as well.
- Favourite Icon – its a nice feature and i like seeing everyone presenting themself with a small shield as in the old centuries. The municipalities are so proud of their signs, lets see if the know where to put them on the web.
- Different functioning languages – its important to provide visiting or local foreigners with a useful information. Any big munipality ignoring it – ignoring and not promoting local tourism and a better integration. Its not that technical requirement, but it is an important feature for a municipal site.
- Good support for different browsers (as much as possible) – as i have written above, noone may be excluded. Tell someone who is using a linux to use an Internet Explorer to get some important info and you will understand what i mean. As you may see all across the internet, there are different types of the browser support – from the very basic and complete to completely denying and annoying.
- WCAG support – there are so many people with the special needs and the governmental may not ignore them. Lets say that almost any basic would do for the beginnig, though on the second thoughts – they HAVE to have support for all accessability standards.
So, lets say a the maximum number of points for a municipality site in the year 2006 would be following this formula: no frames(10) + no tables (20) + a doctype (5 for the strict, 3 for the transitional, 1 for an elder(4.0) one ) + valid HTML (25) + valid CSS (10) + minimal resolution (800×600 – 10 points, anything above that only 5) + favourite icon (2) + languages (3 points for each additional one, i expect at least 2 languages to be represented) + browsers support (IE = 1 point, mozilla = 3 points, opera = 5 points, safari = 8 points, only IE -10 points) + WCAG Guidelines (50). The teoretical maximum (a pretty perfect site) would be then = 10 + 20 + 5 + 25 + 10 + 10 + 2 + 2*3 + (1+3+5+8) + 50 = 155 points, but as there are no limits for the perfection (a site can have more lanuguages supported, or even some extra technology bonus points) theoretically there can be even more. =O)
Disclaimer: this is still a beta version.
Austria
| Frames | Use Tables | Doctype | Valid HTML | Valid CSS | Flash | Min Resolution | Fav Icon | Languages | Author | Browsers | WCAG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burgenland | Y | Y | Y(4.01 Trans) | N(29) | N | N | 1024×768 | N | - | ? | Excellent | N |
| Carinthia | N | Y | N | N(41) | Y | N | 1024×768 | N | - | Lemon 42 | Excellent | N |
| Lower Austria | N | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(24) | Y* | N | 800×600 | Y | EN | ? | Good | N |
| Upper Austria | N | Y | Y(4.01 Trans) | N(59) | N | N | 800×600 | Y | - | ? | Fine | N |
| Salzburg | N | Y | Y(4.01 Trans) | N(48) | N | N | 1024×768 | N | - | ? | Excellent | N |
| Styria | N | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N | N | N | 1024×768 | N | - | Icomedias | Excellent | Y |
| Tyrol | N | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(32) | N | N | 800×600 | Y | - | ? | Reasonable | Y |
| Vorarlberg | N | Y | N | N(108) | N | N | 800×600 | N | EN | ? | Fine | N |
| Vienna | N | N | Y(1.0 Trans) | Y | Y** | N | 800×600 | Y | EN | ? | Excellent | Y |
| ** – using "transparent" as a color is doing no harm, and actually is a limitation of the css validator | ||||||||||||
| * "font-style: underline" to my knowledge this attribute does not exist, and as in my opinion it was a mistype i decided to put the css as valid | ||||||||||||
- Frames in Austria are as good as dead (and its a good thing) – the only site to use them is Burgenland, which represents about 11.1%.
- The same number of sites (1 – 11.1%) is using a table-less design and its not much, i have to say
- Carinthia’s site is the only one which does not use any doctype at all, and its pretty much against the vast majority (88.9%) of the rest of Austria
- Only 1 site (11.1%) has a valid HTML, and its too few. Too few, to be considered something as a tendention in the governmental sites
- 2 sites (22.2%) have a valid css and once again it is a very low numbers, for such an advanced country as an Austria
- The screen resolution 1024×768 is something, that should not be required at the governmental sites, and the percentage 44.4% is way to high, thinking about the number of the users with a laptop
- Just a couple of sites have a fav icon which represents about 44.4%
- Just a three sites (33.3%) have some other language(english) integrated, and though the number i expected was much higher, its not that bad as it seems from the first sight
- Web acessability has a relatively small percentage (about 33.3%), though i have to say, that i was very positively surprised with Vienna’s implementation of the priority 2 of the WCAG
Spain
| Frames | Use Tables | Doctype | Valid HTML | Valid CSS | Flash | Min Res. | Fav Icon | Langs | Author | Browsers | WCAG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andalucia | N | N | Y(4.01 Trans) | Y* | N(1) | N | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Excellent | Y |
| Aragon | N | Y | N | N(96) | N(3) | N | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Good | Y |
| Asturias | N | Y | N | N(265) | N(1) | N | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Good | N |
| Balearic Islands | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Poor | N |
| Basque Country | N | N | Y(1.0 Trans) | N(38) | N | N | 800×600 | N | Spa, Fr, Eng, Ger | ? | Excellent | Y |
| Canary Islands | N | N | Y(4.01 Trans) | N | N | Y | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Excellent | N |
| Cantabria | N | Y | N | N(126) | N(4) | N | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Excellent | Y |
| Castile-La Mancha | N | Y | Y(4.01 Trans) | N(14) | N | N | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Good | N |
| Castile & Lyon | N | Y | Y(4.01 Trans) | N(159) | N | N | 800×600 | N | Eng, French, Port | ? | Excellent | Y |
| Catalonia | N | N | Y(1.0 Trans) | Y* | Y | Y | 800×600 | Y | Castel, Eng | ? | Excellent | Y |
| Ceuta | N | N | Y(1.0 Trans) | N(108) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | N | ? | Excellent | Y |
| Extremadura | N | Y | N | N(239) | N*** | 1024×768 | N | N | ? | Excellent | N | |
| Galicia | N | N | Y(1.0 Strict) | Y* | Y**** | N | 800×600 | Y | Castel | ? | Excellent | Y |
| La Rioja | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 800×600 | N | N | ? | Excellent | N |
| Madrid | Y | Y | N | N(93) | N | N | 800×600 | Y | Eng | ? | Reasonable | N |
| Melilla | N | N | N | N | N(5) | N | 800×600 | N | N | ? | Excellent | Y |
| Murcia | N | Y | N | N(57) | N | N | 800×600 | N | N | ? | Nice | N |
| Navarre | Y | Y | Y(4.01Frames) | N(35) | N | N | 800×600 | Y | N | ? | Excellent | N |
| Valencia | Y | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(89) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | Cast, Eng, Val | ? | Nice | N |
| * – SOME of the pages have had some errors, but they were minor things, which i have decided to ignore | ||||||||||||
| ** – Castile-La-Mancha while having the entrance page with a doctype and valid html, does not support any such features on later pages | ||||||||||||
| *** – Extremadura’s homepage does not have a CSS, so there is nothing to test and nothing to be valid | ||||||||||||
| **** – those caracters, which are considered to be errors, does not affect in any way the functional css | ||||||||||||
- Frames in Spain are in declain – and only 3 sites are using them (15.8%), but i think there should be even less then this number.
- Positive surprise 7 sites are using table-less designs (36.9%)
- 10 government sites are using doctypes – thats more then a half (52.6%), and its a positive number
- 3 sites (15.8%) have valid HTML, and thats a good start, and i am confident that this number will grow in the next years, anyway i was expecting much lower results.
- Only 4 sites (21.0%) have a valid css, but there is a big number of the sites, which have to do minor changes to pass the validation
- Only Extremaduras site optimized for the 1024×768 resolution, and knowing that this is one of the poorest regions in Spain, i have to say, that this is the thing that they have to change. All others have less strict requirements to the resolution, which is how it should be done.
- A reasonable number of sites – 11 (thats a 57.9%) have the idea about using the icons on the net
- In a country, where more then 1 variation of the language is spoken, i was expecting more then 6 sites (31.6%) having support for at least 1 more language
Portugal
| Frames | Use Tables | Doctype | Valid HTML | Valid CSS | Flash | Min Res. | Fav Icon | Langs | Author | Browsers | WCAG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aveiro | Y | Y | N | N(61) | N | N | 1024×768 | N | PT | Dalera | good | N |
| Azores | N | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(33) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | ? | some errors | N |
| Beja | N | Y | N | N(69) | N | N | 1024×768 | N | PT | ? | bad | N |
| Braga | N | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(99) | Y | Y | 800×600 | N | PT, EN | ? | bad | N |
| Bragança | N | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(150) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | Wiremaze | good | N |
| Castelo Branco | N | Y | Y(x 1.0 Trans) | N(186) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | PT, ES, EN | Citi | good | N |
| Coimbra | Y | Y | N | N(31) | N | Y | 1024×768 | Y | PT | ? | good | N |
| Évora | Y | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(76) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | ? | good | N |
| Faro | N | Y | Y(4.01 Trans) | N(50) | Y | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | Substancia | good | N |
| Funchal | N | Y | N | N(89) | N | N | 800×600 | N | PT | good | N | |
| Guarda | N | Y | N | N(74) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | Domdigital | good | N |
| Leiria | Y | Y | N | N(161) | Y | Y | 1024×768 | N | PT | Wiremaze | good | N |
| Lisbon | N | Y | N | N(143) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | Vector21 | small errors | N |
| Portalegre | N | Y | N | N(205) | N | N | 800×600 | Y | PT | ? | good ! | N |
| Porto | N | Y | N | N(124) | Y | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | Wiremaze | good | N |
| Santarém | N | Y | Y(4.0 Trans) | N(72) | N | N | 800×600 | N | PT | ? | errors | N |
| Setúbal | N | Y | N | N(70) | N | Y | 1024×768 | Y | PT | ? | reasonable | N |
| Viana do Castelo | N | Y | N | N(105) | N | Y | 800×600 | N | PT, ES, EN, FR | CM Viana do Castelo | good | N |
| Vila Real | Y | Y | Y(4.01 Trans) | N(8-204) | Y | Y | 800×600 | N | PT | ? | errors | N |
| Viseu | Y | Y | N | N* | N* | Y | 1024×768 | N | PT | Auto.Net | only IE(buggy) | N |
| * It was impossible to verify, the validators failed to check anything. Maybe this site needs to be done once again from the beginning ? | ||||||||||||
A few statistics:
- Frames in portugal are still popular – 6 sites are using them (30%), wake-up !
- No good design practic (fluid, table-less designs) were found between those 20 municipals, and its a big shame.
- Only8 websites are using doctypes – thats about 40% of the whole pie
- No valid html – at all, 0 sites, 0%, nada.
- Only 5 sites (25%) have a valid css, thats a start … in a year 2006
- 6 sites (30%) are optimized for the 1024×768 resolution and i think it is to much, counting the number of computers in portugal with the resolution 800×600, though it is not that bad i would say.
- Only 3 sites (thats a 15%) have the idea about using the icons on the net
- Only 3 sites have support for different languages, it seems that the most municipal minds are not interested in having more tourism
So, lets say a the maximum number of points for a municipality site in the year 2006 would be following this formula: no frames(10) + no tables (20) + a doctype (5 for the strict, 3 for the transitional, 2 for an elder(4.0) one ) + valid HTML (25) + valid CSS (10) + minimal resolution (800×600 – 10 points, anything above that only 5) + favourite icon (2) + languages (3 points for each additional one, i expect at least 2 languages to be represented) + browsers support (IE = 1 point, mozilla = 3 points, opera = 5 points, safari = 8 points(will add this test in the future), only IE -5 points) + WCAG Guidelines (50). The theoretical maximum (a pretty perfect site) would be then = 10 + 20 + 5 + 25 + 10 + 10 + 2 + 2*3 + (1+3+5+8) + 50 = 155 points, but as there are no limits for the perfection (a site can have more lanuguages supported) theoretically there can be even more. =O)
Lets do the counts:
Austria
| Frames | Use Tables | Doctype | Valid HTML | Valid CSS | Min Resolution | Fav Icon | Langs | Browsers | WCAG | Bonus | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burgenland | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 17 |
| Carinthia | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 34 |
| Lower Austria | 10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 43 |
| Upper Austria | 10 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 33 |
| Salzburg | 10 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 27 |
| Styria | 10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 50 | 0 | 75 |
| Tyrol | 10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 50 | 0 | 79 |
| Vorarlberg | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 32 |
| Vienna | 10 | 20 | 3 | 25 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 50 | 10* | 142 |
| * – 10 points bonus to the amazing job done by the Vienna’s programmers for passing the 2nd priority check of the WCAG | ||||||||||||
Spain
| No Frames | Use Tables | Doctype | Valid HTML | Valid CSS | Min Res. | Fav Icon | Langs | Browsers | WCAG | Bonus | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andalucia | 10 | 20 | 3 | 25 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 50 | 0 | 129 |
| Aragon | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 50 | 0 | 80 |
| Asturias | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 29 |
| Balearic Islands | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 36 |
| Basque Country | 10 | 20 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 12 | 9 | 50 | 0 | 114 |
| Canary Islands | 10 | 20 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 54 |
| Cantabria | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 50 | 0 | 81 |
| Castile-La Mancha | 10 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 34 |
| Castile & Lyon | 10 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 50 | 0 | 91 |
| Catalonia | 10 | 20 | 3 | 25 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 50 | 5* | 150 |
| Ceuta | 10 | 20 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 50 | 0 | 101 |
| Extremadura | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| Galicia | 10 | 20 | 5 | 25 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 50 | 5* | 149 |
| La Rioja | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 39 |
| Madrid | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
| Melilla | 10 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 50 | 0 | 99 |
| Murcia | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 29 |
| Navarre | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| Valencia | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| * this bonus has been applied to those municipalities, which have scored in each and every requirement | ||||||||||||
Portugal
| No Frames | Use Tables | Doctype | Valid HTML | Valid CSS | Min Res. | Fav Icon | Langs | Browsers | WCAG | Bonus | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aveiro | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 14 |
| Azores | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 29 |
| Beja | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | -5** | 14 |
| Braga | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 41 |
| Bragança | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 31 |
| Castelo Branco | 10 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 43 |
| Coimbra | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | -5** | 11 |
| Évora | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | -5*** | 12 |
| Faro | 10 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 42 |
| Funchal | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | -5**** | 24 |
| Guarda | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 29 |
| Leiria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| Lisbon | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 27 |
| Portalegre | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 36 |
| Porto | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 39 |
| Santarém | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| Setúbal | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
| Viana do Castelo | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 0 | -5**** | 33 |
| Vila Real | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | -5**** | 23 |
| Viseu | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0* | 0* | 5 | 0 | 0 | -5(only IE) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **** – when usability is too low, -5 points a "bonus" is being applied | ||||||||||||
| *** – when the image are resized then by putting a smaller then the real size – then its about the past century, -5 points | ||||||||||||
| ** – with almost no content there is a -5 points "bonus" to receive | ||||||||||||
| * It was impossible to verify, the validators failed to check anything. Maybe this site needs to be done once again from the beginning ? | ||||||||||||
Austria
And the winner is: Vienna’s municipality. They did an amazing job implementing even the WCAG’s second priority check on their site. In my opinion one of the things they should improve – is the css validation.
Tyrol and Styria have shown a nice result, though there is still enough space for the improvements, especially of stopping using the tables, and producing valid codes.
Spain
The winners: Catalonia, Galicia and the republic of Spain. They did FANTASTIC job implementing their sites and deserve all possible credit for this job. I hope they are going to continue improving their sites as there is no limit for the perfection. Congratulations to all other municipalities, whos results have passed the mark of the 50% – they are on the right way.
Certainly, nothing is perfect and there are still enough sites around without doctype, using frames, with poor alternative browsers support and no WCAG implementation, but i would say that the results for the year 2006 are sufficient.
Portugal
The winners: NONE. No valid HTML – no winners here, ladies and gentlemen.
If for example one site has got 30 points and the other have got only 15, does it mean that the first one is two times better then the second one ? The answer is NO, but there is a strong tendention in such cases, that the site with the double number of points is more standard-compliant.
The nobility star goes to: Castelo Branco and Citi – for trying out the unknowns of the xHtml, for having 3 languages. It is the only municipality which is has been using this standard, acidentially as it seems at this moment, but anyway – it is for a noble effort.
The shame star goes to: Lisbon – no comments are needed, i think. With no accessability, no foreign languages, nothing… With the resources they are having – it is a shame to have such a result. If somebody from there is reading this – sorry guys, for blasting at you – but it could and should have been 100 times better then this.
I know this this all thing is extremly controversal – but i have got a point here – a progress. It may not represent a balanced research, it may not be completely correct and so on, but i think noone can deny the fact that the standards should be fulfilled, and if this research will make somebody (especially from those sites) think more about standards i will consider the mission a success.
If you think that its finished here, then you are very wrong, i promise you – i am allready preparing more test results from other european countries, and let me tell you, that it is going to be a trip of your digital life. =O) If you find something too right / left / wrong / center / align / whatever – let me know about it. I am open for a discussion and the improvements.
Copyright © 2006 Niko Neugebauer. All Rights reserved.
When referencing these results, please, include a reference to NikoPort. As for the rest – i dont really care.