Thanks much for the reply, Jeff!

"Rowan, Jeff" wrote:
>
> Hi Al,
>
> I just reviewed your message, but am at work and cannot reply at length.
> Please check my comments below:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Al Heigl [mailto:alheigl@rconnect.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:33 AM
> >
> > 7.3. Privacy policy.
>
> I'm using IE 5.5 and don't even have this function (View | Privacy Report).
> Is my system maybe just strange?

As I said, it's a recent development -- perhaps beginning with IE 6.
Expect to see it in Netscape 7 as well, and I'm sure most other
browsers.

It's also tied in with one's browser settings for cookie preferences.

Basic link if you're curious is http://www.w3.org/P3P/.

Essentially, the browser looks for specific xml files in a certain root
folder, and extracts the site's information from there.

A quick check as I type this --

Websites that don't have this yet: Amazon, eTrade, eBay, Netscape.
Website that do: Yahoo, IBM, Microsoft.




>
> > 7.4.4. Cascading Style Sheets.
> >
> > Good Webmasters expecting a diverse audience design for all potential
> > reasonable browsers.
>
> Many sites add a disclaimer on the home page something to the effect that
> the "site was designed for optimal viewing with IE 5.0 or better", including
> my own corporation's client-facing web apps. I think this may be doubly true
> for non-profit organizations who may not have the resources to address
> Netscape's variations to the IE "defacto standard".

I've seen those disclaimers for years, and I usually find it them a bit
off-putting. If I were adding that disclaimer, it'd read "This site was
designed for optimal viewing by all present and potential Mensa members,
no matter what browser they prefer to use." <g> Really.

In our case, this non-profit *does* have the resources -- sitting down
in Northfield, hunched over my keyboard, trying hard to keep things
simple and direct, for maximum usability.




>
> > 9.5. The Webmaster will produce, and keep updated, a handbook
> > containing
> > guidelines for Minnesota Mensa web pages in terms of technical
> > requirements, stylistic coherency, and other standards of excellence.
>
> Have you already created this? I'd be very interested in seeing it - ok, I'm
> a geek :)

Unfortunately, it's all in my head (and the sites/pages I create) right
now. This has been sufficient so far, as I've been the "final filter"
for all submissions to the website, and they sort of matter-of-factly
end up in harmony with what's up there already over the years.

However, it's been this AG2003 ribble that's shown me that anyone else
creating actual HTML would certainly benefit from a guidebook of what
standards, preferences, and design elements have evolved for our
Internet presence. Just like the helpful Membership Handbook for new
members (and isn't there a LocSec Handbook or something like it?).

My reference to a "Webmaster's Handbook" was also an implied offer to
accept it as an additional requirement for my current Webmaster
position. While I now believe it's sorely needed, it was also a
concession.




> > 10. Your Webmaster is alive and well.
> >
> > I expect to be treated with respect, and some deference to the skills
> > and experience I've accumulated over more than half a decade.
>
> You know that I have.

Indeed. I just might need that at the Board Meeting.

I still can't understand what's really going on. I've just been minding
my business here, doing exactly what I've been doing for Minnesota Mensa
for over four years -- other people do things that are nowhere near the
standards (both AML and local), and I'm the one getting grief about it.
I haven't done anything wrong.




>
> > I've been laid low for the last couple of weeks with a very
> > nasty kidney
> > stone, but I think I'm on the mend at last.
>
> I'm very glad you're feeling better Al. I still I could have gotten the
> "short list" of issues, and that you would have changed the AG link as I
> asked on July 11.

Sending you a cryptic list with stuff like 'missing " on href=' and
"Canadian flag" wouldn't have been very communicative.

Re-reading your 7/11 message, I see "suggest" and "consider" which is
how I took them at the time. Changing the link presents two problems
for me:

1. It's very hard to feel comfortable linking to a domain that doesn't
follow Mensa naming policies, and that contains pages that clearly
violate Mensa disclaimer rules (as well as all the other problems).

2. Exactly the same stuff is already on our website, in mostly corrected
and improved form. While I personally think that's a better location
for it, the actual issue is that one doesn't replace better pages with
links to worse ones. And given the choice of linking for politics or
linking for quality, I think you already know which way I'll go, every
time.


Thanks again for your comments.

Regards,

Al Heigl
Webmaster