Comcast recently updated their client Web site after a beta phase for several weeks. Now that I know more about web design, I decided to examine their code in depth.
Aesthetically, the Comcast Web site is somewhat pleasing to the eye. The colors are attractive, and it seems professionally done. It is easy to find where to log in. The navigation is consistent throughout most of the pages; the color scheme changes according to the "channel" a user is in. However, there is an overload of information on the home page. The numerous searches and features are distracting, and finding the "Acceptable Use Policy" down in the footer isn't as easy as it could be if they wanted more to read their terms of use. A lot of the content should be moved to a different portion of the site, such as a shopping page or whatnot. Less clutter will appeal to more of their potential customers, and will probably also make them appear as though they more about the Web than it currently seems. As one of their products is high-speed internet, it is important for them to have credibility in that department in regards to Web development
Comcast's site DTD is XHTML Strict. Surprisingly, it would be found valid code if it weren't for a few minor problems located in the midst of the body. The errors pulled up (about the div tags) is due to using block elements in an inline instance (enclosed by a link). In order to fix it and make most of the errors disappear, it would simply involve replacing the divs with spans. As for the other errors, some of the ids they use to label inputs are not unique. That could easily be remedied by changing the names. Doing this would eliminate all of the errors and would make the home page XHTML strict. They follow the naming conventions in their code--short, lowercase, and to the point.
The CSS Comcast uses is nearly all valid as well. Their main CSS page, which has over 654 separate declarations, has only two errors. They use the "word-wrap" and "resize" attributes. Word-wrap will be available when the CSS 3 standards are implemented. "Resize" is only available in relation to the cursor, and should probably just be taken out of the CSS (as it only the textarea which has no other declarations).
The Javascript Comcast uses is very complicated--but, fortunately, they follow naming conventions. The only error that comes up on the console is that of an unhandled exception--which could easily be rectified by creating an error message or block of code for the browser to implement if the exception is thrown by the Location.toString method.
Turning off all CSS and other visual effects leads to a fairly comprehensible list of all the different links. However, the first link listed is an advertisement--which might make it hard for a blind person to make sense of what site he or she is on. Some of the displayed text, which is normally hidden, is easily seen without the CSS on (such as text that says "Loading..." and "There was a problem retrieving your mail" even when a user hasn't signed in). The tab order isn't in a particularly logical order--for instance, after hitting the tab button on the search bar, it goes to a myriad of different links. Following where these are is nearly impossible. A mouse is almost entirely necessary, which means that it violates Subsection Nine of the Accessibility standards. All of the images on the Comcast site have alternative text, which is very good for those who cannot see. Not all of the inputs have labels, which could easily be remedied by adding labels. The buttons to control the scrolling news items can only be controlled by the mouse, and if Javascript isn't enabled, can't be controlled at all. Comcast needs to create an alternative fitting the noscript tag--possibly just one headline without the buttons to scroll through them.
Sorry...I just thought with the captain issue in question, I'd throw
in my name for consideration.
Pintel