If all accessibility options were still available (and perhaps enhanced because
producers could spend more time on that instead of browser issues), and all other expected browsers functions were still available, like controlling cookies, turning js on or off, etc., I would think users wouldn't care and would even welcome it. And it would certainly be great for developers. Rick From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Lipka Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 12:01 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: AW: [jQuery] Re: OT: A Big Idea sIFR does not break aural readers at all. It takes normal HTML and it pushes it into a flash movie (if flash is there) and shows it with the flash font. Still selectable, copyable. The user actually can not tell the difference at all. Screen readers read the html, not the flash. Its unobtrusive. Google 'sifr" and see if it fails any of your tests. I think you are assuming that anything at all would break. I am assuming, nothing would break. Glen On 7/30/07, Christof Donat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > 1. Allow the publisher to determine which rendering engine to display the > page in. Exactly this is what I don't whant to see and I do think that I have good reasons. > Think about sIFR. It works because it's unobtrusive and relies on a plugin > that everyone has. Well, most people. How does the flash player work for aural platforms? How good ist in on a Braille display? > Its surprising to me how immediately everyone is saying, "bad idea". Is > sIFR a bad idea? Interesting how perception varies. I have had the impression that everybody but me likes this idea ;-) Christof
