Mel Evans, Registered Arachne User wrote:
>
> Even in my own case, and I do try to write for
> cross-browser usage, it's very hard to justify 30% of my time on a
> website to cater for around 1 to 2% of the visitors. And that's just the
> personal sites where I do it mainly for the love of it. On Commercial
> sites, if I want to provide cross-browser support, I have to do it kind
> of as a covert and unpaid for operation, most clients will NOT pay for a
> re-write to suit such a small group of potential users. It's very hard
> to get clients to stand for a text only page alternative if you cost it
> in, even pointing out it's for visually impaired users.
Hi Neil;
I have a problem understanding the above.
A simple HTML page without js should be EASY to write and would display
on all browsers whether images are included or not, wouldn't it ?
What's the problem with the "Anybrowser" standard ?
Is there a legitmate NEED for js ?
Is there a legitimate USE for flash or shock ?
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
- The internet is infected - Windows is a VIRUS !!
--
