On 11/28/05, Eric Faurot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/28/05, Jeremy David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The idea has been mentioned in this thread that it's too difficult to > > make websites work in multiple browsers and still be valid. That idea > > is simply incorrect. Here's an example. http://www.cerealport.com/?p=8 > > - the white text is difficult to read because of the lack of constrast with > the image in background.
Well, I was referring to the content of the website, which is one example of how to solve an inter-operability problem. However, your point about the look is valid and good. > - why do I have to click on the menu entry to expand them? what about > the accessibility? That website is accessible to a blind person using lynx and text to speech software. The expanding menus only work that way in browsers that support it. If you try to use it in another situation, it will degrade gracefully. I don't believe that it hinders anyone's accessibility, because the website behaves differently in different browsers without any hacks or any special software required. I believe that's one of the strengths of valid HTML/CSS coding. > - the overal look is not much better than the openbsd site. Again, valid point. Maybe even a good one. > > I believe that fixing it now will get the content of openbsd.org, > > which is superb, into the minds of everyone who is looking for it, now > > and in the future. > > It also conforts people who think all that glitters is gold, instead > of encouraging > critical thinking. Perhaps I should clarify. My point has never been that all websites should be visually stunning. My point is that good design degrades gracefully for anyone using any browser, and makes the information easy to find, not difficult. Good design also will not rely on hacks which will cause unpredictable behavior now and in the future. I don't think any experienced programmer would want to rely on hacks in C code. Why should HTML be any different when it doesn't need to be? - Jeremy
