On 28/11/05, Jeremy David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I'm using a mozilla 1.7 browser, with CSS on, JavaScript off. The menus on the referenced cerealport.com web-site don't expand at all (they're just javascript links). It follows that the design does not degrade gracefully. Period. The referenced .com web-site is not accessible, it is _actually_, not just hypothetically, broken. End of discussion. Constantine.
