On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anyway, I've come across mentions here and there that open-source > projects are somehow not as accessibility-friendly as their > closed-source counterparts. It's worth a look, but it may just turn out
Now that's just silly. Anything that renders as pure HTML is, by definition, more accessible than product-specific markup. That's the whole problem with "Best Viewed with IE" junk: it's not real HTML, nor is Flash or Shockwave. I genuinely sympathize with webmasters who want more layout control over their pages, but think they often miss the point of the web: client-side control of the display. By separating content from formatting, you make the pages more accessible, if occasionally less attractive. I've found CSS to be a good middle ground. It gives me better layout control, while degrading nicely to standard HTML for browsers that don't support CSS well (if at all). My web site is done with CSS-based layout, CSS-based button flyovers (no Javascript here!), and PHP on the backend where needed so as to be client-independent. I also don't think a page should take more than a few seconds to load at modem speeds, and I design all my pages with that in mind. I don't think the pages suffer for it, but I'm sure all the art majors will want to argue the point. :) -- Sen. Orrin Hatch thinks destroying private property to ensure bigger campaign contributions from media cartels is "good politics." Let your senators know that supporting corporate vigilantes will bite them in the political posterior next election day. _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
