On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 04:27:55PM -0400, Tom Davis wrote: > Greetings, > > On 2006 Oct 26, at 10:22 am, Dennis Melentyev wrote: > >Hardly can see any reason to keep text-only browsers compatibility. > >They are good for running from scripts but not for real surfing. > >Almost everyone use Firefox/Opera/IE these days.
"Graceful degradation" A properly designed web site degrades so that browsers that are less capable are still reasonably usable. Last time I tried Wired's web site in Netscape 4 (~3 years ago) it came up with the text of the article at the top of the page and the sidebars below it. That's a good behavior for a web page viewed in a browser that doesn't support CSS. The pages were also fine in Lynx. All it took was a tiny bit of care. How much effort is it to put the content of a page above the sidebars in your properly written HTML? > There are three very different reasons for keeping text-only browser > compatibility: > 3) Because that's actually the direction in which all Web designers > are moving. A Standards Compliant Web site is actually a site in > which the content (very simple HTML) is separate from the > presentation (CSS). That does a number of things. Not too many people write GUI programs with the heart of the program intermixed with the GUI, for example. Mixing presentation with content is just bad coding. > It makes your site > Accessible for the vision impaired which in the US is a legal > requirement for all commercial sites. It reduces code maintenance Well, only if the US government is a potential customer. If you want zero federal dollars then you can lock out the blind on purpose even. There's no law against being a jerk on your own dime. -- Kevin P. Neal http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/ "I like being on the Daily Show." - Kermit the Frog, Feb 13 2001
