On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:44:12 -0400, Tim Shortt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was really just trying to point out some mainstream coverage of what > is probably familiar to most on the list--not to draw attention to the > shortcomings of the site. There is a tinge of irony to reporting about > "Keeping the Web Universal" on a site that *requires* Javascript.
Yes, that was my point too - there were at least three ways to navigate the article pages but ALL of them required javascript. In fact, if you disable javascript and then go to the article, you can't even see the first page. > While we're on the subject, I don't think this approach degrades > gracefully without JS (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). To their > defense, this is a rather dated design, going back several years...at > least that's how long I remember reading it. It predates any significant Yes, I recognize the design from at least two years ago, perhaps three years. > But the "this site requires javascript" > (especially just to navigate an article) is a no-go, IMO. Ditto. :) -- hth, Stephanie http://stephanie.elsy.us/ ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
