No Flash, works with scripting turned off, text is selectable (yes, I know you can select the individual sIFR bits, but that just ain't the same :)), colours, size, etc. are easily manipulated via. CSS, probably has a better chance of being understood by screenreaders that are in use today.
I'm sure there are ways around it in sIFR, but from what I can see it doesn't scale the text according to user font size preferences, or obey user style sheets. Plus it just doesn't feel as 'hacky' to me :) Anyway, it's just an idea, if you want more control over typography, then go with sIFR (or get Quark & start doing print design :p) On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:38:42 +0100, Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to be somewhat annoying: what are the advantages of your method > over sIFR2? Despite (or thanks to) its dependancy on Flash, it has a > broader support (IE/mac, Opera, Gecko, Safari). If I would be a frantic > typography guy, I'd use sIFR. ;-) -- Lindsay Evans http://lindsayevans.com/ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
