David Hucklesby wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:13:13 +1100, Chris Knowles wrote: >> because thats a different issue. Its an issue of the user not upgrading to >> software >> thats available and thats better. ... >> > > Just one niggle here. "The user" might well be using a computer > at work, school, a library, or an Internet café. What chance do these > millions have of upgrading? > > It *is* possible to conform to web standards *and* to write code > that is accessible to a wide audience, as a great deal of Thierry's > writing makes abundantly clear. > > As an example, I work for a school district that still inflicts > Netscape 4 on its children. A clean, semantically marked-up plain > HTML page with little or no styling should work fine for them, I hope. >
I'm not sure why you're quoting me out of context like this? I wasn't suggesting writing non-standards conforming, inaccessible code. And I wasn't suggesting internet cafe customers or the schoolchildren you speak of could upgrade their browsers. But the internet cafe and the school could, but choose not to. Whereas the screen reader user with up to date software that lacks certain support can't upgrade. Therefore, those two groups are different, not the same as was suggested, which was the only point I was making with that particular quote. -- Chris Knowles ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
