> Thierry Koblentz wrote: > > >>> Because > >>> like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to > give > >> users > >>> of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a better > >>> experience too? Why just SR users? > >> because thats a different issue. It's an issue of the user not > upgrading > >> to software thats available and thats better. The issue we speak of > is > >> the user unable to do anything about the situation themselves > because > >> there is no better software, so we should look after them if we can. > > > > User not upgrading to software that's available and that's better. Do > you > > think it's that simple? > > no i don't > > > Believe me, many people do not have that choice. > > I know. But someone does. If i own a business and make my staff use IE6 > then thats my choice because theres something better out there - my > staff can't do anything about it but i can.
"upgrading" from IE6 to Firefox is *not* the same as trying to upgrade from NN4 or IE5 Mac. Usually, the latter requires investing money. > Which is different to > screen > reader users who have up to date software that lacks some features. > They > have no choice to upgrade. Therefore they are a different group to the > users of the other UA's you mention. Therefore, it doesn't follow that > it's using the same logic if we use tables like you suggest. Users stuck with old browsers face the same issue. But rather than being their software that lacks some features it is their hardware (that don't allow them to upgrade to a better UA). > Although i applaud your commitment, I feel your approach is very > academic in nature. As someone who mostly earns their living by > producing websites for businesses, I feel that it's my job to do > whatever delivers the best user experience for the people who are the > end users of the site. And, although I firmly believe in adhering to > standards (why would I be here otherwise?), if that means using heading > and paragraph tags instead of dl's then so be it. Do you mean Standards or best practice? I don't think Standards say to replace DLs with headings/paragraphs and I hope best practice do not say that either. If I think this approach should not be considered best practice it is because I believe it is more a workaround than a real solution. If you care about the end user then why not using the DOM to give SR users a better experience? The same way we use CSS to give users of visual browsers a better experience? To me, that would make more sense. If we say it is bad to use HTML for presentation (it would not be *visual* in this case, but I think the issue is the same) then why making exception for a particular UA? I posted a link to an article that shows how to turn a DL into headings and divs, but you could try a simpler approach, using a script to plug headings into the DTs or even replace the <dt></dt> with <hx></hx>. None of this is kosher, but it would only be generated markup, so I don't think it'd be a huge issue compared to the benefits for SR users and the fact that the document itself would be properly marked up (I didn't try this myself and have no clue how it would work, but I think it is worth investigating). > And I don't think > it's > right to use these client websites as a means to make a stand against > user agent vendors if it means sacrificing any of that usability. I don't think that's what I said. I didn't say we should keep using DL to force manufacturers to take care of the issue, I said why manufacturers would take care of the issue if everybody stop using DLs? Which, imho, is very different. FWIW, if my approach when writing markup is pretty much UA agnostic, it is because I rely on the two other layers to address issues. -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
