On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Steve Green wrote: > Both those examples are interesting, and underpin my hesitation to move to > HTML5. > > In 2004 one of the largest London design agencies persuaded a corporate > client that they could build a complex website using pure CSS layout. We did > the compatibility testing (Netscape 6, IE6, Opera 6 etc) and it was > disastrous. The site eventually launched months late, over budget and it > still looked awful in some major browsers. It was years too early to try > anything like that, and they could see that from the alpha test results but > they ploughed on.
But CSS is presentational language, it defines layout's integrity, it does not defined markup and the semantic, so that was a cosmetic in-compatility issue. The CSS layout issues we experienced in those version 6 browsers wouldn't be the same type of issue we may face if we start adapting HTML5 now. In 2004, anyone who can fix IE6 layout issue is a master of the gurus that we worship. CSS in 2004 was considered a new technology with the browsers available at that period, and HTML5 in 2011 is a new technology, but we have learned so much between 2004 and 2010 and learned from our mistake I would like to think so, and what is available today is very different from what we had in 2004. A site note, the example you used of that Landon agency had more to do with one company's competency, really have nothing to do with this very topic. It will take developers longer to build sites using HTML5 the first time absolutely, but whether a client should pay for it, this goes to individual developer's professionalism and ethic IMHO (e.g. make client pays for your learning curve) so has nothing or very little to do with the topic. Where I grew up, we don't do this sort of thing to anyone. Coming back to your earlier comment: "who will benefit it with the HTML5 technology and that assistive technologies don't support much, if any, of the new semantics." I think it worths exploring more as it will actually help us better and more prepare to advice our clients. Perhaps the skepticism and question should be: 1. Will using HTML5 elements now blocking assistive devices users from accessing the contents that are wrapped inside the elements? 2. And instead of who will benefit it, perhaps we should ask, who will de-benefit it or being penalized by it as a result? Dont' force users to upgrade their browsers. Valid and thoughtful point, but we need to go back to #1 find out what the answer is, and #2 later if #1's answer is NO, using HTML5 elements now will not blocking assistive devices' users from accessing the contents. The same holds true that don't make users who have the latest advanced browsing devices being penalized by the concern we have for older browsing devices when these users can benefit from sites that are built on HTML5. If we can pass the two questions with green light, is it not a more viable choice to build sites on HTML5 now as the users with advanced browsers will benefit it? tee ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
