W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: text as images...

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:57:27 -0500 (EST)
To: <gian@stanleymilford.com.au>
cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202041050270.22103-100000@tux.w3.org>
In general I recommend trying to produce a design which meets as many
checkpoints as possible of WCAG 1.0. One of those is the requirement that the
content "work without style sheets". Given that I avoid trying to do more
than reinforce semantic information with CSS, and make sure that a site makes
sense without it being applied, I don't have to choose between Netscape 2 and

In fact I generally try to ensure that my work is comprehensible with
Internet Explorer 3, which is more of a problem with CSS since it means that
some things actually don't work.

And if people are using a small system, I tend to recommend that they get a
well-designed modern browser that works on such a system, if they have any
ability to download one. I realise that not all people can.

We have an open issue in the group about where to draw the line about what
kinds of browsers people use, and input into what people really are using
would be valuable. Do you have any information that you can provide as to why
the departmet included support for Netscape 2 in their requirements?



On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 gian@stanleymilford.com.au wrote:


  So, in essence, if I had to choose between Netscape and CSS (and I do on
  a daily basis when recommending designs to clients) I will always choose
  Netscape, because although IE may have attempted to take over the
  market, they haven't completely, and until that day comes (let's hope
  that the American justice system can at least waylay them) I believe
  Netscape is of more importance to my audience than CSS for navigation
  and layout.

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 10:57:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC