- From: Marti <marti@agassa.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:17:22 -0500
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
First, Thanks to Charles for clarifying my comments on graphics, and my apologies for a poorly chosen example that would in anyway imply I was in favor of text-only sites. I think there are actually three sides to this argument. IMHO, both the primary sides have a number of good valid points. Example: 1. <font>, and its like, if allowed are likely to be misused. (decreasing accessibility) 2. If disallowed, <font>, and its like, will be used anyway as that level of the guidelines will be ignored. (decreasing accessibility) Under the occasionally hot rhetoric some good points have been made on both sides and it is my hope that some common ground can be found that will help us move to a web where <font>, and its like, are curiosities of the past. Marti
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 04:57:52 UTC