W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Some questions from CHI-WEB people

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 08:12:37 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>, Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>, <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112250810590.1942-100000@tux.w3.org>
Just so we realise that this isn't an area where there is someone with all
the answers:

CSS, definitely. CSS is uch friendlier to older browsers than tables.
(Especially to older browsers still in relatively wide use, like lynx).

Actually, without defining carefully what "more gracefully" means, the
question isn't going to get a good answer.



On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 1:22 PM -0500 12/24/01, David Poehlman wrote:
  >I hear a lot of complaining here.  I hear the same complaints that I
  >hear when we discuss usability and the web.  Take the case of tables
  >versus css.  which will degrade more gracefully in older browsers?

  Just so that we don't leave rhetorical questiosn unanswered:

  Tables, definitely.  Tables are much more friendly to older browsers
  than CSS.


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2001 08:12:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC