Re: Why CSS On Older Browsers Is Broken

At 03:36 PM 9/29/00 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
>WE ARE NOT AGAINST MULTIMEDIA.
>
>MULTIMEDIA IS NOT THE ENEMY OF ACCESSIBILITY.
>
>Excuse me for shouting, but I'm tired of being bum-rapped on this issue. 
>Bad enough when it's journalists' sound bites but when people close to the 
>undertaking have (and spread) that misconception, it's frustrating. W3C had 
>a major part in developing SMIL, e.g. I could go on but...

Sorry, William ... I've had time to read the list more closely than usual
recently, and I think the term "eye candy" came to my eyes a bit too often!
On man's "eye candy" is another man's necessity! And I know that you,
personally, are part of the choir on this issue ... 

Seriously, what would be the issues if a multi-media vehicle, such as
Flash, would not require a "text equivalent" ... I don't know about SMIL
... not sure I've ever seen a page I liked that used it ...

				Anne
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org

Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 20:23:49 UTC