Re: Why CSS On Older Browsers Is Broken

At 10:01 AM 9/29/2000 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 03:27 AM 9/29/2000 , Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> >On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> > > web designers will _not_ accept styled text as a solution because
> > > of the following:
> > > (1)  CSS is not widely implemented yet and excludes older browsers.
> >Excuse me butting in, but this assertion should not be allowed to
> >stand unchallenged.  I suspect that you presented this as a parody
> >rather than as something that you believe yourself, but, since it is
> >such a widespread response, then I respectfully suggest it needs to be
> >more overtly challenged.
> >The whole point of the stylesheet concept is that it does NOT "exclude
> >older browsers".  On the contrary, its proper use ensures access to
> >the content by older browsers (minus some details of the presentation,
> >of course).
>
>No, it's accurate, and you are not thinking like a graphic
>artist.
>
>I am troubled by the continued insistence that graphical web
>designers' needs are "not really needs" and the callous way in
>which we dismiss their concerns.
>
>Is it _any_ surprise that we get back the same attitude when we
>talk about accessibility?  Frankly, the WAI folks are _more_
>arrogant in dismissing graphical designer needs than graphic
>artists ever are in dismissing the needs of people with
>disabilities!
>
>Let's look at why older browsers are excluded by CSS.
>
>I'll use my web page as an example.  (http://kynn.com/ for
>those who haven't read my .sig.)
>
>Right now it's orange and yellow and all sorta autumny.  I use
>tables and I apply styles, colors, and fonts using only CSS.
>
>If you use Internet Explorer 4+, Opera 3.6+, or Netscape
>Navigator 4+, you will see a happy autumnal web site, and you
>will have access to the content of the site.
>
>If you use an older browser, or one which does not support
>CSS (or have CSS turned off), you will see a very plain, default-
>colors web site, and you will have access to the content of the
>site.
>
>  From an accessibility standpoint, this is GREAT and it is how
>things are meant to function.

I don't think anyone means to exclude the older browsers, however, 
sometimes it is necessary to have some discontinuity to be able to have a 
better solution in the future. So could we come up with some solutions that 
would help to get the CSS where it should be and at the same time save the 
old browser views for those artists who really care?

For instance, I know browser sniffing is not popular but would it be 
acceptable to use that to be able to provide a CSS and a non-CSS browser 
version? For those who know this stuff, what other solutions there might 
be? And if there is an acceptable way is it possible to make it easy for 
the artists/designers?

Marja

>  From a graphic designer standpoint this is a TERRIBLE TRAGEDY
>and demonstrates exactly why CSS is not reliable -- because it
>doesn't work in old browsers!  My design, my feel to the site,
>the look I was trying for -- it's completely GONE in Netscape
>3!
>
>Now, if instead of using CSS, I had used attributes on the
>body tag and the table elements, and maybe some well-chosen
>solid-color graphics, I _would_ have the same presentation on
>each browser.  I could look at it in Netscape 3, Netscape 4,
>Opera 4, and IE 5.5, and it would WORK on all of them!
>
>CSS is provably BROKEN for the needs of the graphic artist.
>
>Remember -- this is an artist who CARES ABOUT BACKWARDS
>COMPATIBILITY.  For YEARS we have been trying to impress people
>with the need to support older browsers -- and now that our
>hypothetical designer is doing that (supporting Netscape 3,
>where a pure CSS model would not work), he's told it can't
>be used?  Buh?
>
>And this isn't even starting to get into the Netscape 4
>implementation.  Look at http://www.hwg.org/ in Netscape 4
>and in IE 5.  There are three-D buttons visible in IE, but
>they are GONE and the font styling is WRONG in Netscape.
>
> >But some designers express "needs" which are perverse in WWW terms -
> >and that cannot be achieved anyway.  But in attempting to achieve the
> >unachievable, they can produce some disastrous consequences.
>
>It's perfectly achievable.  Graphic artists have figured out
>how to get the effects they want.  You want to replace these
>workable solutions with broken solutions which are not
>backwards compatible, because you do not see the problem which
>is being solved.  The problem facing web designers is not
>"making the textual information accessible", it's "making the
>page look like what I want it to look like."
>
>It is truly a shame that there are so few graphic artists
>involved in these discussions, and it is no surprise that we
>continue to make specifications which will not be applied, because
>we discount the valid concerns of the people who will have to
>apply these standards.
>
>--Kynn
>
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
>Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
>Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
>AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
>Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast           http://kynn.com/+on24
>What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 08:42:40 UTC