- 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>
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 CSS. 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? cheers Charles On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 gian@stanleymilford.com.au wrote: Hi, [snip] 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. Gian
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 10:57:31 UTC