- From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:34:24 -0800
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com> > Gian, is absolutely correct. People are basically afraid of change. They > tend to stick to what works for them. If it isn't broke don't fix it. The problem here is that it _is_ broke, with respect to the web standards that need to be ignored or misused in order to support many older browsers' idiosyncrasies. We've strayed a bit from the original discussion of CSS versus bitmapped text, but it appears to me that we've moved from a question of whether ignoring CSS in favor of bitmaps is worthy of double A or triple A compliance to whether downlevel browsers should be a priority in the guidelines. Techniques already exist in the HTML techs document to show how to make CSS degrade gracefully in non-CSS browsers. If Netscape 2 is determined by a designer as a target browser, and he or she can make a site that complies with WCAG, that's fine with me. At the same time, I don't think visual fidelity in older browsers (in this case, using images of text to stylize) is an acceptable excuse for avoiding CSS while claiming greater compliance. - m
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 14:34:39 UTC