- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:37:41 -0500 (EST)
- To: Joel Sanda <joelsanda@yahoo.com>
- cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Joel, I have found thta poor support for stylesheets is a problem in using them, and that the browsers rstrict to some extent the possiblities that are there in the design work behind HTML, CSS, and so on. One of the challenges in the current era of more-or-less broken design of browsers is to find the subset of CSS, HTML, etc that actually works. In doing so, I think it is justified to regard an early implementation as working if it doesn't mangle the information beyond recognition, whether or not it prodces the "expected visual effect". After all, there are plenty of cases where people use software that makes the "expected effect" impossible to achieve (small-screen portable devices, voice-based systems, text-only systems, etc.). The approach I have gone for is "float and flow" layout. Using absolute positioning layout, despite being perfectly valid CSS, doesn't often solve the problem that it there are such a wide range of output devices that it isn't practicable to choose something and tell everyone they ought to be using it. Three years ago the likely range (except for accessibility purposes) of screen sizes was between 640x480 and about 1200x1000 Now there are many handheld devices operating with screens smaller than 320x240, and there are plenty of monitors that present at 1600x1200 or more. So I use colors, sizes, borders, backgrounds and text-decoration effects (and would use style-generated content in some circumstnces if it were better supported) but let things flow in the available space. If I really want to seperate something I might use a float to make it appear to the left or right on its own. Beyond that, layout control just reinforces people in the incorrect perception that they represent some sensible kind of "norm", and requires constant tweaking as the state of the art changes. Charles McCN On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Joel Sanda wrote: The upshot is this: we had to "water down" our code to make it work in Netscape, which meant is was less accessible according to WAI recommendations than before. While we could have sniffed for browser version and redirected, that means twice the maintenance and essentially creating an accessible and a non-accessible site. What are your thoughts on this? I don't think accessible web design is that problematic for developers. What is problematic is Netscape. While this sounds like Netscape bashing, I think the discrepancies between IE and Netscape in their support of W3C and WAI recommendations means developers either have to build two sites, or build one that is not that accessible - a rock and hard place. Any thoughts? Thanks - Joel Sanda joelsanda@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Sunday, 5 March 2000 08:37:49 UTC