- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:39:28 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > You like that PDF, don't you, David? This was an on list reply to an off list reply. The two basic points were that page description languages better fit what people are trying to do with web sites and that (at least for major contractors) the bidding process and the nature of fixed priced contracts favours giving exactly what the client explicitly asks for and no more. Hence, if the client asks for pixel perfect, you don't suggest that it might not be the best thing. With regard to PDF one has to offset the few people who accidentally get converted to the real nature of HTML against the extra time that might go into accessibility when people are not fighting against the tool they are using. The situation is not clear cut (PDF has not had the investment that has gone into the big 2 browsers) and I originally went off list because I didn't want to cover all angles. PDF doesn't fully cover what designers now try to do with "dynamic HTML". > I think that your description holds true for many large corporations, though > not all. Even there, I suspect that there's room to maneuver. Again I didn't really want to get into the exceptions, although as exceptions to the exceptions, I would point out that many small company web sites get written by people in ISPs who are out to impress the customer at minimum cost, e.g. by cutting up a brochure image into a table mosaic (I'm thinking of a case where they managed to use percentage widths, so it broke for more than 800x600!) or by people fresh out of school without the maturity to do anything other than a WYSIWYG design.
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2001 17:43:37 UTC