- From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:57:03 -0800
- To: lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru, phoenixl@sonic.net, poehlman1@home.com, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi,
The underlying assumption is that there is a right page. Why assume
that there is a right page rather than a right set of versions of
pages each presenting the same information?
With regards to CSS versus table, Kynn wrote:
"Just so that we don't leave rhetorical questiosn unanswered:
Tables, definitely. Tables are much more friendly to older browsers
than CSS."
The approach of saying that a person should learn what they need
to learn without asking why or how hard may be appropriate in some
situations. However, in companies or organizations where there is
competition for resources, this view would be seen as less than informed.
In general, one of the common rules of allocating resources is to
use them where the balance between resource allocation and benefit
derived is as far as possible towards the benefit side as possible.
If CSS is desired, then the arguement would need to be how using CSS
rather than tables would be benficial enough to the organization
to justify the allocation resources. (Sometimes, it is helpful to imagine
making the presentation before the CEO of an organization to see if an
idea makes sense from their point of view.)
Scott
> there are issues and solutions and some times the lines blurr in both.
> You have it the rong way round though. You start with the right page
> and go from there. assuming right is as right as you can get it without
> being too right. Start with css for instance, and you might not even
> need tables. Learn what you need to learn and don't ask why or how hard
> it is going to be. Testing is a way of life even leaving out
> accessibility if even only to make sure the site you develop does what
> you want it to in that one really cool browser you like.
Received on Monday, 24 December 2001 15:57:09 UTC