Re: Menus, navigation, and simplicity (Perhaps slightly off-topic)

Kevin,

some of this has been dug over a few times.

in particular there are good reasons for backwards compatibility that 
may include:

embedded user agents may not be readily upgradeable.
third world users may not have the wherewithall.
some industries still rely on 20 year old software, my local car 
mechanic for one: "why spend the money".

none the less it is also reasonable to design standards for current as 
well as future UAs
and sometimes, we even get to discuss all 3.

Jonathan

On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 07:39  pm, Kevin A Sesock wrote:

>
> Apparently, in my last message, I greatly miscommunicated. My comments 
> (and apologies) below.
>
> >This is the kind of letter which one shouldn't reply to until atleast
> >24 hours have gone by. Sadly, but also luckily, I will be out of touch
> >for about 8 days.
>
> >During that time I'll happily be vilified. Let's get it over with. I
> >am not interested in debating this drivel with you. From the moment
> >you started in with the "defeatist" talk, the entire debate is lost.
>
> What I meant by this statement is that it's defeatist to not even 
> consider the question. I felt as though it was a "No, that's stupid," 
> answer to my inquiry, and I apologize for my misinterpretation.
>
> Perhaps you've dealt with this particular question before, but I have 
> not. Perhaps you have had debates and discussions on the pros and cons 
> of implementing such a standard before, but I have not. If you have 
> any archives of such discussions, information on the pros and cons, 
> etc., I would be more than happy to catch up. Since I'm personally not 
> acquainted with this debate, since it seems that there has been 
> discussion on it before, I unfortunately do not know what has been 
> said about why or why not to implement such a system.
>
> >Every time someone comes along and tells you that "That bridge is
> >gonna fall down if you make it out of matchsticks" someone else will
> >scream bloody murder and claim that you're "defeatist" 'cause "New
> >anti-grav trucks will do wonderful on that bridge!"
>
> I merely proposed the idea for a bridge, I did not suggest a building 
> material, nor did I mean to imply that I was "scream[ing] bloody 
> murder", about the fact that the bridge must be built. I was merely 
> suggesting that this idea continue to be debated. Unfortunately, it's 
> harder for me to write objectively in the mornings before the coffee 
> sets in, and many of my words come off as more emotional than I 
> intend. Again, my apologies.
>
> >Very well. I am not willing to move onto your matchsticks bridge
> >whether that makes me defeatist or not.[*]
>
> >Until and unless you can present a method whereupon a client, which
> >does not support the idealistic and forward-thinking methods of
> >content inclusion (made by the good guys), can still get to the very
> >same, and not a watered down version of, content I will stay over here
> >in the camp of the bad, defeatist, opponents of accessibility.
>
> Again, I apologize, I did not mean to refer to you as an opponent of 
> accessibility. I was simply using that example as a point of reference 
> that I see often in terms of people accentuating the cons and ignoring 
> the positive. I did not mean to imply that you are an opponent of 
> accessibility, nor bad, nor defeatist, and I apologize for that fact 
> that I was not clear in that representation.
>
> Additionally, I merely made a suggestion to the list, I did not spend 
> weeks drawing up a proposal to the W3C for an inclusion of a standard 
> or "method". It was merely to stimulate discussion about a subject 
> that I feel might be worth spending a little bit of time on. I do 
> thank you for your reply and your concerns regarding this issue, and 
> that was why I replied, because I felt that I had some answers to your 
> concerns.
>
> >Answers of "Supporting X browser is asinine!" and "Upgrade!" will
> >happily be rejected, as will "But CSS does this!". The latter is
> >factually wrong, the former has no place in accessibility.
>
> Why not? Aren't we trying to create standards for accessibility? Why 
> do we have to support browsers that don't support the standard? I've 
> never heard a good reason that we should support browsers and old 
> technology that don't live up to the standards that have been out 
> upwards of 5 years (an eternity on the web), but I've heard many good 
> reasons for encouraging people to upgrade. That does not mean forcing 
> people away from Lynx, text-based, or deprecated browsing styles, 
> merely non-standards compliant and out-of-date. I believe that 
> accessibility is improving because adherence to standards (and the 
> standards themselves) are improving, and that's why I think people 
> should be encouraged to upgrade. I don't believe there truly is a 
> backwards compatibility in the web, even though I know that everyone 
> wants it. I'll stop there, as I believe my thoughts and opinions on 
> this are already clear.
>
> >Eagerly awaiting your answer and methodology, whilst wishing
> >feverishly for a Sanity Clause.
>
> Thank you again for your rational and well thought out rebuttal.
>
>
> Kevin A. Sesock, A+, NET+, CNA, MCSA
> Deskside Computer Support Specialist
> Student Disability Services
> SLA Program
> Information Technology Division
> Oklahoma State University
>
> "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in 
> practice there is." --Unknown
>