Re: The Core Beliefs of Usability and Their CSS Application

Move to www-html where it belongs.

On 7/4/05, David Woolley <> wrote:
> > Ok, rather than uncompressed, use PNG. But content negotiation should
> > be something done by a server, not a user. A person's time is far more
> It can be rather difficult when the server is a CD-ROM containing
> an offline copy.

It's a rather simplistic system that could be added to web browsers.
I'm not advocating it. I'm advocating that material designed to be
presented on a server use the advantages of a server solution.

> In practice there are other problems with server based solutions:
> - the one technology problem - most authors want to think they are
>   writing a document in a single language, and are prepared to confuse
>   HTML, CSS and EcmaScript, but not server configuration directives;

I don't quite follow what the point of that statement is. I'm not
trying to be difficult, but what are you getting at?

> - control of server configuration often belongs with IT departments,
>   whereas control of HTML/CSS/EcmaScript belongs with marketing
>   departments;

I don't see where there is the need for configuration at all. It
should be a zero-configure system. I don't have to configure my web
server to respond to incoming requests. It should be part of the
underlying algorithm.
> - the systems on which people learn HTML often are free hosting systems
>   with no access to server configuration.

Again, I don't understand the need for server configuration? Other
than turning it on, what other options are you talking about?

> Also, for the final text fallback, it makes it clear that the images
> replace the text and allows indexing software to index without
> having to read other documents for text fragments.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing anymore. I'm talking
about the fallback mechanism as it relates to alternative media types.
I'm a firm believer in alt text.

Orion Adrian

Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 00:39:40 UTC