Awesome use of CSS

[rf]

Accessibility is about removing the obstructions that a visitor cannot
reasonably remove themselves. A bug or mis-implementation in Internet
Explorer isn't one of those obstructions.

Your point on accessibility is valid - and one I do agree with. But a bug in
IE isn't an accessibility problem. Most standards compliant browsers allow
for the resizing of pixel specified text - as specified in the CSS
specification. IE choses not to support this. There are alternative
browsers available on the one platform Internet Explorer currently exists
on, and its reasonable for a visitor to use a browser that supports web
standards and replacing IE if needed.

Yo Sid. Long time since we conversed.

Valid points I'm sure.

However I am also sure that there are many many people out there who use IE
because that is what was unwrapped when they pulled their computer out of
it's box. *They* don't know, like you and I, that there are alternate
browsers out there. They probably don't even know they are using a browser.
My mother in law certainly does not. She clicks on the "internet" button,
not the "browser" button

There are also those who are forced to use IE in their work. Over here many
large companies (including most of the government) have an agreement with
MS. The IT department controls the computers and they install Windows XP (or
2K or NT(yep, some of them are still on NT)) and browser IE. Installing a
brand x browser (or any other software) can be a dismissable offence and is
usually impossible :-(

By accessibility I mean... for the masses, for the common and/or garden
person who does not know any better.

Er... is that a valid argument?

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Oh my. I give up.

So it does prove that CSS- based, layout- table- free, valid and
accessible sites can look attractive.

Thank you.

 

[Isofarro]

Yo Sid. Long time since we conversed.

I'm not Sid ;-)

Valid points I'm sure.

However I am also sure that there are many many people out there who use
IE because that is what was unwrapped when they pulled their computer out
of it's box. *They* don't know, like you and I, that there are alternate
browsers out there.

But they can find out. They can also find out how to configure IE to ignore
font-size. The problem lies with IE - if you say we must work around the
bugs in IE when it in itself doesn't support the CSS recommendation, then
we are no better off than the Netscape-only websites of six years ago. Its
a dead-end down there, and not conducive to accessibility.

There are also those who are forced to use IE in their work.

What's the legal options when a company forces you to do a job without
supplying adequate tools? In the UK that would be the Health and Safety Act
- but its the tool (IE) that's at fault, not the website.

Over here
many large companies (including most of the government) have an agreement
with MS.

I understand the predicament, yet these large companies went into this
contract with their eyes open - we should not be responsible for their
short-sightedness. Its not up to us to correct the mistakes these companies
have made by dealing with a company producing flawed software.

Installing a brand x browser (or any other software) can be a dismissable
offence and is usually impossible :-(

There are legal options when it comes to unfair dismissal - especially when
its clear the IT department did not provide adequate tools for the job.
Adequate being sufficient for this particular person to get the job done.

By accessibility I mean... for the masses, for the common and/or garden
person who does not know any better.

Er... is that a valid argument?

It is a valid argument for avoiding the use of px sizes on the basis of a
lack of support in IE, but its not an argument for accessibility.

 

[Kris]

it is
unreasonable in this case to compromise the design in favor of
accessibility, when it is clearly the design this site is all about.

From me as a designer, maybe I am the only one that thinks this, but it
appears that most designers think that design is something stripped of
things like accessiblity, flexibility, usability, readibility, etc. I
wonder what is left that you call design after those things are left in
omission.

Ok, to make sure I am not trolling on this one, I think I know what you
really mean is the 'graphic design' of the page. Truly, such a thing is
merely a detail. You can make the looks of your site in Photoshop and
post a big JPEG, then you have something that equals graphic design. If
you want to take your definition of design further than that level, you
simply cannot ignore the fact that people are going to use what you want
to make. And with that, aforementioned disciplines come into play.

You can try to omit those, but realise that what you are making at that
point is "l'art pour l'art", art, and it needs to be treated and judged
on it's own merits.

 

[xyZed]

There is circumstantial evidence that on Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:24:49

› So it does prove that CSS- based, layout- table- free, valid and
› accessible sites can look attractive.

I found it very valid for showing how totally different, the same
content can be with different designs. It just goes to show how
important the design is - even though I truly believe content is king.

 

[Jerome]

I agree that css are better for design than tables.
I use layers positioned w/ css and it works quite good and I have no
hassle w/ tables.

examples of templates implemented using 100% layers and css can be
seen at http://01site.net under "New Sites".

 

[brucie]

I agree that css are better for design than tables.
I use layers positioned w/ css and it works quite good and I have no
hassle w/ tables.
layers?

examples of templates implemented using 100% layers and css can be
seen at http://01site.net under "New Sites".

a blank page

 

[brucie]

Nah... I get:

01site.net - online template and content management please activate
JavaScript to browse 01site CMS Enter the site

i get a host name lookup failure