No you don't. At least, not for any browser which could see it in the first
place. Maybe you lose the look and feel if the end user uses, say, lynx,
but then:
(a) They wouldn't expect to get the look and feel
(b) They are more likely to buy if they can use the site then if they can't.
What you and others miss is the fact to a huge number of people, the
Web is a visual thing. Search placement and the ability to use the
site via a hand held (or a reader) are not important to these
visitors. What is important to them is the Fancy flash intro, or the
cool DHTML menus, or flash or other such things. These visitors LOOK
for sites that are like that. They will leave a site if it does not
meet their "visual" eye candy requirements, because that is what they
want.
Most entertainment sites, (virtually all when kids are involved),
many sporting sites, and many product sites where we have chosen a
brand (Coke or Pepsi for example) are like this. If they loose that
look and feel, then they loose their customers. In these cases, the
presentation of the content is equally as important as the content
itself.
You and others seem to disagree with that and I am sure that, this
argument will continue here for years to come. But I am bored with
it. You make sites the way you think is right, and I will do the
same.
There is still no need to use technology which blocks users of handheld
devices.
There is if the said fix hurts the presentation.
On the other hand, it might be enough information for the user to decide
that it is a possible match for what they want and tell their browser to
load that image so they can take a closer look.
It might be, but then there is an equally good chance (probably
better chance in this specific case) that it is useless.
You take the last word because I am not going to argue about it. A
simple search of alt.html will supply the readers of this thread
every argument either side has.
