Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 77841 invoked by uid 500); 20 Dec 2001 08:26:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 77817 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2001 08:26:39 -0000 Message-ID: <001201c1892f$ca320af0$670004c0@PC103> From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" To: References: <3C205594.8020902@cbim.it> <3C20A1F4.43546230@apache.org> Subject: Re: [OT] Design Rant Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:49:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" To: ; "Apache XML" Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Design Rant > Copied to general@ since this is a general discussion. > > Ugo Cei wrote: > > > > Incidentally, adopting a pure-CSS based solution for both layout AND > > styling means that people using: > > > > - text browsers > > - screen readers for the sight impaired > > - mobile devices > > - anything you cannot conceive now but that will be make web > > access available from your washing machine or whatever :) > > > > will be able to access the site contents without their "screen" or > > reader being cluttered with spurious markup that is not in any way > > related to the content they need. I like and agree on all you say, except that there is a real-world problem. Netscape4 -crashes- with CSS set on the body tag. @see http://www.alistapart.com/stories/died/ Not nice. :-( Here is part of the article:
An actor never says to the crowd, "I'm a little old for this role, wouldn't you say, folks?" And a Web designer never tells the viewer, "Whew! You should see all the JavaScript I've put in the header to protect you from realizing how crappy your browser is." It is gauche to tell users that their browser stinks. It's like insulting their clothing or their charming regional accent. It's unfashionable to complain about a specific browser, though it's become acceptable (as it should be) to complain about a general lack of support for standards. Yet, if information wants to be free, so does the truth. I don't know about your shop, but in mine, we spend hours spewing out torturous (often questionable) code to make stuff work in Navigator 4. "Netscape and Style Sheets. They go together like peanut butter and bicycle chains," I confided to a fellow Web designer recently. It's become the dirty little secret of our Industry. The thing nobody wants to say out loud.
Instead of working round crappy browsers, shouldn't we tell the user how crappy their browser is? How can market dynamics work if the user is unable to see how really good a product is, and for "good" on the Web it should be also "follows the standard". If the browser isn't capable of performing sensibly on an old and stable web standard, is it my fault? Let the producer fix it. I'm not sure that this is really the way to go, but it sure seems sensible to me. Nicola Ken Barozzi These are the days of miracle and wonder... ...so don't cry baby, don't cry Paul Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org