> From: Erika Meyer <emeyer at lclark.edu> > > aardvark wrote: > > >i'm guessing you'll like this article, although i fear you'll get the > >wrong message: To Hell With Bad Browsers > >http://www.alistapart.com/stories/tohell/ > > Are you sure YOU didn't get the wrong message? no, i got the message... it's not lost on me... the message that is the *wrong* message is that you can start to say 'screw the older browsers' in every case... a few minutes in the ALA forum regarding the article shows too many people saying "hey, if ALA does it, so can i" without: - being very good coders, thereby rendering a site completely inaccessible... - checking to see if it will work on their audience... - thinking about what happened the afternoon that ALA published the article to make it ok to follow their lead... - considering how their users will react to an upgrade message... - explaining it to their clients... - realizing it can justify laziness... - etc... a lot of this is addressed in the article: To Hell With Bad Editors http://evolt.org/article/list/25/6096/index.html zeldman (of ALA) even comments on it (3rd comment down) with the following: "There is no doubt that SOME developers will view the campaign as an opportunity to behave irresponsibly, though we are not advising that; we are advising developers to learn about and use standards and to devise their own audience-based strategies for implementing these technologies without leaving users behind. As always happens in such cases, the glitzy part of the message ("To hell with bad browsers") gets more attention than the 5,000 thoughtful words that follow that headline." now, what have i said in this thread that is different than that? before that comment he says: "The overall point expressed so well in your article is right in line with what we are thinking and trying to achieve. " believe it or not, zeldman and i are on the same page, we're just approaching it from different angles... but i'm glad to see other people trying to knock me off my soapbox on this one, it allows me to refine the language of my arguments so everyone understands my position with minimal misunderstanding... keep it coming... > <horse type="not dead yet"> <horse type="thinks it will go for a walk"> > ALA redesign is about using HTML & CSS as it's meant to be used, NOT > about shutting out users with old browsers. I know you have access to > lots of browsers, Adrian. Show me one on which ALA is inaccessible. none (but you knew that)... but it looks like ass on a lot of 'em... i know that's not the point of your question, but for my clients it *is* the point... i can't tell them "hey, it will work for everyone, but it's gonna look rather silly for 20% of your audience"... not when we know those surfers will assume something is wrong with the site, not with their browser... i'm just trying to frame it in the real world of clients, not orgs who can experiment and push the bounds without fear of losing the client... i don't think you start the campaign by telling users that they are wrong, you start by telling developers that they are wrong... i refer you to the article i cite above, where i suggest starting with the coders and WYSIWYG builders, not the users... and how does any of this compete with my push in this thread for standards, compatibility, and degradability? > </horse> </horse> can you nest <horse> tags?