Aardvark, In summary, you think redirects should only be used for : > >well, when content has been moved, IMO... otherwise, you should >maybe not have had the page there to begin with... > Does this mean that you think that flash only pages should not be there at all? Flash has some great attributes - when will it be ok to code flash then? This is a bit of chicken and egg isn't it? Does coding to latest functionality drag up the browser/user, or does the browser/user drag up the functionality? Do you think it is better to let a non flash enabled browser into a page rather than redirect? >> This is similar to deciding to use flash, or java applets for >> navigation and/or the content. > >yep, and you'll find i think both are a generally bad idea... ok, i >think Java is always a bad idea... > >yeah, sites that say i need Flash or browserX get skipped... i don't >bother... i've ditched many sites like that, without even looking for a >'skip intro' link or the like... i bail out of those faster than a zero >pilot with a parachute... IOW, those are not effective redirects... > So, you wouldn't be happier to go to a page that says "you need flash/browserx to enter the site" first? If it had acceptable wording? >> From an accessibility point of view I understand aural browsers choke >> on nested tables. Shouldn't there be a warning for aural browsers if >> a site contains nested tables then? > >yes, unless the designer has coded them to linearize well... and >guess what, having a copy of Lynx on your system can help you >as the designer determine if your tables linearize well... How do you suggest the warning should be done? >-----Original Message----- >From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org >[mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of aardvark > >circular argument... you built a site to rely on JS, and now you >can't change the site because the JS won't work... actually I built the js to meet the needs and built the site around it. >and you've gone back to a circular argument... you're >inconveniencing users of older and alternative browsers simply for >your own ease of maintenance... it seems you put the cart before >the horse on this one... if your point about browsers didn't fly with >me before, how can you use it to justify your maintenance desires? Well, from our point of view, maintenance and flexibility were highly important. Supporting older browsers was considered less important. (ok, ok you made the point that our research might not have been as good as it could be - but the decision appeared valid at the time). > >and remove that cursed 'everyone can access' line, since we've >already established that it's not true... everyone can see the link, or >even click the link, but not everyone can or will update their >browsers... > From the text page - which has no css, js etc - everyone can load that page - hell there won't even be a table. The releases don't have CSS - they use <shudder> Ms Word generated HTML (which we use DW to 'clean' before we post it). Don't get me started about that one. > >why did it have to be gill sans? why doesn't your CSS cascade >through other typefaces (like screen-optimized ones)? <grumble> corporate communication policy </grumble> > >> In this circumstance we decided a redirect was appropriate. (The >> wording obviously needs to be carefully thought about :)) > >feh, present the linearized page... include a <div> (or whatever >correct tag you prefer, it's moot at this point) with an explanation of >what's going on for older browsers, and set its properties to >'display:none;'... then your IE5+ and N6+ browsers won't see it, but >everyone else will... > That seems to be the general theme - I'll check out what it looks like and see what the "client" says. This email may be confidential and contain commercially sensitive information. Only the intended recipient may access or use it. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this email and notify us promptly. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or similar in this email or any attachment.