Kyle Barrow wrote:
> You are suggesting moving a page that:
> 1. Is almost standards compliant (needs to sort out the head elements
> and some unclosed tags, etc. and it's there).
> 2. Separates content from layout.
> 3. Is relatively screen-reader friendly (add a hidden "skip navigation"=
> div at the top of the page linking to "middle" would make it better)
> 4. Users CSS em font sizes so even poor unfortunates using Windows IE
> can easily resize fonts if they find themselves squinting too much.
> 5. Will flow to fit any screen.
> to a page that:
> 1. Uses font tags. Font tag size differ greatly between browsers and
> 2. Is not screen-reader friendly (they have a hard time when tables are=
> not used to display tabular data).
> 3. Uses font tags!
> 4. Uses tables!
5. Is readable without any fiddling for the visitor.
Also, please explain the difference between 1. and 3 in your list of
"problems" as well as the difference between 2 and 4. As stated, we are
talking a single table with ~4 TD tags here, not your typical insane
table-in-table-in-table site produced by a double-clicking FrontPage
My suggestion came after SEVERAL users have stated rather bad CSS
problems that obviously need a fair amount of further polishing whereas
the above is a ~10 minute fix at most.
Your list of nice features contains "almost" and "relatively" which are
rather typical and (as you most likely know) hardly any of those nice
features would be affected by the very minor amendments suggested.
Obviously, Mika will do it the way he likes to do it regardless of what
you and I think.
Jonas Petersson | XMS Penvision | mailto:Jonas.Petersson_at_xms.se
Box 3294, V=E4stg=F6tegatan 13, S-600 03 Norrk=F6ping | http://www.xms.se=
Tel: +46 11 400 13 00 | Dir: +46 11 400 13 05 | Fax: +46 11 10 30 50
Received on Wed Sep 10 09:38:39 2003