d <d@example.com> wrote:
But that is exactly the point of using CSS. Once the site design has been made,
adding CSS support for a textual browser should be fairly straight forward.

But even that will take some extra time, so the client should be asked about
which media should be supported with the price differences outlined.

And if the client later wants support for textual browsers added, then it would
not require a site redesign, just a new presentation option.

Axel

In message <aawSf.37340$wl.1343@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , d
<d@example.com> writes

Well, you were wrong. Google will help you to find out why that is.
--
Andy Mabbett

Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

In message <zQxSf.37371$wl.21614@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, d
<d@example.com> writes
Perhaps you should start posting the URLs of some of your sites, so we
can see how well they work...
--
Andy Mabbett

Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

In message <8WxSf.37373$wl.17610@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, d
<d@example.com> writes

I trust they're paying you peanuts...
--
Andy Mabbett

Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

d wrote:
There's nothing stopping either of the first 2 streaming mp3s unless you
choose to use some platform specific format. Nokia's latest thing is
that you can stream video to your phone - mobile technology is where
it's all happening right now. I can't speak for commodore 64s but I
doubt they have the cpu power, however probably an Amiga could.

No. Sites are about information which may be textual, graphical,
audio-visual or any combination of the above and more besides. All I'm
saying is there's no need to put a barrier in front of any of this that
doesn't need to be there. Clearly you can't play music on a machine
with no sound card - but there doesn't have to be any extra thing put in
the way.

As an aside, if you (or anyone else) have never had the chance to see a
blind person use a browser I have to recommend it as a worthwhile
experience. The sheer amount of effort and concentration that goes in to
just using the technology is amazing in itself. I see no point in making
it harder for no reason.

I would challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Do you know
of customers who would (if they were made known of all the facts) choose
to lose an amount of their sales (however small) because of the ideology
of building sites to work on specific browsers? This statement makes me
think that you don't really understand many of the issues involved, or
maybe choose not to understand.

Then the PM doesn't understand the situation fully and needs informing.
If they choose to ignore your advice then you have the option to
disagree and just get on with it or quit.

Again you've missed the point. Three actually:

1) There is no need for multiple CSS files - the same one works for any
visual browser.

2) In any case the point of CSS is that it's *optional*. Take some time
to fully understand what that means. In any case where your rendering is
broken by bugs or whatever you have the option of just switching it off.

3) Positioning in HTML/CSS is a skill that's different to using tables.
That's all. It's not harder IHMO to position in CSS than tables once
you've learned how to do it. They are just different paradigms. It takes
no longer to do. At this point in my life it would take me longer to use
tables if starting from scratch because it's been about 3-4 years since
I did. And if it came down to editing someone else's code and it was
done using tables I'd probably be lost entirely.

RSS has taken off so much because it's a platform-independent format.
HTML+/-CSS has the potential to be the same.

I hope they can be experts in their field and advise too. In 6 years of
being a web site developer I've never been in the position of *only*
developing. If your entire methodology is dictated by someone else then
clearly that's the person that should be having this conversation and
seeing the point to CSS and the whole content/presentation issue.

d wrote:

How can it take you 30% longer to do something that is _less_
complicated?

If you start by writing HTML, your site will support text-browsers and
everything else. If you then want to add things like Flash objects on
top, that's fine. Build your site upwards.

Don't start with the fancy stuff and then try to build the foundations
round it. It won't work.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

axel@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:

Most textual browsers don't support CSS. You don't need to "add
support" for them. The "support" for text browsers is semantic markup,
good use of image alts, tab-index, skip links where appropriate. Some
people would include accesskeys in that, but I'm not sure where I
stand on that at the moment.

Not really - it just means stripping away all the presentation options
that have been added.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

d wrote:

You keep saying that.

What sort of sites _do_ you work on? Preferably with examples.

Because you [1] are the one who built the site. And if it doesn't
work, that reflects badly on you.

If you know what you're doing, it won't take hours.

Most people can find a way to bill for it anyway.

But most importantly, if you are hired in as the web design expert,
that gives you the standing and credibility to make suggestions and
recommendations on the web design aspect of the project. No, they
won't expect you to say "I don't like the logo" or "The product is
overpriced" - that's not your field. But saying "the website will work
better for more people if done _this_ way" *is* your field. So you
should say that.

Project managers are not going to be experts on every aspect of their
projects. Web design is a particularly specialised field, and any PM
worth his wage will recognise that a professional web designer can
give valuable input and advice.

[1] generic

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

d wrote:

You really haven't got a clue, have you.

If you build your website properly, *all* browsing devices will be
able to access it. They may not get a perfect experience, depending on
how much time you have put into accessibility features, but they will
be able to access the substantive content.

Anything that stops them from doing this is something that you, as the
designer, have deliberately chosen to add. Why put artificial barriers
in someone's way?

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, d wrote:

If you like. Browsers aren't the only text-mode clients, and
text-mode browsers aren't the only less-usual browsing situations to
which a properly-made web page can adapt itself.

Sure: very few of the visitors to my web pages are indexing robots, so
I could happily ignore those too. Statistically speaking. Logical?

You know: if I was in this commercially, instead of it just being a
hobby, I would be only too pleased to have competitors like you, who
keep saying how much extra effort they are investing[1] to defeat the
inherent accessibility for which the web was designed, and keeping out
as many minorities as they can think of.

And then arguing that they can't afford the additional effort that
they have caused themselves, to repair what - for the most part - had
been there naturally, before their effort took it away.

As it is, I'm getting rather bored of searching for topics that are of
interest to me, and getting shown my own web pages.

I don't see any sign of a joke here. Really.

[1] or as I would say, "wasting".