- UK: HTML/CSS Training
- Posted by Andy Dingley on March 24th, 2006
axlq wrote:
No it isn't. This hasn't been true since around 2001 (and it wasn't
a particularly good argument even then).
Nowadays there are far more devices that have trouble with rigid pixel
sizes (small screens) than have legacy issues of not understanding CSS.
Although "phones" will generally render "tables", this is because the
phone networks transcode the content on the fly. It's better (from your
selfish goals as a site operator) to not require this step.
- Posted by axlq on March 24th, 2006
In article <1143210875.326610.70980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
It's a good argument if much of your audience consists of people in
3rd-world countries who have pre-2001 browsers.
That's a good point. It never occurred to me that anyone would want to
access my site with their phone (and I can't imagine that anyone would
want to, whether I used CSS layout or not).
-A
- Posted by Karl Groves on March 24th, 2006
axlq@spamcop.net (axlq) wrote in news:e01d9v$g4q$2@blue.rahul.net:
Do you have data on the number of people in 3rd world countries accessing
your site in legacy browsers? Moreover, are those people likely to be
paying customers of your products & services? If so, what percentage of
your purchases come from them?
Really now, if you're going to use Red Herring arguments, at least *try* to
back them with facts.
--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com
Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du
- Posted by mbstevens on March 24th, 2006
axlq wrote:
It never occurred to me that anyone would want to
http://www.opera.com/products/mobile/
Lots of people with mobile phones love to surf with them.
- Posted by Charles Sweeney on March 24th, 2006
mbstevens wrote
Opera, they think of everything!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
- Posted by TechnoHippie on March 24th, 2006
Karl Groves <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in
news:Xns979088C514DD2karlkarlcorecom@216.196.97.13 6:
"I came here for a good argument."
"No you didn't. You came here for an argument."
That will be five quid for another five minutes.
Judy
--
TechnoHippieChick's Stuff
<http://technohippie.com/geeklog/public_html/mediagallery/album.php?aid=6>
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
- Posted by axlq on March 24th, 2006
In article <Xns979088C514DD2karlkarlcorecom@216.196.97.136> ,
Karl Groves <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote:
Yes.
Primarily American institutions pay us to participate in an
information database that is accessible for free to people in other
countries, with the intent that we bring together these institutions
with potential foreign customers. If we don't serve those viewers,
the visitation rate goes down, along with any motivation for the
paying customers to continue to do so.
Really now, I wouldn't have brought it up if it wasn't a valid argument.
If you're going to make unwarranted assumptions, say so up front.
-A
- Posted by axlq on March 24th, 2006
In article <iXWUf.7757$Bj7.4761@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:
Well, that's interesting. Makes me wonder what the attraction is;
nothing on the web is so important that I need to use my phone to
access it. I can't imagine a more unpleasant way to browse.
But then I don't understand the appeal of internet messaging; typing
messages back and forth in real time seem such a time-wasting
inefficient way to communicate electronically. I mean, if you want
a real time conversation with me, pick up the damn phone and call
me. Those who need to converse in real time have my phone number.
Ahem... that said, are there any published guidelines for making
a web page more accessible and easy for these phone browsers? Or
maybe I could make a limited-content parallel web site specifically
for mobile phones.
-A
- Posted by William Tasso on March 24th, 2006
Fleeing from the madness of the "a2i network" jungle
axlq <axlq@spamcop.net> stumbled into
news:alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...ng.stylesheets
and said:
sheesh - you do mean voip of course
Like Toby said - Keep It Simple.
I never did see the attraction for parallel sites - unless the entire site
content is data driven - then the world (as they say) is your lobster.
--
William Tasso
whither a trophy?
- Posted by Alan J. Flavell on March 24th, 2006
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, axlq wrote:
The whole tendency of the web (as far as I can see) is for increasing
diversity of browsing situations. If you're so sure that you need a
"parallel web site" for one special subset of users, why not for two?
Or seven? Where are you going to draw the line?
It's not obvious to me that anyone has made a real success (in the
"going concern" sense, rather than the "expensive flash in the pan"
sense) of special kinds of format for special kinds of browsing
device.
Special kinds of *content*, yes - for example, real-time travel
information. But still marked-up for the web, and browse-able in a
wide range of web browsing situations.
Otherwise, aim for flexible design, make sure to grasp accessibility
guidelines and work them into the situation as best one can, and you
shouldn't go too far wrong.
