I am curious, which browser OS combinations are still having problems
with the amended layout?
I use tables for pretty much everything on the grounds that writing
whizzy standards compliant pages has little purpose unless the user has
a standards compliant browsers, and a significant percentage are not.
Tables are a nasty kludge, but they work.
If most people can see the archive layout, it might be worth re-assessing
that policy.
Nick
keitai-l@appelsiini.net,Internet writes:
>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
>platforms.
>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!
>
>Mika, please don't!
>
>
>Kyle
>
>--
>
>http://pukupi.com
>
>
>This mail was sent to address nick@kyushu.com
>Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
>
>
Received on Wed Sep 10 09:54:34 2003