E-mail List Archives
From: Leo Smith
Date: Aug 24, 2001 7:57AM
- View all messages in this Thread
Paul and John..
I have used DIVS on some sites, and have found them to be completely stable across IE4, IE5, IE5.5, NS6, and NS4 when the resize fix is included in the code. I guess layers in NS4 "fall apart" when the browser is resized, and this fix essentially forces the page to reload in this browser when a resizing occurs, thus retaining the pages correct layout.
I guess the reason I bring it up is that I am very enthusiastic to use absolute positioning, if not to completely replace tables, to certainly reduce the amount of nested table coding that is often needed to achieve complex layout. I tend to use tables within DIVS for structure, but with the DIV, I can specify exactly on the page where I want the table to be with very little code, rather then having to create an elaborate nesting table effect to achieve that same positioning of the table.
Would love to hear what other folks think about this issue.
On 23 Aug 2001, at 10:48, Paul Bohman wrote:
> capabilities on their browser, then the resulting inaccessibility of
> certain websites is a different issue as they have made this choice
> think about this?
> [Paul] I tend to agree with you on this one, at least in principle.
> The reality is not quite so cut-and-dried though. Sometimes, the best
> browser for a particular person for a particular disability is a
> partially. This usually doesn't mean that the person absolutely MUST
> use this other browser, but it means that it is BEST for this
> particular individual. If this person wants, he or she could use a
> second-best solution. So, although I agree in principle, the reality
> disabled just because they want to. With this in mind, whenever using
> achieve the same functionality.
> [Leo] In my mind, what is important in terms of making a website
> accessible to those with an impairment is making sure that any
> these users. I think the use of logical event handlers can solve a lot
> of these issues (maybe even the dhtml drop down menu problem - if the
> menus can be opened by the keyboard, the contents of each menu can be
> read by a screen reader, and the link opening the menu is described to
> indicate that this is what is does).
> [Paul] Again, I agree, in principle. Your logic is not flawed, but the
> and browsers do not yet work as well together as we'd like them to.
> Sometimes these functionalities can be achieved, but not all of the
> time. The testing and debugging process of producing
> effort. It would be a good project to undertake, though, for someone
> who has the time and skill (and who is willing to share the results
> with us!).
> including any at the end of the design process for "non-essential
> an essential feature (for example the Netscape resize fix for layers
> anything that someone with an impairment will miss out on, is it
> really inaccessible?
> [Paul] I think you mean to ask "is it really that bad." The answer to
> your literal question ("is it really inaccessible") is "yes", of
> But is that bad? It all depends on what it is that is inaccessible. If
> the content is important, then it's inaccessibility would be a
> problem. That would be bad. If the content is not important, then the
> fact that it is inaccessible is irrelevant. I know this sounds
> simplistic, but this is a judgment that the content's author has to
> with all of the major assistive technologies and browsers. At that
> point, I will feel comfortable putting my efforts into making the
> scripting directly accessible, without worrying about a non-scripted
> alternative. Until then, I will continue to provide an alternative.
> Paul Bohman
> Technology Coordinator
> WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
> Utah State University
USM Office of Publications and Marketing
- View all messages in this Thread