|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 01/01/06 18:50
Len Philpot wrote:
> In article <43b8b5a7$0$3266$cb0e7fc6@news.centralva.net>,
> lws4art@centralva.net says...
>
>
>>>3% was a guess - It may be more, but I'd be surprised at 20%, just the
>>>same.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Well for my website for Dec 2005 is was MSIE 68.8%
>>Netscape|Mozilla|Firefox 19.5% the rest bots|Opera|Old version 4
>>browsers and MSIE has been falling over 2 years
>
>
> That's interesting, although my percentage was a guess at the number of
> users who need beyond-the-ordinary design considerations rather than
> browser type. However, an interesting stat nonetheless.
Sorry must reread this long thread...I thought your comments where in
justifying coding for a specific browser as opposed to the standard
where design/user flexibility is stressed.
For 'special needs' formatting I believe your main content should be
legible withing a reasonable about of font scaling. Decorative
non-essential bits can have fixed font sizes. Images should be optimized
to allow dial-up access and all should degrade gracefully if pluggins or
scripting is unavailable. Should be readable to text-only, but
contingent on sites purpose, example mine is navigable in Lynx, but
being an art site but without images there is not much incentive for
someone to visit! Political correctness aside, photographs are not much
use to the blind. So what you compromise in your site access and design
must depend on content. I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all
rule concerning this.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|