|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 05/09/06 14:53
It comes to light that on Mon, 8 May 2006, Michael Laplante wrote:
> "Jim Moe" <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
> news:xaKdnS8GE_Y5BMLZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > Accessibility and fluid design are not bound to each other. Fixed
> > width designs are as accessible as fluid designs.
>
> I think this is a case of semantics. I'm defining accessibilty as
> used by many of the regulars here define it. Accessbility = fluid
> design. Me, I agree with you.
You really are *not* ready to present yourself as a rapporteur for
the "regulars" of this group.
It may well be that a certain kind of authoring style does promote
both accessibility and fluid design. In fact, I think it does. It
may well be that a certain other authoring style is hostile to both
accessibility and fluid design. But that doesn't for a moment mean
that accessibility and fluid design are synonymous, nor have I seen
it seriously argued that they are. It's possible to have either one
without the other, and I've certainly seen examples of both.
What *could* well be argued, however, is that there's some underlying
design principle which, when used appropriately, happens to promote
both fluid design and accessibility. But that still by no means makes
them synonymous - as you claim (wrongly IMO) to represent the view of
the "regulars".
So please desist from trying to misrepresent the arguments presented
by others, and try to represent some original opinion of your own.
Otherwise, discussion is ultimately futile.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|