Posted by Ed Seedhouse on 12/09/06 03:36

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:01:04 -0000, "the red dot" <red@dot.spot> wrote:

>"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> The problem you seem to miss is content can NOT always be separated
>> from layout.

Sure it can. The web was originally designed that way and for that
purpose. I include images as content, of course.

>> > But given that you have content that people want to use why would
>> > you go out of your way to design your site in a way that makes it harder
>> > to use than it needs to be?

>> Because for the majority (obviously not you personally) of the visitors
>> they LIKE it presented in that manner.

And how do you know this? What studies have you done and why do you
think your studies are better than other studies that have shown
otherwise?

>>YOU are not the only visitor.
>> Sometimes what you like, is NOT what the majority of the visitors like.
>> (And visa-versa sometimes what I like is not what the majority of the
>> visitors like)

Once again, what's your evidence of this? And is it the majority of
visitors you should be catering to or the majority of potential
visitors? Don't you want to have more visitors?

>> > Fixed width designs do just that. There
>> > are even worse offences out there, but fixed width is one of them.

>> Or not. It completely depends on each particular site. One size does
>> NOT fit all on the web.

Which is why fixed width sites are basicaly bad. Fluid sites that work
in almost all browsers (including I.E.) are perfectly possible and even
easy if you understand CSS and semantic html coding.

>> > What about people who don't see so well and have to enlarge your fonts?
>> > What happens to your fixed width sites on a few size increases?

>> They can't see them. Oh well, sucks to be those people. But if the
>> layout of the site brings in more money, then it is the right way to
>> go.

And once again, what's your evidence for this? How can it bring more
money in to purposely lock out people with the very money you want who
happen to be visually impaired? Is their money not valuable to you?

>i was under the impression that there are now laws on accessibility re folk
>with disabilities ie unable to see, btw can a screenreader read a flash
>site? - from my understanding any site that cannot be read by a screen
>reader is breaking the law.

There are such laws in various constituencies but they are rarely
heavily enforced. I believe there have been some lawsuits filed against
in the USA big websites by visually disabled people who find they can't
go there. If one of them wins big, money will certainly sing a
different tune.

[Back to original message]