Posted by Chaddy2222 on 06/19/07 14:25

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 13:01, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is why you might not want to make your pages readable over a
> > large range of settings.
>
> That's an inappropriate generalisation. It's a generalisation because
> you've identified one group (teenagers with good eyesight) and then
> generalised them as representing all users. It's an inappropriate
> generalisation, _not_ because burger-munching couch potatoes don't get
> haemorrhoids (they do), but because you've argued that what works for
> one site will thus work for all sites.
>
> You might regard this as the fallacy of affirming the consequent
> instead. The fact that an audience can do something doesn't mean that
> they _should_ be forced to do it. We're arguing in favour of
> appropriately-sized fluid-designed sites here, not sites with a
> rigidly fixed "large print" approach. They're nearly as bad as the
> rigid small-print sites. Having accessibly-sized text doesn't mean
> that users can't also have small text, if they prefer it and can read
> it.
>
> Whether your argument here stands or falls though, that cited site is
> simply poor technical execution by anyone's standards. There's just no
> excuse for it.
I agree. I think the main point is that for websites offering web
design services need to work and work well, on any browser on any OS
and with any configeration, why, well you would really need to wonder
about the designers skills if the site was not accessible or did not
function correctly.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

[Back to original message]