Posted by Neredbojias on 10/29/07 20:47

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:33:33
GMT David Mark scribed:

>> > That is only part of it. Some agents don't support style at all.
>>
>> No, but I'll bet 99%+ used actively on the Web today do. A real
>
> For the sake of argument, say it is 0.1%. Multiply that by the number
> of users on the Web today and you get a fairly substantial number.

How many atoms are in a thimble? And what is that thimble to the planet?

>> consideration might be the useragents of ipods, picture phones and
>> the like.
>>
>> >> is a moron. As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have
>> >> correct
>>
>> > It is not the users' fault if a document is poorly designed.
>>
>> Who said it was? We are discussing the viability of an additional
>> layer for a specific purpose.
>
> You said that those who disabled style were morons. If the document
> doesn't work in that case, does it reflect poorly on the user or the
> author?

Could be either or both. But if the document works well with authored
styles and not well without them, who's the moron?

>> >> semantics, anyway, and a sequential list of links in a "layer"
>> >> will
>>
>> > Very few pages are written by competent Web developers.
>>
>> >> certainly not mess them up if they are correct.
>>
>> > What list of links? The suggestion was for a "layer" with hidden
>> > images. Search engines, screen readers, style-challenged agents,
>> > etc. will have no idea what to make of such a thing.
>>
>> I meant "list of images". Why would search engines have a problem?
>> As
>
> Do you mean a series of images. An HTML list would further complicate
> the semantics.

Yes, a series of images. -Used "list" in the common generic form.
("Form", too.)

>> for screen readers, it may cause some confusion but I don't evaluate
>> this anywhere near reason enough to avoid the technique.
>> Unquestionably, it
>
> Why would you want to confuse the sight-impaired for the sake of
> faster rollovers?

I invariably optimize my pages for the visual audience. So do most
people. Html is primarily a visual medium despite the bs.

>> will work and work well. Background images may also work, but there
>> is
>
> It will work for users with CSS support and without impaired vision.
>
>> some doubt. And lastly, I'm not one of those who subscribe to the
>> "least common denominator approach" to web page creation just to
>> strictly
>
> I don't see what this has to do with an LCD approach.

-Blindly following the standards because they are standards and
"recommended". Sometimes you have to think for yourself.

>> satisfy certain concepts which are arguable to begin with.
>
> It is arguable whether the images will load faster as inline or
> background images. So why use a technique that may or may not
> slightly improve the load time of rollovers, when it will definitely
> have other negative implications?

Because the other negative implications are not as negative as doing
without the method under discussion - at least in some instances.
Furthermore, the other negative implications can be eliminated or reduced
with authoring care.

This is an old argument, hashed and rehashed to death. You have every
right to believe what you want, but I maintain the same right for myself.
A lot of the so-called wisdom relating to markup is just pedantic crap or
something over-exaggerated to make a point. In short, if it works for
99%+ of the browsing population, it works. Period.

--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.

[Back to original message]