Posted by mbstevens on 11/06/07 19:24

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:06 pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 7:45 am, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 1:25 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 6, 12:50 pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:29 am, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 12:14 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
>>>>>>> sicur...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Jensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I understand what you're saying - I do the same. But don't blame CSS on
>>>>>>>>>> the developer's poor choice of font sizes.
>>>>>>>>> It's not really a font size problem. People viewing web pages should
>>>>>>>>> be able to override the fonts and font sizes in web pages and the web
>>>>>>>>> page should still render correctly.
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that when users do that, the web pages end up rendering
>>>>>>>>> incorrectly.
>>>>>>>>>> Not if they're designed properly. However, there are too many people
>>>>>>>>>> who think they're web developers who don't have any idea what they're
>>>>>>>>>> doing. And they don't try different default font sizes.
>>>>>>>>> My experience has been that CSS based layout problems are pretty much
>>>>>>>>> universal. Big sites, small sites, free sites, expensive sites,
>>>>>>>>> amateur sites, professional sites.
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Good CSS doesn't suffer from those problems. It's all in
>>>>>>>>>> understanding the markup and testing.
>>>>>>>>> This is where we disagree.
>>>>>>>>> I've been in the software development field for a long time, and I've
>>>>>>>>> come to realize that when almost everyone is using a tool incorrectly,
>>>>>>>>> it's almost always because the tool itself is poorly designed.
>>>>>>>>> If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
>>>>>>>>> is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.
>>>>>>>> Nah I think you will find it's the designer. My main site at:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.bizshouldresizeifthefont size is
>>>>>>>> increased.
>>>>>>> How can you say that you specialise in making websites that are
>>>>>>> accessible to the widest range of people possible, if you need the
>>>>>>> Flash Player to access the content of your website?
>>>>>> Flash IS content. A website is HTML and CSS. Everything else is
>>>>>> content. So if you want to see Flash content, then you need the Flash
>>>>>> player. If you want to see Java content, then you need Java, if you
>>>>>> want to see WMV content then you need Media Player.
>>>>>> Everyone seems to forget Flash IS content.
>>>>> Maybe so.
>>>>> But I doubt it can rightly be defined as accessible content.
>>>> Neather is audio for a particular part of the disability community,
>>>> but the deff don't need descriptions of live audio content.
>>>> The slide show is visual.
>>>> You can't really be done any other way.
>>> I wonder if there's any way of tagging Flash content.
>>> Some kind of description that you can attach to the embedded object.
>> Flash is completely accessible to modern readers.
>
> Wrong, Travis.
> The correct sentence is:
> "Flash is completely accessible to modern readers, as long as they
> have the Shockwave Flash plugin istalled"
>
....and as long as the _version_ of the plugin is what is required.
I have Fox with Flash on Ubuntu. Plays a lot of stuff fine, but
chokes on movies at, for instance, the Onion.

[Back to original message]