Gil Andre writes: >Example: Javascript is used on many sites for implementing >"roll-over" animations: graphical text (a small gif file, >usualy) that changes color when a mouse pointer is on it, to >create a "glow" or a "shadow" effect. Right. The curious thing about this on most sites I've looked at is there's almost no value in the information conveyed by the colour change. >I have also seen drop- >down menus implemented in Javascript. This is TOTALLY >useless, and most web sites should provide a text equivalent >to these functions. That one doesn't seem hard to transform and is my first candidate for an html conversion,. >The worst offenders, as far as I am concerned, are sites >that use Javascript to point to cgi/bin scripting. This >completely breaks down compatibility as far as alternative >(Lynx/Links) web browsers are concerned, while they can >(usually) be implemented with simple HTTP POST/HTTP GET >forms and functions. Agreed, and this seems to confirm the point that automated translation is possible. >Same thing for Flash animations. I have seen too many sites >that use fairly advanced (and very large) flash animations, >without even offering the possibility of skipping the anim >and move to a low-res www site. Agreed, but my sighted colleagues complain about this as much as I do. >In short: don't blame Lynx/Links for not supporting Javascript, >blame &#!!!@!%! web designers who are too lazy to design >and code their web sites properly, and include a text only >or low graphic low-eye-candy version. This is plain stupid. Or try to hack your way to a solution. I'm too lazy to fight and besides, hacking is more fun. Peter