On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 14:58 -0400, tedd wrote: > At 2:25 PM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote: > >A stretchy website stretches it's content area to accomodate the width > >of the browser. I'm quite sure you knew this, either that, or you're not > >reading enough. > > Is my site an example of a stretchy website? It's only two columns, > but it could have been three -- I just don't like three. > > http://sperling.com/ Yes, that is a stretchy site. > >At one point, the only way to layout content was using tables. CSS > >didn't exist at that time, plain and simple. > > Yeah, I know how the bad practice came about, but that doesn't mean > that we should continue it because of legacy issues. The founder > fathers of the web also painted us into 7-bit technology corner that > we now have to deal with, but we deal with it. I realize this, I never said don't use CSS *lol*. I advocate the use of CSS. I don't generally advocate the use of tables for laying out data either. This all came into focus when I said I use them when I feel it necessary. > >Besides... there's this from the W3C accessibility guidelines: > > > >---------------------------- > >-snip- > >---------------------------- > > > >They allow for the use of tables, and I follow that convention. I > >currently feel it is "necessary" at times to use tables. > > Yes, I never said that the use of tables was prohibited, but that > it's use has been abused by WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver, which > started this thread. > > >Statistics are easy to find: > > > > http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-281187/tm.htm#281187 > > Okay, so read them. I did just before I posted the link :) > In the first post you'll find (from my old college CSUN) this: > > http://www.imtc.gatech.edu/csun/stats.html > > It states that 19.4 percent of the population is disabled -- that's > about twenty times the number you cited. > > However, that figure isn't current nor does it represent the world. > Keep in mind that English speaking people, who usually have better > health coverage, comprise only 4 percent of the world's population. I > would estimate that Global disability figures are significantly > higher. > > >Maybe Google isn't accessible enough for you (it uses tables after > >all ;) > > Nope, Google doesn't have it right either -- they still use graphic > captcha's as well. And, they (like others) are not going to change > until they understand what some of us are saying. There are two types of accessibility at play. Google is meeting one kind, you are advocating another. Both are valid, although yours plays to the heart strings a little more :) Google is ensuring their content looks the same in as many browsers as possible. To them that *is* accessibility (I presume anyways, maybe it's some other reason :) Yours is about usability accessibility. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
