Sent by Austin, Darrel on 21 November 2002 18:06
> I specifically talk about browsers where CSS is NOT available.
and I specifically made the disclaimer that that solution only works in
CSS-compliant browsers.
> >But, like you said above, why use a hack
> >
> A hack?
> I'm talking about 100% valid code, that is even in accordance
> with the
> spirit of the Spec as well as accessibility guidelines.
> In what way is that a hack?
Well, it's certainly valid to the spec...But it's not necessarily as
structurally elegant, and the use of the 'hidden: none' doesn't appear to be
a strategy that will work with the newer screen readers.
> No, all visual browser that don't have proper access to CSS.
> That list consists of quite a few browsers, basicly
But not all of those users are going to care about horizontal vs. vertical
lists of links as much as you are, and, still, that group, even as a whole,
isn't that big for a lot of sites.
> I would say that is a considarably larger section of users then those
> that use _buggy_ aural browsers that doesn't read an aural
> CSS file but
> DO read the screen CSS file.
Yea, well, you might be right. I certainly don't have any real numbers on
any of those. I'm also certainly not an expert on screen readers, though
from what I've read, most aural browsers have no concept of the aural style
sheets.
> Note that Aural browsers that don't
> understand CSS at all again will work just fine with my
> suggestion, just
> as those that that implement media="aural" properly will work.
The argument being that newer and updated readers WILL ignore the
display:none items but will NOT support the aural spec.
The bottom line is that if your visual layout in a text browser is more
important than a more structured document, then I'd agree that your solution
is preferrable. Use it.
-Darrel
_______________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/css-discuss
Sponsored by www.westciv.com - CSS resources | software | learning
