On Jul 29, 5:02 pm, Neredbojias <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 04:22:06 GMT
> Onideus Mad Hatter scribed:
> > The W3C's doc types are meant more as general guidelines than
> > anything, they try to promote good programming practices, but really,
> > if you're going to use an HTML based code you need to actually check
> > and make sure that each element not only works on ALL major browsers
> > but that it also works on ALL major browsers on ALL major operating
> > systems...of course, why bother with that stupidity when you can
> > simply code your sites in Flash, which takes all the guess work out of
> > it.
> I actually somewhat agree with your opinion here, but the trouble with
> Flash is that it (often) limits the visitor's ability to control it - much
> hit a Flash site and am surprised if it happens not to do anything I don't
> want it to do.
Hmmm well yes, I could see Hatters point as well. But until Flash has
a way of becomeing more accessible (by users with adaptive
technology) I probably won't be designing entire websites with it. In
a lot of cases good old HTML with some CSS for styleing works fine and
means you end up with a site with a consistent look and feel, even if
that "look" is not quite the same in all browsing environments.
The thing is though, even if the site does look the same in all
browsers (as in all visual browsers) through the use of flash, then it
still means that it won't work for those of us useing aural browsers
(so some kind of alternative still needs to be provided.
This means that you then need to update two sites with the same
content, which is why I like the CSS method, as you can keep all the
visual style seprat from the rest of the content makeing it easier for
SE bots and screen readers and visitors to access the content. This
also means that all visual
branding is kept in tact.
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz