A new render of newxml

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at nospam.dot
Tue May 4 05:40:14 PDT 2004


On Tue, 4 May 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:

> Bruce Dubbs said the following on 01-05-2004 17:08:
> ><snip>

> Like I said, we should make a compromise; there is no solution which
> will please everybody.

Should we try and please everybody? Or should we try and please the
majority of our "audience"? Should past methods be considered as an
indicator of preference or usefulness? Methods used by others?

What does it cost (other than loss of a line or two of presentation
space on each page) to do both top and bottom? If not much, then why
restrict to bottom?

> There are several possible scenario's:
>
> 1. leave all navigational links.
> Pros: good for graphical browsers
> Cons: text browsers get duplicated top links (IMHO not acceptible)

I have no problem with duplicated links. It's just a cost of
flexibility. I use both text and graphical browsers.

> 2. remove top navigational links
> Pros:
> * text browsers get top & bottom links, no duplicates
> * better for close reading

This is an unfounded assumption. Where is a reasoned assertion that it
is "better"? By whom? How much credence can be safely given to the
assertion.

> * accessibility links still available for scanning/skipping
> Cons:
> * need to scroll down for navigation
> * not everybody knows about accessibility links

Not germane. We can't design while giving ignorance too much
consideration.

><snip>

> An advanced alternative would be to use #2 and use Javascript to add the
> top navigational links back in. This would have no negative impact for
> anybody, except the very small minority which surfs without javascript.

What about those that are not "surfing"? Are they a consideration?

-- 
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Bill Maltby
lfsbillATearthlinkDOTnet
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list