Hi,
> sIFR does not break aural readers at all.
> It takes normal HTML and it pushes it into a flash movie (if flash is
> there) and shows it with the flash font.
So we can not count on an exact visual representation - only if flash player
is installed. What do we gain then? Is the flash player
x27;t care and would even
welcome it.
And it would certainly be great for developers.
Rick
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Glen Lipka
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 12:01 PM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: AW: [jQuery] Re: OT:
sIFR does not break aural readers at all.
It takes normal HTML and it pushes it into a flash movie (if flash is there)
and shows it with the flash font. Still selectable, copyable. The user
actually can not tell the difference at all. Screen readers read the html,
not the flash. Its unobtrusive
Hi,
> 1. Allow the publisher to determine which rendering engine to display the
> page in.
Exactly this is what I don't whant to see and I do think that I have good
reasons.
> Think about sIFR. It works because it's unobtrusive and relies on a plugin
> that everyone has.
Well, most people. H
Hi,
> > 1. The web has never been designed to give you exactly the
> > same results everywhere. It has been designed to give the
> > user the best possible access to the information independent
> > from his eventual disabilities. Use the tool as it is and
> > don't complain that your hammer is no
The main idea is:
1. Allow the publisher to determine which rendering engine to display the
page in.
2. Do it in an unobtrusive way so Google SEO is still happy and we are still
working with HTML, CSS and jQuery
3. Only need to develop 1 version of a page in the normal way (although
testing on mult
6 matches
Mail list logo
