Responding to J.O. Aho...
> sk8r-365 wrote:
>> Thus spake Mike:
>>> Responding to Luigi Dal Monte...
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> http://kianuel.myminicity.com
>>>>
>>> Tried looking using Dillo, just got "This site needs javascript".
>>>
>>> Therefore, site broken.
>>
>> <chuckling>
>>
>>> Not a good start.
>>
>> I just hate a "requirement" for a site to "be accessible" based on
>> something as unneeded as Java and any other "whiz bang!" effects.
>> Whatever happened to consideration of text-only or simple (X)HTML
>> optioned Web sites? What I mean is what happened to Web sites which
>> were written to offer a choice?
>
> I remember when I begun to surf around on the net, then it was quite plane
> sites, just text and some images when needed. No need to register on sites to
> get access to everything they had, no rich organizations hunting poor people
> who shared files. It was the time of the free internet, not spam free but not
> more in a year than you get in a day today. Suddenly something bad happen,
> someone invented frames...
>

As I recall, the fundamental idea behind HTML was that contents was
offered with tags for formatting, and that the end user would render
that formating according to their needs.

Then came the advertisers, and suddenly the web is flooded with
people who expect everything to be done for them. Then that becomes
mandatory rather than optional.

One needs to draw a line in the sand with this kind of thing, and
decide for oneself if a site is broken, not wait for some browser or
"webmaster" to decide for you.

As I said, that site is broken. ;\


"Best viewed in" = Broken web page generator, and so on. A simple
Email to the site admin each time someone hits their supa-doopa
(broken) page design, should give them a clue. Keep fixing things at
the user end, and they just see that as encouragement... >:(

--
\===* www.jonestheweb.myby.co.uk *===/
)8 Data-Pimped by your ISP yet? 8(
(For clues, search "anti phorm")