older, wiser and definitely better at html; i read my original html rationale and i can see the seeds were there. i still agree with this person who tapped out a text-only design while roaring drunk. it's not me, it's a person who existed a long time ago, if you'll allow the dissociation.
i suppose i no longer think we should cater to the lowest common denominator; but the fact remains we must have pages which degrade gracefully. It is entirely within our grasp to create a single document which will display the information in any web device. old browsers, new browsers, text-only browsers, screen readers - they can all see or hear the message. perhaps they'll see a slightly different design laid over the message, but they'll get the information.
standards-compliant, accessible pages are a worthy cause; one which you can fight for without having to devote your entire life to it. professional web developers should be doing it as a matter of course. certainly, we have abominations like Netscape 4.x and IE 5.00 to contend with; but given free reign and trust in our abilities, we can create in a manner which does not exclude.
so... what constitutes good web design?
this is the highbar. not every page is destined to clear it. but we should aim high. the web is a bright and shiny new medium, with teething problems and difficult teen hormones all at once. we are here, at the very beginning. print has been around for centuries; but the web barely claims multiple decades - for a mass communication medium that's very, very young.
we can make a difference.
2002.04.10
a bit of background - when i wrote the first rationale, i was a uni student who created web pages as a hobby. now i am a full time web developer.