Quote:
>The user can try it and use, however long they want, and pay not a single dime.
...and how much does it cost to use IE?
Nothing - and that's the thing. Why use something that costs? If you mentioned, try X, it's much better, but it costs Y. The user probably is not going to change, yes? But as long as it's free, it's more accessible to try and use. Pay for something you might not like? I'd rather not and I'm sure many others agree - so being free elememinates that problem.
Quote:
Using tables for layout is highly unpleasant and is not permitted for a DDA-(Disability Discrimination Act)compliant page as it interferes with screen readers and other accessibility tools.
>So far as I see it, you're throwing away a lot of good functionality to make it compatible with IE.
Using tables for layout? Css-effects? This is what constitutes 'good functionality'?
Yes, users like pretty pages. This is what graphic designers, flash (if you really like that sort of thing) and javascript for dynamic content are for. Plus, these options will mostly work across the board. Why limit yourself?
Indeed, and how to make compatible pages when the CSS won't work across the board because of IE's lacking functionality?