Rob Church wrote:
On 17/09/2007, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
I do not understand your urge. If a site feature
like images, which is
widely considered essential and expected to work, ceases to work, that
alone is a very good reason to have something about it in the sitenotice.
I get the impression that what Greg objects to is the (well-meaning,
but incorrect) reversion of the sitenotice back to a misleading state,
or including information about purging images which the readers should
not need to deal with.
You are right that readers should not need to deal with purging images.
That is why images need to be kept working normally. Given that they
were not working normally, and purging was the only means to bring up
some of them, it makes sense to help clueless readers in this direction
for the duration of the failure.
Personally, I would disagree that images should be
considered so
important on most web sites, but then, I'm one of those crazies who
believes in accessible documents, and not disadvantaging the blind,
partially-sighted and otherwise impaired.
This is the kind of attitude that could make me want to stab people.
Just because blind people exist, we are all supposed to pretend to be
blind. It is somehow no longer legitimate to want to bring up a list of
country flags in order to find one I saw elsewhere, just because a blind
person wouldn't be able to do that because they're blind, which I'm not.
Timwi