On 17/09/2007, Timwi timwi@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. Also, the appearance of the sitenotice indicated that someone knew about, and was dealing with, the problem, whereas this was not the case at all.
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.
Rob Church