Jeffrey Zeldman: It’s not just 4.0 browsers that make pure CSS layout a pain.
Generally I agree with Zeldman on this one (having received angry letters from IE 6 users myself). Personal web development can pretty much always use pure CSS layouts these days; commercial web development, not as much.
However, I must take issue with this sentence (emphasis added):
But the combination of simple tables, sophisticated CSS for modern browsers, and basic CSS for old ones has enabled us to produce marketable work that validates — work that is accessible in every sense of the word.
At the dual risk of either offending Zeldman or becoming a grammar nazi, I question this attempt to broaden the definition of accessibility. What purpose does this serve? Web sites that can be used by people with disabilities are accessible. Web sites that work in older browsers are not accessible; they are backward compatible. Web sites that are easy to navigate are not accessible; they are usable. Web sites that are easy for developers to program are not accessible; they are maintainable. Web sites that are a joy to read are not accessible; they are simply well-written. All of these things are important, but they are not accessibility.
Or maybe I’m just grumpy.
