ARRGGGHHHH! I know i said I was going to diveouttathedebate but sometimes I just got to say something. Dave seems to think this Dogma 2000 site is touting a belief that runs contrary to using CSS. It doesn’t. In fact, it reinforces the need for CSS. Dave seems to believe that CSS is about applying asthetic design to HTML. It isn’t. It’ is about removing asthetic design from HTML pages. It’s about using HTML or XHTML to describe the structure of a document and leaving the asthetic design up to someone writing the CSS page. It’s about letting a writer write and an asthetic designer design and both of them being happy with the final product.
And not just the two of them being happy with the final product but also the consumer being happy with the final product. The consumer just wants to read the content. Yeah, a lot of them like the eye candy also but if the content isn’t worth reading, or is too difficult to read the eye candy won’t hold their attention long. The eye candy is even wasted on the vision impaired consumer and can cause a hurdle for that consumer that just isn’t worth overcoming.
A well structured document is the key to serving your content to all. Structure the document well, which “class” and “ID” will help you do, and it will be accessable to the world. Make the structure comply to asthetics and you put up road blocks for your consumer. CSS removes the asthetic design from the structure. CSS is Dogma 2000 friendly. Your survey needs to reflect that in its choices.