>>6
You have no idea what the hell you're babbling about. We communicate with letters, sure, but not with pictures of letters. We communicate with a standard method that makes no assumptions about how it will be perceived by the recipient--be it on a computer display, a text-to-speech engine, or a braille terminal.
Of course there is some data that can only legitimately be conveyed through visual means, things like graphs, photographs, illustrations, but proper accessibility practice still requires that an alternative description be provided whenever it's feasible.
Anyway, whether
>>1 wishes to convey mostly textual information or mostly pictures, that makes no difference. It is wrong to use CSS to rob the users of the ability to have the information displayed in ways that are meaningful to them.
Just because you think yourself a ``designer'' does not mean I wish to see your information displayed in all the colors of the rainbow and typeset in Comic Sans.
Do you even realize how many people depend on tools like Opera's "User Mode", or Readability <
http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>; (a very crude Javascript technique) to undo all the damage you ``visual people'' have done to the web?