|
|
Posted by Joel Shepherd on 10/06/15 11:56
In article <7M4Hg.10234$NY2.4232@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
"Wrm" <nomailstodragon@north.invalid> wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> kirjoitti
> viestiss:doraymeRidThis-99ABD8.08002024082006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well, well! I don't suppose you would care to give me a URL to
> > this; to save a lazy martian trouble?
>
> Might be about this
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/browse_frm/
> thread/7827161e86a522e6/3f013af1c59adfda?#3f013af1c59adfda
> but as you read it you might realize that what was claimed to be said and
> what Spartanicus said is kinda different ;)
Regrettably, much of that thread seems to have failed to have made it to
my server at all. Hmph.
So the claim is that a "UI bar" is not a footer, based on some
definition requiring it to be a line of text? Seems rather arbitrary to
me, particularly without a clear understanding of what a "UI bar" is. Is
a line containing links like "Home", "Search", "Site Map" and "Contact
Us" at the bottom of the page a footer, or a "UI bar"? Does the browser
matter as part of that definition (e.g., shiney buttons in Opera, plain
ol' text in Lynx)?
The definition of what _isn't_ a footer seems quite hazy, and not
terribly intuitive.
I know, you aren't Spartanicus and I don't hold you responsible for his
confusion, but at the same time it seems that the definition given for
what a footer is is directly contradicted by his example of what a
footer isn't.
--
Joel.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|