|
|
Posted by dorayme on 08/14/07 21:17
In article <22o7p4-jes.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-08-14, dorayme wrote:
>
> > My claim is backed up by this: if you come across a simple and
> > elegant little bit of html that expresses a good looking and
> > useful page, you can almost bet your house that it is done by
> > someone who has quite a clue and got there by some good hard work
> > over time.
>
> I agree; but I disagree that it is a hard level to reach.
>
I am not saying anything mysterious, the point is essentially
about some hard work for average people whose ambition is not a
job in website making. It is harder work than many are prepared
to invest. No one is saying that it is as hard over a given
period as some other standard of competence in some other field.
Not me, at any rate. It is just that I very much doubt the
ability of anyone here to be able to objectively assess the
matter. You are all too biased and imbued with a tunnel clarity
that others simply cannot have until they have put in at least
some of the considerable time you lot have spent.
> > In any case, it is a highly artifical dispute unless we bring css
> > into the picture. And once again, what I am saying is multiplied
> > by an order or two of magnitude in truth then.
>
> Harder, yes, but nowhere near an order of magnitude difference.
> By keeping the code simple (both HTML and CSS), a lot can be
> achieved relatively easily. The biggest problem, expecially for
> CSS, is over-coding. Most pages would look (and scale) much
> better if chunks of the CSS were left out.
Well, it depends on the picture we are imagining. It can easily
be a mag as a multiplier. But more important, and my central
point, to see that a site does not need so much ridiculous over
coding with css comes as a hard lesson. It takes time and effort
to come to see this and it be a natural response.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|