|
|
Posted by mrcakey on 09/24/07 10:57
"mrcakey" <nospam@spamispoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd0c93$v8n$1@aioe.org...
> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:XlMIi.320$H22.163@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "windandwaves" <nfrancken@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1190339758.702611.130360@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Hi Richard
>>
>> Forgot to mention...
>>
>> All of that white space and odd looking lines for so little actual
>> content. Apart from the staff pages you could fit *all* of the content
>> into one page.
>>
>> When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
>> screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.
>>
>> I also look for words that adjust themselves to the size of my browser
>> canvas, but we have addressed this before and I know you won't do such
>> things.
>>
>> --
>> Richard.
>
> Maybe you could pay him to design another version of the site just to
> satisfy your own predilections and leave his perfectly useable, valid and
> aesthetically pleasing site - designed the way he and his client want it -
> for the rest of us.
>
> It's always unsatisfactory to be at odds with a group of experts. It
> usually means you're wrong. Maybe I am. But it seems that there is a
> hegemony of thought that dictates the user knows best always. I'm sorry,
> but a lot of users are very naive. For those that aren't, there are a
> variety of options for rendering pages according to your own taste. Use
> them.
>
> Why is it that structured design in a visual presentation medium is
> pilloried so? White space "looks nice". Whether you're selling services
> or peddling content, there is no sin in presenting your web page the way
> you want it to be presented. If it's accessible, valid, readable, logical
> and degrades well when styling is unavailable, then I can't see the
> problem.
>
> +mrcakey
Yes I agree. Good points, well made.
+mrcakey
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|