|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 10/10/07 06:09
On Oct 10, 7:01 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> >> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> >> 3) Relates to #2. The damn page is just like an image of a piece of
> >> paper. That's the problem the web is not paper.
>
> > Says who? You? So, you are forcing YOUR limited view of what you think
> > the web should be on everyone else? I think finally we get to the heart
> > of the issue.
>
> Well aside of the numerous accessibility studies done about the web just
> casual observance of people using the web will show you. On the web
> people scroll up and down not sideways. Even novice web designers
> recognize this as they desperately try to center their content. We get
> numerous posts on this NG. They usually make the notorious 'Scroll of
> Death' sites often found on GeoCities or Tripod.
>
> The Web is not paper. Books are the size they are because for the font
> size the printer chooses with comfortable margins produces lines with
> the sweet-spot of 10 words per line. A newspaper is the maximum size
> that the average person can spread their arms to turn the page. Because
> the page is so wide with a newspaper the content is set in columns and
> the words per line average is nearly halved that of books to aid legibly
> with the poorer contrast and paper - printing quality. Design is
> influenced by the medium. But with paper the printer, artist,
> calligrapher has control of that canvas. The web designer does not. All
> they can do is disenfranchise some of their audience. You do not know
> whether or not your sites are viewed on 2.5 inch display of a cell
> phone, 540 pixel abortion of WebTV on an old TV, squeeze under 700
> pixels on an old 13 inch VGA monitor or many feet displayed on a wall
> with a projector. Or maybe no canvas at all! The Web is not paper, pain
> and simple. Paper has dimensions and the Web does not.
>
I doubt SpaceGirls visitors would be useing WebTV, or Dial-up for that
matter, they would all have broadband high graphics displays and Flash
and JS enabled.
> As an artist and with my graphical perspective with my first websites I
> approached web design like paper. My approach has evolved as the Web as
> evolved and as learned more about the Web from actually using it.
>
> Being accessible and flexible in web design does not necessarily equate
> to plain and boring. It does take creativity. Doing it in flash does
> make it creative either. There also is no one answer for all sites. You
> can try to control all aspects of the presentation of a site, but it
> comes at a price. The more your control the more you will limit
> accessibility.
>
It would be 1%! which is not much for the type of sites that SpaceGirl
works on, mainly Arts type sites.
> I am not against flash, any more than images or other media (well maybe
> background music!!!!). All have their place. What I am saying is that
> flash, at least at this state, is not a replacement for html.
>
I agree with this though.
BTW I can read the text on the main page of SpaceGirls site with my
screenreader, Jaws 5.0 (quite an old version mind you).
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|