|
|
Posted by dorayme on 11/07/07 23:44
In article <f5o905-156.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-11-07, dorayme wrote:
> >
> >
> > In article <654905-753.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
> > "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-11-07, Ed Jensen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm not trying to start a "table based layouts" vs. "CSS based
> >> > layouts" war here, I'm just sharing my personal experience: Web sites
> >> > designed with table based layouts seem to handle it reasonably well
> >> > when I increase the text size. Web sites designed with CSS based
> >> > layouts seem to rarely handle it gracefully. YMMV.
> >>
> >> That is not a function of tables versus CSS; it's a matter of good
> >> coding versus bad coding.
> >
> > Perhaps so. But Ed Jensen has another complaint that has been
> > partly dealt with but is probably interesting enough to deserve
> > more. Namely, that the tools used to do the good and bad coding
> > are unnecessarily as poor as they are.
>
> They are no worse than, for example, a car, which one can use for
> speeding and ignoring rules of the road just as easily as for
> driving sensibly.
If this analogy was even remotely apt, there would be far more
accidents on the road than there are. In fact, what strikes one,
in so many countries, is that things are as orderly as they are,
that drivers are, by and large as predictable and sensible as
they are. There are reasons for this and none of them apply to
the world wild west of websites.
The truth is that it is not easy to make really good websites and
if you think it is, you are talking from the advantage of having
mastered sufficient skills to achieve simplicity and competence
in design.
The problem of why there are so many bad websites is a
complicated problem. It is not because the tools are so poorly
designed, nor because it is so unregulated nor a lot of other
things. It is a combination of many things.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|