|
|
Posted by mrcakey on 01/23/08 18:00
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5vpatlF1n81aoU1@mid.individual.net...
> mrcakey wrote:
>>
>> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
>> issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
>> disagree.
>>
>> My own two cents:
>>
>> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
>> user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while
>> it's appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to
>> work on the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct
>> from design). These people know what they're doing - there are
>> combinations of white space and visual elements that work and
>> combinations that don't. It's wrong to castigate these people for
>> wanting a site laid out the way they specify.
>
> People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
> company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
> combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
> It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
> way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using real-world
> building materials, and even if it would result in a structure that would
> be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for the purpose for which
> it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very short period of time.
Really not the same thing is it?
+mrcakey
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|