|
|
Posted by asdf on 06/08/07 12:01
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-F70554.14321028012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article
> <479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
>> > are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
>> > needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
>> > pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
>> > interested in the substantial things in an informational or
>> > teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
>> > with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
>> >
>>
>> Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
>> websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
>> that are trying too hard to impress. ...
>
>> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that
>> the
>> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,
>
> I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
> talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
> design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
> of paint in the dunny.
>
Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential part
of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the message.
> Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
> could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
> left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
> it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
> does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.
>
Then we seem to agree. What is your argument?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|