|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/02/09 12:01
asdf wrote:
> "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.
How is the message differing from page to page to page on all the
variously pages at www.csszengarden.com?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|