|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 09/28/05 20:56
With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
> > > But, right as it may be, I still think it makes for boring web pages.
> > How interesting is the page of a book? If the main idea is to present
> > content to the user, the packaging doesn't have to be extravagantly
> > spectacular.
>
> I completely agree that the main goal of a website is to get the
> content to the visitor. What we disagree on is what we consider
> content.
>
> You (seem to) consider content as "data or information" (not trying to
> put words into your mouth), and I have a wider vision of what "content"
> can be.
>
> I am guessing with the exception of the rarest case, you would never
> consider Flash to be content. I on the other hand consider almost any
> non navigational Flash to be content.
>
> We simply see it differently.
No, I understand that content can be the "fancy" stuff itself if one
wishes it so. What I say is that one can't render this type of
material, content or otherwise, reliably with fundamental html and css
alone, and attempts to do so are ill-advised. I think page authors
often try to do too many things with the basics that are really more
amenable to something like Flash or Java. Having 27 different absolute-
positioned containers and scrolling divs and hover-mouseovers and
iframes, etc., etc., etc., in a page is not conducive to providing a
reliably-functioning vehicle to the visitor.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|