|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/23/05 07:54
> From: Michael Winter <m.winter@blueyonder.co.uk>
> On 22/10/2005 02:44, dorayme wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> So the output - the output, what the average punter sees and
>> uses on and from his screen - is awful, is it?
>
> So, you want to determine quality based solely on how a section of the
> potential audience might see a document? That would seem to be quite a
> restricted view of 'quality'. It seems to me that software that has the
> purpose of generating HTML and CSS should be able perform that task
> adequately.
>
> As for your question: awful? No, not quite, but it is bad. The text is
> too small to be comfortable, and there's low contrast between text and
> background images.
>
> If we move away from the norm and impose a minimum font size (I use a
> very reasonable 12px), the numerous 'overflow: hidden' declarations
> cause some of the text to be hidden. Obviously, this only gets worse at
> larger font sizes. If I look at the site using Opera with its text
> browser emulation mode, it is unusable.
>
>> So the rest of us mugs can benefit from your private little tête
>> à tête here...
>
> Private? I asked an open question. We know that any WYSIWYG program
> /can/ produce rubbish if left to its own devices, but they don't always
> have to. It can depend on the user of that program and whether that is
> the case here was the subject of my question.
>
>> (We are not talking source code here, boys...)
>
> You might not be, but I was.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> Michael Winter
> Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Michael, I agree with much of what you say. I know it was not
private! Just stirring you a bit to make you reveal further
information so that I can know more and be in a stronger
position when it comes time for me to take over the leadership
of the world... and you have further added informatively to the
thread.
As I said in another post, it looked not too bad at one font
size but really terrible at others, a sign to me that the wsiwig
probably needed an operator to heed some classic advice of
/knowing/ how to do without one at the very least...
I think there is a little issue, but it is not very pressing;
about you saying "So, you want to determine quality based solely
on how a section of the potential audience might see a
document?" I did not at all mean "soley" and I don't think the
average punter is just any old "section of the potential
audience".
Cheers anyway...
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|