|
|
Posted by Travis Newbury on 05/28/05 15:35
dorayme wrote:
> oops, a typo, I meant "fat" ('chew the fat' is an expression for throwing
> ideas back and forth, talking... I expect it is more than an Australian
> expression. The typo conveyed the wrong impression. Sorry)
Ah this brings up a perfect example. I knew what you meant. Everyone
that read the post knew what you meant. But how many times do you see
people rip others apart by by misrepresenting what we all know they
mean? Or more often seen, misrepresenting ones post to mean the extreme.
> Well, it is a complex matter. It is a bit unfair to caricature the
views of
> many here as 'one size fits all'. First, there are quite a range of
> different views. From the rigid and silly to the more mature advocacy of
> high standards.
Yes, but you have to agree that the general mood of the "experts" in the
group leans towards one size must fit all.
> Take Flash. Mostly I think, many people here take a sensible stance that
> Flash is fine where it adds to the site in a way no other more assessable
> method will and where people who cannot or do not use Flash are
catered for
> in some alternative way where it is important that they be catered for.
The problem is what "adds to the site" means is in the eyes of the
beholder. What I believe constitutes "adds to the site" is probably
completely different from what Jukka (no offense Jukka) believes it
means. And what if the content "is" Flash?
We should probably rename this thread to something like "flame-free web
philosophies"
--
-=tn=-
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|