|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/06/98 11:17
> From: Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com>
>
> Mark Parnell wrote:
>> No offence, but isn't that exactly what you are doing? Claiming that
>> people are saying that every site must fit this "one size fits all"
>> category, when in most cases, if not all, that is not what they are
>> actually saying.
>
> No I am saying the general "feel" of the group is one size fits all.
> And I don't say that is wrong, only that I personally don't like it. I
> personally like fun, color, pizazz, "the wow factor" movement, And I
> completely understand I (because of PC) am on the losing side of that
> argument. I see the web I like going away and being replaced with what
> "I consider" a bland politically correct piece of vanilla paper...
>
> Obviously some see that as a good thing.
OK. Lets forget the exact business of working out the meaning and status of
your idea of "one size fits all" and see your view as a challenge to show
that separating style from content, not using tables except for tabular
data, generally keeping away from frames and not well supported stuff like
internal scroll bars, judicious use of fixed widths etc etc etc can and do
result in good and interesting and useful websites some or many of which are
fun, colourful, have real style and so on.
But you are not allowed to say that because a site contains Flash and gifs
and pics of all sorts that this does not count. Because as far as I can see,
not too many are saying you should not use these things, rather that there
should be fallbacks for people who want to get at the info and bypass all
the fun...
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|