Posted by the red dot on 02/18/07 01:04

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-2F92D3.14082517022007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <0001HW.C1FBC15C004B50D1B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > A further aside, in the your example you provide a highlight border
around
> > the miniature under the cursor. I got screamed at several months ago for
> > doing the same thing. If I recall correctly the comment was that having
the
> > cursor change to a finger was sufficient and that the hightlight was
> > distracting. To be honest, I like the highlight.
>
> If you like it, put it back in. You could make the highlight
> color black, you could even style the border, so that then it
> looks nice as one fingers the lovely things (it is part of a
> tradition in B & W to often black border photographs). This then
> makes one thing do two. Highlight and border it nicely. To simply
> let it higlight in thin red is just plain silly imo, no matter
> how priests go on about accessibility and uniformity and known
> practice. Who the hell would not know that these are thumbnails
> in your context. I will tell you who, Mr. and Mrs. Nobody, that's
> who. So make it count for something more than almost useless.
>
are we always to produce websites for the lowest common denominator, are we
always to assume web users are idiots, is it wrong to assume that web users
have some sort of web surfing experience, if so is it wrong (for example) to
use words in the content that idiots would not understand or to produce
something that may be beyond the thought processes of an imbecile?

[Back to original message]