Posted by mrcakey on 09/21/07 12:09

"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:XlMIi.320$H22.163@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "windandwaves" <nfrancken@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190339758.702611.130360@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Hi Richard
>
> Forgot to mention...
>
> All of that white space and odd looking lines for so little actual
> content. Apart from the staff pages you could fit *all* of the content
> into one page.
>
> When I look for stuff on the web I look for content. That is, words on my
> screen. I don't look for "artistic" lines all over the place.
>
> I also look for words that adjust themselves to the size of my browser
> canvas, but we have addressed this before and I know you won't do such
> things.
>
> --
> Richard.

Maybe you could pay him to design another version of the site just to
satisfy your own predilections and leave his perfectly useable, valid and
aesthetically pleasing site - designed the way he and his client want it -
for the rest of us.

It's always unsatisfactory to be at odds with a group of experts. It
usually means you're wrong. Maybe I am. But it seems that there is a
hegemony of thought that dictates the user knows best always. I'm sorry,
but a lot of users are very naive. For those that aren't, there are a
variety of options for rendering pages according to your own taste. Use
them.

Why is it that structured design in a visual presentation medium is
pilloried so? White space "looks nice". Whether you're selling services or
peddling content, there is no sin in presenting your web page the way you
want it to be presented. If it's accessible, valid, readable, logical and
degrades well when styling is unavailable, then I can't see the problem.

+mrcakey

[Back to original message]