Posted by dorayme on 10/11/30 12:01

In article
<479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:

> >
> > Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
> > are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
> > needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
> > pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
> > interested in the substantial things in an informational or
> > teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
> > with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
> >
>
> Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
> websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
> that are trying too hard to impress. ...

> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that the
> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,

I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
of paint in the dunny.

Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]