Posted by dorayme on 10/19/90 12:01

In article
<479d5742$0$9730$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:

>
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-F70554.14321028012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article
> > <479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:
> >

> >> 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.
> >
>
> Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential part
> of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the message.
>

If it is an intrinsic part of the product, what distinguishes it
from the engineering of the product? Some folk here have been
trying, as far as I can see, to put space between function and
art and I have been intent on criticising this space and reducing
it. Your comment that design features amount to functional
features puzzle me or simply seem to me to concede the point that
there is no space worth talking about. But I may be
misunderstanding you?


> > 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.
> >
>
> Then we seem to agree.


Well, ok. perhaps you and I can be happy then about it at this
point.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]