W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > September 2005

Your Site Layout

From: Adam <abs@inco-soft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:07:07 -0500
Message-ID: <000301c5bf51$2c79c080$1402050a@mexp>
To: <site-comments@w3.org>




Hello there,
I'm a programmer/graphic designer and I noticed that you're site is 
(although compliant), is also very very boring.
I found this quite amusing as it made me ponder over something. The rules 
that we as programmers are having to adhere to make us design sites
that are becoming plain and boring. Is it fair on someone who doesn't have a 
disability in sight/hearing etc to have to view these ugly sites when they 
could be viewing something beautiful?

In some ways, isn't it unfair on those who should be able to see wonderful 
designs as they have to view these really ugly sites?
I'm worried that all websites are going to end up looking the same. 
Individuality will rely on a background and foreground colour.

Second comment,
You changed the CSS validator yesterday and now it shows up a billion more 
warnings. The one that really stood out to me and ALOT of other programmers 
(from forums ive been visiting) is that, the "no background-color with 
colour" and vice versa warning makes no sense.

Why should we have to specify a background colour for a link on EVERY colour 
we specifiy?.

Take this instance...
I have a white link. It's on a blue background. I also apply a slightly 
shaded background image (similar to the plain blue but just adds something 
pretty). Now its all fine, the link is still readable... BUT because I've 
had to set the link colour to white because its on a blue background.. I 
then have to set ITS background to be blue too. This means that theres a 
blue square around it that goes over the shaded blue background I created to 
make the thing look pretty, rather than ugly.  Now what I've done isn't 
wrong and its still accessible. BUT the warnins that you get make it look 
like the site failed.  Anyone coming to visit it and checking it will think 
its not working when actually it is....  Your warning system doesnt make it 
clear enough that they are guidelines and not necessarily anything wrong 
with the website.

The other warning about a class in one instance having the same colour text 
as a background in a completely different class is absolute madness. You 
shouldnt be comparing classes to other classes. The fact that they are 
different classes makes them seperate entities. You cant compare one with 
the other. It's like saying that the class Motorbike is wrong because it 
only has 2 wheels where class Car has 4. Its irrelevance, they are different 
entities and cant be compared.


I think you're making things TOO strict for general programmers. I've tried 
my best to follow W3C and have done for over  a year. But now, with so many 
warning and rules I'm starting to wonder why I bother. Its like you're 
trying to make my site look like your own. And frankly, your's is ugly and 
boring and as a designer, I don't want that.

What ever happened to making things look nice for those who can appreciate 
it?
It's like saying.. lets not have a rainbow anymore. Its got colours that 
disabled people cant see. In that case, everyone can see it as black because 
it means everyone can see it. You're rules mean that people who CAN see the 
rainbow are discriminated against to suite a smaller minority.

Ever looked at it that way??


Look forward to a reply,
Wasnt sure who to send this to.
Hope you can forward it to the relevant people.



Thanks!!


Kind Regards,


Adam
(Ignore my email address, I'm writing on behalf of myself, not my company)
Received on Friday, 23 September 2005 13:09:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:29 GMT