W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: Brain dump on advantages and disadvantages of different types of content

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:40:28 -0700
Message-Id: <a05001904b5f680dbecdc@[207.218.50.171]>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, "WAI \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 5:45 AM -0700 9/26/00, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 01:16 PM 9/26/00 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>>It also makes a site more boring
>
>I wish you hadn't said that <g>. "Boring" for some of us is the use 
>of effects whose impact decreases with time from "what's that?" to 
>"why's that?"

How about "a text-only site doesn't take into account what we
_know_ to be the advantages of good visual design"?

We have to be careful that we do not forget that visual design
_is_ a useful and enhancing endeavor.  When done correctly, the
content _is_ made easier to comprehend through good design.  If
we deny this then we are being less than honest.

The fact that there are many examples of _poor_ visual design
should not discount the fact that _good_ visual design has
numerous benefits for visually-oriented audiences.  If we dismiss
this too easily then we risk alienating anyone who does rightly
understand the benefits of visual design.

This, I think, is a better statement of the "boring" sentiment --
a visually uninteresting presentation _does_ detract from the
ability of visual users to experience the content.

--Kynn
-- 
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2000 12:45:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:06 GMT