Re: distraction: bane or content?

At 06:26 AM 3/12/2001 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Marja-Riitta Koivunen wrote:
>
>   Should we then have one of these also for all Gestalt and visual perception
>   related laws, such as, don't rely on proximity/texture/size/shape alone to
>   point out similarities/differencies? Don't rely on good continuation or
>   closure alone.
>
>CMN In theory. I think in practice that's a lot of what we are saying, but in
>different words.
>
>MRK [snip]
>   Authors could provide enough semantic information so that users don't have
>   to rely on visual presentation. And when they do provide the semantics it
>   also becomes easier to change the presentation with stylesheets.
>
>CMN This  is the basic key. (And is something we say in more or less those
>words already).

But we don't say anything about how to use class names, or do we now? That 
would be one thing helping to change the stylesheets when needed.


>cheers
>
>Chaals

Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 09:42:39 UTC