W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: Good Design using Relatively simple HTML

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:54:23 -0400
Message-ID: <AF196F44735ED411B93A00508BDFB1080E42E1@WDCROBEXC09>
To: "'Ben Morris'" <bmorris@activematter.com>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Neither of the sites you mention (despite being fairly text oriented) scale
properly.  The author mixes deprecated font tags in with the CSS.  I haven't
looked closely, but I suspect they were just going for fairly trivial
effects.  They've pretty much defeated the utility of style sheets by not
fully embracing the technology.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Ben Morris
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:16 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Good Design using Relatively simple HTML
> 
> 
> I have come across a couple good sites that use relatively 
> simple html to
> make an attractive design.  I realize that both of these sites have
> accessibility hurdles, but I am pointing out only the visual 
> design of the
> page.
> 
> www.fidelity.com - I think that this site looks great, with 
> only about 3
> graphical images which are used where text cannot do the job. 
>  The DHTML
> could be troublesome for some, and of course frames aren't 
> ideal (but I am
> speaking only of the look and feel, not the total package).
> 
> www.schwab.com - This site uses simple text for links, but 
> without the heavy
> DHTML and frames found at fidelity.
> 
> 
> Both of these sites have drawbacks, but they are still good 
> examples of
> achieving an attractive visual design with minimal graphics.  
> Neither site
> allows re-sizing the text, but that could be worked into the design.
> 
> I will say as a designer/developer that text with CSS is not a true
> substitute for graphics as text, but design can look good and 
> professional
> without graphics as text.
> 
> 
>  - Ben Morris
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 08:54:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:50 GMT