W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2007

Re: W3C CSS Home Redesign RFC

From: Jason CranfordTeague <jason@brighteyemedia.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:12:42 -0500
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C7AB1511-12D5-42A8-A10B-E033BB0B6794@brighteyemedia.com>
To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
I think the confusion is coming over what "pretty" means and—short of  
getting into a discussion as to whether truth is beauty and beauty is  
truth—my basic contention is that usable design can be attractive and  
(in fact) has to be attractive or people will not actually use it no  
matter how many usability rules the designer followed.

I plan to make something attractive that is accessible, navigable,  
consistent, coherent, intuitive, but expect (and look for) this group  
to hold my feet to the fire.



JASON CRANFORD TEAGUE | BrightEye Media
* jason@brighteyemedia.com |  www.brighteyemedia.com


On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:

>
>
>
> Jason CranfordTeague wrote:
>
>> As for making it "pretty" a low priority over making it "usable",  
>> in my a opinion usable has to be "pretty".
>
> Can you explain that ?  I would have thought that in order
> to be usable, a site has to be accessible; if it's pretty
> as well, that's a bonus (for sighted users) but in the
> greater scheme of things, I'd look for "accessible",
> "navigable", "consistent", "coherent", "intuitive" and any
> one of a half-dozen or so similar concepts before "pretty".
>
> Philip TAYLOR
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 16:13:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT