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

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?" The alternate site isn't just more accessible, it's more usable 
without the visually boring clutter of re-arranging letters.

The most "annoying" part is that it's still too tedious to get into a 
position to use the part that reads the site aloud since it requires some 
techno-geek downloading/installing a plug-in that still isn't a part of 
many (most? any?) browsers.

The information in the site should be the "star of the show" and if I had 
need/interest in the contents I'm sure I could get them out. If I don't 
have that need then no presentational legerdemain will instill it. Only the 
author knows whether the presentation enhances the content or merely fills 
some otherwise unmet artistic bent. Despite McLuhan's contrary claim, the 
message is the message and the medium is but a messenger (whom we needn't 
kill because we don't like the message).

You are the one in this group who has some knowledge of and ability in 
deciding what works to the extent that it warrants notice/inclusion in the 
guidelines. If auto-re-arranging text has some merit beyond novelty then 
explain that (hopefully with studies to prove it's true) here and we'll 
take steps to include it in the guidelines. If any form of "enhancement" of 
content is important in the field you till then help us learn about that.


Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2000 08:47:23 UTC