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

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 UTC