- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:40:28 -0700
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, "WAI \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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