Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics

>discriminatory aesthetic conversions
Do you mean "convention" rather than "conversion"?

David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902


GitHub <> <>

*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <>

> On 14/03/2017 21:09, Wayne Dick wrote:
> There are many discriminatory aesthetic conversions on the web, and in
>> its predecessor, print. Are small subscripts and superscripts useful or
>> necessary, or are they just conversion, habit? Publishers who wanted to
>> save paper probably found that books would sell just as well if
>> sub/super scripts were reduced in size. That probably saved paper by
>> enabling less line separation. Does this conversion really make sense on
>> a flexible medium like web content, or is it discriminatory habit?
> I would say that these sorts of elements also convey a visual sense of
> hierarchy / importance - de-emphasising certain ancilliary aspects (like
> references to a footnote) to make them less visually obtrusive when reading
> the actual text.
> I  think that the clear active elements SC addresses one of these
>> discriminatory aesthetics. When a super / sub script is a link it is
>> something completely different than anything that ever existed on paper.
>> It is a super script character and a link - a paper impossibility. Why
>> do we use paper conversions for this important extension of paper
>> capability? I think the answer is habit.
> Habit, which also means familiarity for users, who are likely acquainted
> with that particular convention from print and may therefore recognise its
> meaning even in a different / digital context.
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
> |
> |
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 13:48:24 UTC