Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics


Gregg C Vanderheiden

> On Mar 15, 2017, at 7:09 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <> wrote:
> 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 13:52:15 UTC