- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:54:23 -0400
- To: "'Ben Morris'" <bmorris@activematter.com>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Neither of the sites you mention (despite being fairly text oriented) scale properly. The author mixes deprecated font tags in with the CSS. I haven't looked closely, but I suspect they were just going for fairly trivial effects. They've pretty much defeated the utility of style sheets by not fully embracing the technology. > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Ben Morris > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:16 PM > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: Good Design using Relatively simple HTML > > > I have come across a couple good sites that use relatively > simple html to > make an attractive design. I realize that both of these sites have > accessibility hurdles, but I am pointing out only the visual > design of the > page. > > www.fidelity.com - I think that this site looks great, with > only about 3 > graphical images which are used where text cannot do the job. > The DHTML > could be troublesome for some, and of course frames aren't > ideal (but I am > speaking only of the look and feel, not the total package). > > www.schwab.com - This site uses simple text for links, but > without the heavy > DHTML and frames found at fidelity. > > > Both of these sites have drawbacks, but they are still good > examples of > achieving an attractive visual design with minimal graphics. > Neither site > allows re-sizing the text, but that could be worked into the design. > > I will say as a designer/developer that text with CSS is not a true > substitute for graphics as text, but design can look good and > professional > without graphics as text. > > > - Ben Morris
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 08:54:59 UTC