- From: Davey Leslie <davey@inx-jp.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:38:52 +0900
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Thus spake Kynn Bartlett on 00.12.18 3:28 AM at kynn@idyllmtn.com: > Web designers who make inaccessible web pages do _not_ lack "fundamental > humanity". They do _not_ lack intellect. They do _not_ lack > maturity. > > At worst, they are ignorant of certain issues Kynn, I think you've misconstrued what I wrote. I didn't say that people who make inaccessible websites lack fundamental humanity. I said: "...best design therefore would be the simplest: feather-light and nearly transparent. But working like this requires an intelligence, maturity and a fundamental humanity that will never turn a young web designer into a rock star." I have great respect for the Richard Saul Wurmans and Peter Bradfords of our time. I'd even go so far as to say their work embodies intelligence, maturity, and humanity. I'll go farther: these qualities are necessary ingredients of good design. And even farther: the work resulting from such qualities ennobles all who come in contact with it. But do they lead to wealth and fame? Are they the watchwords of the design community? Will they land a young designer a big commission? It doesn't seem so. And I'm clearly not alone in my assessment: "...Today the emphasis on style over content in much of what is alleged to be graphic design and communication is, at best puzzling. Order out of chaos is not the order of the day. The deluge of design that colors our lives, our print, and our video screens is in harmony with the spirit of our time. No less than drugs and pollution, the big brush of graffiti, for example, has been blanketing our cities from Basel to Brooklyn. Much of graphic design is a grim reminder of this presence...a collage of chaos and confusion, swaying between high tech and low art, and wrapped in a cloak of arrogance: squiggles, pixels, doodles, dingbats, ziggurats, and aimlessly sprinkled liliputian squares; turquoise, peach, pea green, and lavender; corny woodcuts on moody browns and russets; art deco rip-offs, high-gloss finishes, sleazy textures; halos and airbrush effects; tiny color photos surrounded by acres of white space; indecipherable, zany typography; tiny type with miles of leading; text in all cap (despite indisputatble proof that lowercase letters are more readable, less formal, and friendlier); ubiquitus letterspacing; visually annotated typography; revivalist caps and small caps; psuedo Dada and Futurist collages; and whatever "special effects" a computer makes possible. These inspired decorations are, apparently, convenient stand-ins for real ideas and genuine skills." --Paul Rand Design, Form, and Chaos Let me reassert my point: what separates good design from bad design (web or otherwise) includes the qualities of intelligence, maturity, and humanity. I would never say that designers are the enemy; I will say that bad design is everyone's enemy. It cheapens and confuses and distracts. It has enormous political and even spiritual consequences. Is someone who makes his way in the world by cheapening, confusing and distracting guilty of some moral failing? In general, I would say yes. A separate question, though, is what to do about it when Rand's Inspired Decorations disenfranchise a segment of the community. Perhaps ignorance requires education while callousness requires enforcement. In general, I would say yes. Your Pal, Davey Leslie -- davey@inx-jp.org The New Economy: "Rootless men making existentially disinterested decisions about companies without distinct character whose unknown workers produce intrinsically meaningless products." --Peter Chojnowski
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2000 21:37:20 UTC