- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:01:34 -0500
- To: mudws@mail.olemiss.edu
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
From: Warren Steel <mudws@mail.olemiss.edu> | This is an odd point of view for a web author. Graphic designers | use font styles, colors, and extreme sizes in print advertisements. | If the reader finds them ugly, or illegible (nearsighted, colorblind), | then the advertiser has lost a customer. The World Wide Web, and | hypertext markup, provide a unique solution to the problem of user | needs and preferences. ... --- Everything Warren says is true. I remain unconvinced that the shortcomings of some delivery vehicles or the disadvantages of some individual readers should be allowed to dictate least-common-denominator presentation for all authors. When I write, I'm allowed to decide whether my readers are going to find the intended connotations when I choose between "self-made," "soi-disant," and "sui generis;" I should have equivalent visual discretion. I may value style over legibility - it may be more important to me that my material look right to those who *can* see it as intended than that it look minimally acceptable to everyone. I should be allowed to make that choice. I am, of course, free to make that choice by storing my pages as images or in PDF, but I don't see why I should have to give up searchability. Remember, too, that many of us write pages for bounded audiences, whose viewing technology is known. Just as it may reasonable for me to assume my audience has adequate support for tables, it may be reasonable for me to assume that they have a specified font available. Stylesheets are clearly a better answer, but until they are widely available, I would prefer to see FONT behave in a predictable (i.e., standardized) manner. scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 1996 11:01:54 UTC