- From: Brian Sexton <discussion-w3c@ididnotoptin.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:51:46 -0700
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
> There is a strong negative corelation between gimmickry on a web site and > the amount of information that you can obtain from that site. Not when it comes to advertising, which pays a lot of Web hosting bills. Advertising is largely about gimmicks and it lives in its own microcosm amidst content. On the other hand, custom-built navigation systems could be considered gimmicks. It all depends upon your personal perspective. > There may be exceptions, but they are rare. Not at all. See my note about advertising. > Generally sites willing to provide real information don't need gimmickry. a) The Web is not limited to information distribution (at least not in the human sense). b) The Web is not limited to meeting needs. > For me, sites with lots of gimmickry don't get a chance to prove their worth > unless they are the only possible source of information on a subject... That is certainly your choice to make. > ...because they are difficult to navigate and the attempt is likely to be wasted. Both assertions are doubtless true in some cases, but definitely not true in others. Did you follow that link to the definition of "fallacy"?
Received on Saturday, 3 July 2004 13:51:46 UTC