[Web4lib] Web technologies and public access

[Richard Wiggins]

Karen,

With all due respect (and much is due) --

You said you found less credence in a Web site because it was so 1995.

I know exactly what you mean.  I get it.  Some sites just so exude, well,
1995.  But that is the presentation.  It is not the words.  It is not the
meaning.  The words are what they say.  Hemingway does not differ in
paperback.

Your thesis worries me.  Wisdom does not exist per se in Web design.  Clever
design may exhibit wisdom, but words are words.  Design and text may marry
-- but the text matters.

You can have CSS Zen Garden display Shakespeare in thousands of forms and
shapes.  It's still the same words.  The words do not alter if they
alteration find.

The whole POINT of the Web is that content is what it is, and we can present
it in many ways.  But the words don't change.  The words are not better, nor
are they worse, on the best paper, in the best design, surrounded by the
best graphics.  Words are not inferior in a 1995 design nor are they better
in a 2008 design.  They are words.  They are thoughts.  Yes, it is more
pleasing if they are presented in an appealing way, but the words are the
words.  They are to be appraised as thoughts, not images.

Again, I reject the idea that you find someone's words less meaningful
because you don't find the presentation pretty.  It is not about the
parchment nor the font.

If anything, teach the youth of 2008 to read the words.  Again, with all due
respect, yes, let's aspire to higher aesthetics, but let's realize and
convey that it is the words that matter.

/rich

On Feb 4, 2008 2:37 PM, K.G. Schneider <kgs at bluehighways.com> wrote:

> Rich, if design were an issue, my blog wouldn't have any readers. But
> that aside, while I too focus on content and have loved many an ugly
> book, it's not a question of our tolerance level--it's about what users
> want, as well as the image we're projecting.
>
> Karen G. Schneider
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:22:01 -0500, "Richard Wiggins"
> <richard.wiggins at gmail.com> said:
> > On Feb 4, 2008 2:21 PM, Richard Wiggins <richard.wiggins at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sigh,
> > >
> > > I should've used Martin Luther King and CSS.
> > >
> > > Karen, I appreciate when a Web site uses a clever or appealing design.
>  I
> > > appreciate a good aesthetic.  I try very hard not to judge the words
> by the
> > > font.
> > >
> > > /rich
> > >
> > >   On Feb 4, 2008 2:00 PM, K.G. Schneider <kgs at bluehighways.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I reject the notion that a particular Web site needs to keep up
> with
> > > > > fashion
> > > > > or hew to a particular style.  I don't care if a given Web site
> looks
> > > > > like
> > > > > it was designed on an Underwood typewriter if the words ring true.
> > > >  Sure,
> > > > > you appreciate savvy design, but wise words are wise words.  I
> doubt
> > > > > Gandhi
> > > > > would be doing PowerPoint if he were alive today.
> > > >
> > > > Um... did you really put PowerPoint and usability in the same
> paragraph?
> > > > ;)
> > > >
> > > > I most emphatically embrace the notion that a website "needs to keep
> up
> > > > with fashion." Aesthetics matter; so does emotional content. The
> design
> > > > is part of the message. We want people to enjoy our websites -- to
> > > > linger on them and to feel better about us because of them.  (And
> > > > because you're a good guy I know you won't translate that to "Karen
> > > > hates usability and thinks websites should be built with Flash.")
> > > >
> > > > Also, in terms of Nielsen's site, his site wasn't just ugly (imho,
> still
> > > > is), but for a very long time, it was hard to read. You shouldn't
> have
> > > > to move your head to read the text on a webpage, or squint your way
> > > > through long undifferentiated paragraphs in a san serif font.  If
> you
> > > > want to be an authority on something, then walk the walk. I know,
> it's
> > > > scandalous cuz he's been the Man when it comes to usability, but I
> am
> > > > not alone in this opinion (and in fact I came to that opinion All By
> > > > Myself and was quite relieved to find out just how not-alone I
> was...
> > > > and how LONG I've not been alone!).
> > > >
> > > > To the extent that there's an unfortunate gulf between graphic
> designers
> > > > and usability experts, Nielsen has not helped close that gap.
> > > >
> > > > This does not mean that Nielsen hasn't contributed a lot to the web
> > > > world or that he won't continue to do so. But you either believe
> > > > aesthetics are part of functionality, or you don't. I do.
> > > >
> > > > K.G. Schneider
> > > > kgs at freerangelibrarian.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >  Web4lib mailing list
> > > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>