[Web4lib] Web technologies and public access

[Dobbs, Aaron]

Sorry, this line got me:
"If anything, teach the youth of 2008 to read the words."

Sound familiar?:
If anything, teach the freshman how to use the library catalog.

Is there a connection between content and presentation? I vote yes.

Shakespeare in yellow on fuchsia is not Shakespeare, it's a headache hoping to happen. The content may be good, but if it's not presented in a way which invites a user to read (access) it, then it's a waste -- except maybe as an example of poor/hideous design.

Presentation has function, its function is to make the content interesting, inviting, and accessible to the reader.

The "point of the web" is to share data & information which will hopefully lead to development of knowledge.  The way to do so is to present ideas in a manner that will appeal to as wide an audience as possible (hopefully the total population of the web) which usually means a moderately up to date design and accessible layout.

-Aaron
:-)'

Aaron Dobbs
ALA Councilor at Large Candidate 2008

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Richard Wiggins
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 3:19 PM
To: K.G. Schneider
Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Web technologies and public access

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
>
>
--earlier conversation snipped--