[Web4lib] Web technologies and public access

[Brian Gray]

I do not think we can be a strict on design as you suggest. Too many
people rely on first impressions and perceptions in judgment. They
will never get to enjoy or utilize the words if the site is not
pleasing to begin with.

Brian Gray
mindspiral at gmial.com

On Feb 4, 2008 3:18 PM, Richard Wiggins <richard.wiggins at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.