by "Keath Montgomery" <KeathM(at)bcn.net>
||Sun, 30 Aug 1998 16:24:41 -0400
This is to address a point made regarding the purpose of the critique list.
I tend to agree that this list has become far to concerned with the
technical side of a site rather than it's overall presentation. Let's face
it we all strive to do our best coding of the site however it's the
presentation graphically and factually that 99% of the visitors to that site
care about. They could care less if it validates and how it was coded. It
is possible to develop an attractive well designed site that attracts
thousands of visitors and be coded in a way that would be a validation
nightmare. Yet the perfectly validated site could be just the opposite.
Validation actually has very little to do with the viewers satisfaction with
their visit to the site. I do agree that we all should try to adhere to a
standard and the portion of the critique that states "your site don't
validate" and bashes the site for it, belongs possibly in the HWG-langauges
list? Personally if my site loads and behaves in the manner I had in mind
after testing against the main stream environments I could care less how it
validates. I have tested my sites and validation for grins and they usually
do reasonably well. I will not make myself crazy over it. You may agree
or disagree with this but it is just one persons opinion. Those who have a
programmers orientation should not condemn those with the designers
orientation. the bottom line is will the site achieve the objective?
HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmaster @ IWA