by "Peter Cooper" <peter(at)bizuk.net>
||Sun, 30 Aug 1998 15:59:07 +0100
||"Robin S. Socha" <r.socha(at)control-risks.de>,
>From a technical point of view, though, "designing for..." usually boils
>down to "I don't know what I'm doing so I'll use this cute little GUI
>and paint/DTP myself some, like, pages and stuff". HTML is not meant to be
>"designed for ...". If you want DTP solutions, use CSS, XML... Right?
Um no. Not everyone has a browser that can cope with CSS, and Netscape/IE
interpretations of CSS are very different. The majority of -designers-
create their nice graphics using a program such as Photoshop, chop up their
interface design, use tables to arrange it all out, and allow it to be
fairly resizable. Being resizable is important, I'm sure you'll agree.
However, we're not all totally soul-less and we're not robots, we like to
see pages with cleverly thought out and interesting interfaces/graphics.
We don't want pages of dull text which takes the whole width of the browser.
If you -do- want that, use Lynx.
>Let me rephrase that: "If you obviously don't know how to use HTML
>how dare you call yourself 'designer'?". Well, actually, "designer" says it
>all - it's the old programmer/dtp'er clash, isn't it?
You're looking at it from a programmers view.. 'lets keep it all technical,
lets never stray from the beaten path etc etc'. I'm merely demonstrating an
artistical view. Being a web designer at the moment really means that
you're good at making pages work on a number of browsers, for the majority
of users.. It doesnt mean that you can code perfect HTML.. thats a
programmers job! They can run that up in the 'coding pool' if they want..
the design is the important bit. (for those of us who are artistic at
Sure.. theres lots of really horrid sites which are 100% text out there..
I'm sure they've receieved so many customers...
>As soon as Windows is finally dead, this nonsense will vanish. Decent GUIs
>like X allow for multiple desktops and most X WindowManagers come with
>autofocus capabilities - so you simply don't need to worry about
>desktops anymore - you just open up a new one. I run 17-21" monitors at
>1600x1200 and I keep the browsers maximized. "designed for..." sites tend
>appear as sad, pathetic little squares sitting amidst a wasteland of white
>or whatever your bgcolor is.
Windows has its faults, so does X. Currently (interface wise) 'Linux X'
systems have the worse interface (from a -users- point of view, I'm not a
techie programmer).. however they're catching up quickly. X is hardly a
stable system.. it requires fairly indepth setup (especially if you're using
clone components) and so forth.. Anyway, I'm not OS bashing, but thats how
To rectify my point.. Surely we shouldnt critique sites solely on their HTML
coding.. we arent robots, we're interested in colour schemes, interface
designs and so forth.. Aren't we?
HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmaster @ IWA