RE: annoying websites and just plain old... stuff

by "Evelyn Hunter" <boots(at)>

 Date:  Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:40:46 -1000
 To:  <hwg-techniques(at)>
 In-Reply-To:  earthlink
  todo: View Thread, Original
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)]On Behalf Of Berk/Devlin

> I agree that form and function must cooperate in making a
> site useable.  But, Evelyn, I disagree with you about the
> function of the Internet.
> I consider the Internet to be a library spacious enough to
> hold all books and that never closes.  Yeah, there are Art
> books there, but there is also lots and lots of trash, some
> of which looks very pretty.


> I, personally, mostly go to the Internet/library for
> information, and I personally am mostly interested in text.

> (I did recently find a great little game of Tetris on the
> Internet, but I played it so much that I hurt my right shoulder.)

Ouch!  So much for fun and games.

> BTW: The page on my site that gets the most hits (and it's
> surprised me like you wouldn't believe) is a one-page
> musing about a Stephen Sondheim musical called Into the
> Woods.  I spent almost no time designing/writing the page.
> I have never submitted that page to any search engine and
> the page certainly isn't all that graphically appealing.

I've had people find pages that I never submitted either.  Those
little spiders are out there!  It is interesting to see what visitors
were looking for when they get there.  That one is a feather in your
cap, I think, for desirable content.

> But I "meet" lots of people who've read the page and were
> interested enough to send email.  No one who's read it has
> ever mentioned the design of the page.  But I do enjoy when
> they respond to the ideas I present.
> All of us here have different mixes of talents.
> I do not spend much time on trying to make my site "pretty"
> in the graphical sense, because I do not have much
> graphical talent.  I care about making my program code
> (C++, Java, PHP) "pretty" only in the sense that it runs
> fast, is easy to maintain and makes my sites easy to update
> and I do spend a great deal of time trying to make my sites
> easier for unsophisticated users to use.

Pretty is what pretty does!  And you haven't dropped your ability and
desire to learn and make that programming work for users -- this, to
me, is the ultimate goal... what I meant by a happy medium.  Good
content and an environment to support but not hinder that content.

> When I think of good design, it is with those things in
> mind.  Which is not to say that I don't appreciate others'
> lovely graphical design work.  It's just to say that that's
> not the kind of work I do.
> I think that when we look at a Web site, it's important for
> us to judge that site on its own terms.  An eCommerce site
> that cost $4 million to implement is going to look and
> function differently than the site of an Internet hacker.
> The question when we look at any particular site is, "Does
> this Web site accomplish what its designer intended?"
> If I can't evaluate sites on this basis, then I can only
> create one kind of site and that would severely limit the
> scope of my work.

Good point, agreed!

So, for example, although I am not
> partial to the color pink, if some one offers me hard cash
> to create a site in all pink, I'm going to go for it.  In
> fact, I'm going to lay out an array of shades of pink from
> which they can choose.  As long as I create the best site
> that my client is willing to pay for, I will be comfortable
> having it in my portfolio.


HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA