Felix Miata wrote: > It may or may not be. There's typically little or nothing > that graphics > can offer to improve the communication of the Congressional Record or > Shakespeare's fiction. A designer typically will think so regardless > whether it really does or not.
This conclusion is drawn from a faulty assumption about the essential character of design. "Design" does not necessarily mean "images" or, even less so, "ornament". Any mark-making or scheme thereof can be characterised as design and it refers to a strategy directed towards articulating a particular intention or meaning. For reference, you might want to see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=design Often or, indeed, usually, the most important aspects of a design are the small, almost invisible aspects - whitespace, use of typography, the _exclusion_ of unncessary information. Having read many very poorly typeset, academic editions of numerous works of literature etc, I would argue insistently that _good_ design is vital to effective communication in any medium ... ... of course, the web (and browsers) present the possibility of "user originated" design (user preferences for fonts, stylesheets etc). Certainly most people on this list acknowledge and appreciate that fact. > Design shouldn't interfere with access to the content. Graphics can > distract, particularly background images. The design itself, > independant > of graphics, has similar power. Whilst I would agree that a "design" should not interfere with "access to the content", this seems like a confused point you make: I don't understand what distinction you are drawing between "Design", "graphics and background images" and "the design itself". Is there any difference? The design is precisely the strategy by which access to the content-proper (i.e. its meaning and intention) is facilitated. > It's precisely due to the current implementations of graphics > on the web > that I expect little from them. I find no worse a randy > scaled up image > than an image too small to discern details in. Because > they're generally > equally bad, they might as well be scaled so that the physical > relationships in the overall design can be preserved. ... it's true that there is a _lot_ of bad design on the web ... but it is also true that people are still adapting to the web as a medium. It took 100s of years for normative patterns of print design to become established. The font-size issue covered in this discussion is, IMHO, a hangover from print-design ... how else can you explain the curious fascination so many designers have with "getting 10pt equivalent" text?! ;D The problem here is not the fact of setting font-size per se, but rather the attempt to _control_ its size by specifying as pixels _or_ percentage (with percentage used as an implicit, "real-world" way of getting a particular pixel size which assumes the guise of "being more accessible" ... rather than as a genuine specification of text needing to be sized relatively to a dominant default). ... but then, I know a few designers who would like to just accept default font sizes and use true relative sizing, but are prevented from doing so by clients and so forth (Patrick raised these types of constaints). I feel that one of the good things about "web 2.0" is the way it seems to have started to normalise the acceptance of default (large) font sizes ... ... that could either lead to a more widespread acceptance (or even desire) among clients to accept default font sizes in user agents (to get the "web 2.0 look" ;D) or, less optimistically, could lead to this "style" being scorned in future due to its association with a particular phase in the history of web design (i.e. it becomes passe) My apologies if this is a little of the topic of the thread, but I hate to see people misuse the word design. Either way, I don't think Felix needs to worry as much as he seems to be: as I see it, the impetus of web development generally is leading it towards the normalisation of both "web standards" and "accessibility". However, it is perhaps inevitable that, in the process of being adopted into the mainstream, a certain amount of dilution is occuring to the original concepts themselves. Perhaps that isn't such a bad thing? (And I say that as an arch-purist! :D) Chris ******************************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS ******************************************************************************** ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
