On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Scott Rossi wrote:
> Actually, there is a difference: not how things *should* look but how things > *can* look. Again, the premise is that users are more comfortable modifying > existing designs/layouts/templates, rather than starting from scratch. The > template designers are giving users a starting point, which they can either > choose to use as is, or modify to their liking. --I agree, and it is an important distinction. As an educator, however, and particularly with respect to my observations of this term (unfortunately confirming observations of previous terms), "can" inevitably equals "should" inasmuch as they never move beyond "can". Do the majority of these target users ever get to the "modify" stage? To wit: Can you not spot a webpage "designed" in FrontPage? On the one hand, I "get" that these sorts of things enable people to do things they might otherwise not be able to do. OTOH, it seems also to disable their ability to be creative (ala grammar "checkers" that discourage composition of compelling prose and the finding of an authentic voice). > The way I read your comments, they appear to completely support the above > premise: users need a jump start that shows how things can look/work, not an > empty page. --I'd argue that the empty page forces people to think and explore and create; to promote activity as opposed to passivity. Should, say, computer science lectures look just like comparative lit lectures, which look just like... There's also the issue of form supplanting substance. Sigh. That's what I get for being a pointy-headed individual, I suppose. Judy _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
