That article was written in 1999 as an intervention against the printed page paradigm and to get desinegers to transition to CSS.
While John Allsopp does have some fairly strident views on web design* which make for good discussions, based on the criterion you set out in your first post, I think John would entirely agree, ie.
1) Look good in standards compliant browsers.
2) Degrade gracefully in other browsers.
3) Are accessible to other devices
I think that John's main thesis, then as now, is about encouraging a more felxible way of viewing web design, one which harnesses the strengths of the medium. "A Dao of Web Design" written a year later is probably the most well articulated piece in this regard.
I don't believe John holds the view that "we shouldn't care about how our web sites look as long as they use valid mark up language and separate content from presentation" and I certainly don't believe that to be the gist of the article you cited either. The latest release of Style Master has some pretty good looking templates which I think shows an understanding of the value of good design.
(*Since the Melbourne meeting where he articulated his views on image replacement, John has been promising to detail his positiont in writing, hint, hint...)
cheers dez
Alan Milnes wrote:
What articles are you referring to?
Well there's quite a few but here's one where the basic idea is right but I find it just a tad idealistic:-
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/not_paper/
Alan
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
