Terrence said: > We're not talking about a specific look (like techno, goth, post-postmodern, > deconstructed), rather a design pattern: a head/3 column/foot table layout > with multicolored columns
Yes, I think I get that, I just disagree with the implication that table based designs are such in a way that CSS designs are not, but moving on... > Visual design, usually supports content. Absolutely, it should, always. > That's a bit insulting isn't it, you really have no idea about > the quality of design of this list's members? Maybe but that was not my intention nor my point. The basis is the links posted for review, signatures etc (on this list and others) - it wasn't an arbitrary comment. Nor is it an insult, this isn't a design list but a standards list and a truly outstanding one. Finally, if you think that's harsh you should hear me review my work. The first requirement of being a designer is a thick skin. > 'Design' that begins and ends in the visual plane is really just > playing with colors and shapes. Who's advocating this view of design? Not I (see my comment to Christian). > Yeah, so do google and amazon, both of which are pretty "laughable" in > terms of visual design. And oh, pre-1998 ;-) :) I wouldn't say they're weak in design, on the contrary their effectiveness is thanks in large part to their design. But I see your point, throw in the default gray background and turn on the table borders and we'll be partying like it's nearly 1999. Regards, -Nigel ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
