On 06/08/24 10:52 (GMT-0500) Collin Davis apparently typed: > ***Disclaimer*** > All my opinions relate to commercial ventures > ***
> On Aug 24, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Felix Miata wrote: >> What does the number of users who do or don't have to do with >> anything? > The number of users who do or don't buy a product based on the > graphic presentation for a product (web or otherwise) has to do with > everything - and there wouldn't be a gigantic marketing industry if > it wasn't important. It's gigantic in spite of itself, not because of its competence. Graphics may or may not have anything to do with a decision to spend. It's the overall message that counts, which the graphics may obscure as well as enhance. Visitors who get a rude message that they need a bigger display or stronger glasses or a different computer operating system or browser are likely to leave with all their money, and find someone with a friendlier message to give it to. People you chase away are not available to explain why they did what they did, so you have no way to know your opportunity lost. >> Isn't the fact that *any* have affirmatively selected something they >> like better worth respecting? > Sure, nobody is saying that - there are tools such as alternate > browsers, user stylesheets, etc. that allow users to select what/how/ > when they want something displayed to their heart's content. Oh, I see. I've already set up everything so that pages that show deserved respect to their users have exactly the right settings to suit my needs, but I'm supposed to jump through even bigger hoops just to get back to where I started? No way. It's *my* _PERSONAL_ _Computer_. I'm the customer. If you want me as a customer, you don't slam my face with a baseball bat to get me to buy. You show the same manners you would coming to my front door with a sales pitch - respect. You don't turn my A/C or stereo up or down, or invite in your friends, or put your shoes on my furniture. It means you don't "adjust" my settings to suit your biased web designer who has a big screen and excellent eyesight and doesn't actually need to read anything but just see that it "looks" nice taste. > Jeff Croft just had a brilliant post: http://www2.jeffcroft.com/2006/ > aug/21/has-accessibility-been-taken-too-far/ > Excerpt: > "For hundred upon hundreds of years, there have been accessibility > problems with design. So how have they dealt with historically? I’ll > tell you how. The designer, using his expert knowledge of these > things, made logical, educated decisions that allowed things to be > usable (or readable, or accessible) by the vast majority of people > while still allowing him or her a level of control and aesthetic > freedom that he or she was comfortable with. > So that takes care of the vast majority of people. What about the > others? They dealt with it. It wasn’t the designers job to account > for every possible difference in the individuals who would be reading > or using their product. Got poor vision? Get a magnifying glass." Those hundreds of years are history. With the web began a new paradigm. Gone were the canvas size limitations of rock and paper and wall and billboard. No longer do designers know what the size constraints are. They were fixed, hard-coded so to speak. That isn't the way the web is. The web canvas is will always be a variable size. I already "got a magnifying glass" by securing a large display and setting my fonts large. I shouldn't, and neither should anyone else, have to readjust or be unable to continue because some designer who fails to understand the nature of the medium he's working in is abusing it by fighting its strength and and embracing its weakness. >> Is it >> imbeciles who know nothing about personalizing personal computers beyond >> screensaver and wallpaper selection that you wish to attract and retain >> at your web sites? > If they are the majority/target audience, of course they are. Likely they're not the ones with money both available and willing to spend. You don't prosper when your artificial obstacles push people to spend their money elsewhere. Accommodating user settings does NOT require giving up artistic freedom. All a designer need do is embrace flexibility, and stop treating that infinitely variable size canvas as if it were a rock that needs to look exactly the same to everyone who sees it. I get a lot bigger rush from seeing a web page work well on a wide range of settings and display sizes than I do seeing something that looks like a demagnified magazine page that got torn out and pasted on the front of a PC display. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
