Ben Buchanan wrote:
I strongly suspect the "usable = ugly" myth is perpetuated by design
firms that don't feel like updating their skills; and don't want their
clients to get a clue and go elsewhere. So they spread misinformation
so everyone has an excuse to keep doing the same old thing.
Right right right.
For me it's not hard to attribute this to the character of individual
'designers'. Some of them are designers and some of them are coders. The
majority of them are coders.
Graphic communications and formal writing are well-established crafts
that can conceivably be far more stringent than the full set of
w3-backed standards to a person with no visual or literary sensibilities
at all.
I am forever seeing sites of seamlessly blissful clarity turn to fetid
soup when I open up the source, and likewise the elite standardista's
site often has to be forgiven its childish aesthetics and perceived
semantics because of its very neatly arranged code (and the fact it runs
on every system within a mile).
I seriously believe it is down to individuals as such - even in teams,
the leadership will say "Who cares about this invalid code that needs
fixing? You could be doing much better stuff, it already works great" or
"I don't have time for you to re-design the third level navigation, it
exists and it's in a logical place in the source".
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
