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.
I think strongly thought out and consistent would be a slightly better characterization :-)
1) Look good in standards compliant browsers. 2) Degrade gracefully in other browsers. 3) Are accessible to other devices
absolutely.
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.
That would b about my best summation of my philosophy
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.
Absolutely. My main point is that designers can;t and shouldn't "control" their designs for the users, rather it is an inherit aspect of the web that users can adjust their environment to suit their needs/tastes, etc.
That's just how it is.
I guess we could just dump PNGs in a simple HTML page.
The latest release of Style Master has some pretty good looking templates which I think shows an understanding of the value of good design.
I love design and aesthetics. I have several pairs of campers! What I am arguing against is
1. controlling the user's experience (it's neither possible nor desirable)
2. reducing accessibility through so called "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...)
I have since written a rather, erm. "strident" article that a well known online journal felt a little inflammatory. I am in the process of reworking it.
These conferences and software chores just keep taking up my time :-)
John
BTW, what' wrong with idealism? :-)
John Allsopp
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 *****************************************************
:: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
