This reply shifts focus a bit, but with the word "aesthetics" being considered relevant to the discussion, if not the only norm for design of websites, I'd like to speak up for the semiotic dimension. Images also speak like words, but more shimmeringly. I don't refer to an animation or Flash effect on the computer screen, but to be precise the use of the symbol of Cross with lightning effects and blue luminscent sky in relation to a text by the orginal author about a "Mystical" something that was no good. Why what's his name's page had to exploit that particular symbol is not only poor taste but carries a subliminal message that completely overwhelmed his point, his surface-text, and any trust this Christian can put in his remarks. He played with creating blindness to his own textual message, and left some readers with a blindspot for anything he has to say. At the least, he proved himself to be semiotically ignorant, and postmodernist to the extreme in toying with symbols that are sacred to a huge part of the online some of whom may actually be on this WebStandards list. I lost my way a bit in finding how to enter the discussion, and want to make clear that I appreciate "heretic"'s contributions to the whole thread. I'm sighted so I'm just getting used to the problems and dilemmas our blind members may have, and am just learning about them. And above I used blindness as a metaphor for my own sighted semiotics problem with the original critique, I hope I did so without furthering offense. On 4/21/05, heretic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, the point is, to say that 'Flash is awful because it's not accessible' > > and all that stuff is to completely miss the point - it isn't for folk with > > disabilities - the html option is. > > Surely? > > I'd say Flash is mostly a problem because it frequently breaks all > usability and accessibility guidelines AND it's the only thing on the > site. Which is fine if your site has absolutely no serious purpose, > but not good if you're a business. > > Not that Flash is incapable of being created in an accessible manner > or anything; just that it is a format which lends itself more to art > than communication. > > As I've taken to saying... there's a reason it's called "Flash" and > not "Substance" ;) > > Most of it boils down to how you use it... just like PDF, it's ok if > used carefully; but terrible when used for eeeevil ;) > > cheers, > > h > > -- > --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> > --- The future has arrived; it's just not > --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson > ****************************************************** > 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 ******************************************************
