Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Well, count the number of colors on your page.  There are really a lot.  If
> you count on your page, there are alreday at least ten:

> Every "button" consists of three, the background colors (two), the text
> color, the link color, the followed link color, the section headers, the
> separator color.

  I wasn't talking about my page. I was talking about "the author using a
color to differentiate a keyword from the rest of the text".

  Besides, you count wrongly. The background image has at least a hundred
colors.
  You clearly counted the bacground as having one color shade, from orange
to white, and thus you counted it as two colors only. Isn't it, thus, a bit
unfair that you count three colors for the "buttons", even though they also
use just shades of the same color?
  Now you are complaining also about the link colors. Links are also
underlined, which is also layout. Should I make them black and with no
underline in order to avoid any layout?
  What is the "separator"? <hr>? As far as I can see, it's black, as the
plain text.

  You can't seriously claim that the colors I used make the text more unclear.

> Yes, mathemetical forumals use the same layout everywhere to convey their
> structure.  They are a perfect example of structure turned into a specific
> mostly universal layout everybody agrees upon.  They are a perfect example
> how good layout should be:  To help follow the structure.

  First you claim that they did not use layout. Now you agree that they did.

> Exactly!  Or imaggine anybody changing the layout of formulas.  You get a
> mess.  Here we have the case where an almost perfect layout has been
> developed by many people over centuries.  That is very different from
> someone stitting down and saying: "Now I am going to invent the perfect
> layout for my users".

  I'm still ready for the test: I can make a version of the Q&T pages with
no layout, and we can make a poll about which one people prefer.
  What you claim is best for people and what people actually like are two
completely different things.

  I still claim that the Q&T pages using the browser's default layout would be
uglier, harder to read and harder to understand, no matter how much you
claim the contrary.

> No, not remove.  You already mentioned how to do it correctly:  if you want
> to emphazise something, use the em tag, if you want to make something stand
> out, use the strong tag.  This way you separate layout from structure.

  I don't see the point. No-one, absolutely no-one, has a different setting
for those things than the browser default. I would bet that you neither.

>>   But this would demonstrate one point: According to you it's best for
>> the readers to have the pages with no layout definitions. The votes would
>> certainly prove the contrary.

> No, you are still confusing layout and structure here.

  Uh? Where?
  I just said, that I can make a version of the pages with no layout
definitions. Where am I confusing what?

>>   (Well, let me guess: Most of the people are stupid, and only a very few
>> enlightened people know what is the best thing to have... ;) )

> No, but as you clearly show, most people did not even read the manual (HTML
> 4.0 specification, for example), but start doing web design.  If you make
> mistakes using something because you did not read the manual, it is indeed
> so that those who did read the manual will know more than those who did not.

  You are now making a cheap attack (and you know it).
  I was talking about which one people would prefer: The version of the pages
with the current layout settings, or the version of the pages with the
browser's default layout settings.
  Your answer has absolutely no relation to this, but is a cheap attack.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message