on Mon, Jun 17, 2002, Gerhard Gaussling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi Karsten, > > Am Sonntag, 16. Juni 2002 08:17 schrieb Karsten M. Self: > > > > [...] > > > but I'm wondering if it breaks the page layout. > > > > Define "breaking page layout". > > According the meaning of css-capabilities I define it as arranging > page-elements pixel-by-pixel.
That doesn't convey much, but if you mean what I think you mean, you're wrong. > > My experience is that websites render consistently and readably. > > Do you mean: In the manner of 'I can literally read the phrases'? I mean I don't have a fucking carnival of fonts, sizes, etc., flying past me. I pick the fonts and sizes I prefer to view text at. That's what I get. > > I've only seen one site that fails to render readably. For the > > most part, standardizing results is far preferable to seeing the > > crud webmonkeys are churning out these days. > > css comming up to be a standard. I agree that there is really cruel > design out there on the net: Unuseful and overwhelming with it's > flicking and flashing effects. The !important tag puts ultimate control in the user's hands. > > Let's repeat together: "HTML is not a presentation language. > > Flash is crap to five nines." > > Crap to 'five nines' relative to what? That 1 in 10,000 flash animations might actually be worth looking at, and present information not possible to present in text or conventional graphics. Frankly I suspect that count is high. The potential for abuse far outweighs any potential benefit. It also gives me a fast way to sort out sites not worth visiting. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Support the EFF, they support you: http://www.eff.org/
pgpIiWo3CFByJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
