[thelist] "Web 2.0 sites with the big friendly fonts"

trevor trevor at intospace.ca
Wed Feb 21 14:45:13 CST 2007

ok - i'll attack myself here, save everyone else the trouble.  i was a bit 
crabby about the re-quote of:

>> On 2007/02/21 16:57 (GMT) Barney Carroll apparently typed:
>>> What do you mean by "basing designs on 100% of user defaults"?
> if you RE-READ the original message, he said   "not"  right before your 
> snip, making your quote 100% misleading.  the original quote would be:
> "Maybe it's an indirect impetus to get designers to see the folly of not
> basing designs on 100% of user defaults. 100% of user defaults leaves it 
> up to each user to decide what's too big or too small or just right for 
> his
> local environment."

ok, there was a kind of double negative in the original message, it was "the 
folly of not basing their designs...."   -  which in essence, means....the 
advantage of basing their designs....blah blah blah.

soooooory~!   i was trying to clear the confusion but caused a bit more, i 
love it!  anyway, no offence intended.

but i STILL claim that if someone wants to make a design that you disagree 
with, maybe it's ok after all....give guidance, not rules.  i disagree with 
the tone of that e2r article - even though i agree with it in some ways. 
how can you preach design rules??  they are not rules.

More information about the thelist mailing list