[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