Carlos E. R. schreef op 01-04-16 12:46:
On Friday, 2016-04-01 at 11:52 +0200, Xen wrote:
Then elucidate. You people seem hell bent on destroying everything that is attractive, or staying away from it as far as possible.
To me, the current opensuse start web page is pretty. That doesn't mean readable, I have to click on places so that the text opens up. Search on a text may not work. I don't think it would pass the accessibility tests.
Prettiness and readability are different things.
At the same time it is not a site you want to spend more than 10 seconds of your time on. Or maybe even of your life. That would mean that it is repulsive. You can't even say it is unreadable, because there is not really anything to read on it either. I mean lets get real: there is not any content either. If you made this really attractive picture of a logo and made that your entire site, no text, no nothing, you could still say that it was pretty. You might even say that it was attractive -- for two seconds. Nevertheless it did not attract you for more than those two seconds, so so very attractive, it was not really...... Maybe it would be if you could actually look at it not from some cramped window, but with a clear view. Currently the website is not attractive for anything. So attractive is a much broader category than pretty, because it is about attraction, which is getting pulled towards something (and not repelled). Conversely, if something was really attractive and stayed attractive, you would stay with it. We can say "that is an attractive proposal". Attractiveness therefore implies a certain pleasurable experience. If you are coming somewhere to read, and you can't do it, then the prospect of reading is not attractive and you will be repelled. There was once upon a time someone who wrote a book about Quality. His name was Robert M. Pirsig and he wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. "Readability" is in this sense an aspect of Quality, which way may also call attractiveness if we use a broad sweep. You can also call it an aspect of enjoyableness or having a good time. A general word for it is "pleasant" or "agreeable". Pretty can add to pleasant and agreeable. At least for the eyes. But there is more to you than just eyes, you know. Of course something can be pretty while also being dysfunctional, because pretty makes a different statement about function (a different part of function) than something called readability or accessibility or usability does. But in a general sense they are all aspects of quality or of attraction. Quality is that thing that says that something is good, that it is good at what it does, so it relates to function. A high quality broom is a broom you can sweep with and that lasts a long time. A broom that burns very well, we usually do not call a high quality broom. So quality is related to purpose. If the purpose of the website is to inform people (rather than misinform, and keep in the dark, but convince through some kind of deviousness) then we can say it is a low quality website. People may disagree because they may disagree about its purpose, or its effectiveness in attaining something that is actually worth something. Pretty is important in that sense. It is clear that pretty is an important prerequisite in attaining that goal. But it is not the only thing. Of course you are right. But it also does not mean that those two things OPPOSE each other. They do not exist in contraposition of each other!!!!!! And that is the only thing I want to get across. Making something pretty does NOT take away from readability unless you fail on that aspect on its own. With those designer skills, you can also make something that is astoundingly readable, and in that case the prettyness ADDS to it. It is not one thing over the other, you need both. But if you give only attention to one thing, and nothing to some other thing, then well, yeah. The end result is not going to be great. But not BECAUSE it is pretty. More so, because people thought it was the only thing that mattered: because of NEGLECT. Eating well is not a bad thing, but if you eat so well or spend so much time eating well that you consider it beneath you to pay your bills or to reserve money for them, then it won't bode you well. But that is not a statement about eating well. That is a statement about having bad priorities and skewed conceptions. Some people would then feel that "eating well" would get a "bad rap" (reputation). Pretty might also get a bad reputation but that is not deserved. Pretty is not a problem. Corporate interests is a problem. You can be pretty and readable perfectly fine. In fact, if you screw up the prettyness so bad that you can't read anything, then you would have ended up at the other extreme. You need both and they complement each other, but they need to be balanced for that. They are not enemies, is all I am saying. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org