SpaceGirl said:
They do get the font. You were the one who said they cannot.
I said that not all of them will get the font. You have yet to show
otherwise.
Graphics or Flash. While I dont think these are realy solutions for most cases,
there ARE occasions where you have to be opened minded and say, yeah
okay, for the sake of brand we can have a paragraph rendered as an
image. Or Flash.
And the people who don't have images or flash switched on don't get
the font. Just like I said.
It is REALLY arrogant and short sighted to simply say
"no", which is what you did.
I said that not everyone will get the font, and I offered methods that
will get the font to certain percentages, that's the best that can be
done. Can you show a way to have everyone see the font?
You have to think more creatively than that.
I offered solutions that will reach large portions of the audience
The only limits here are ones YOU are setting.
No it's a limitation of the WWW as a medium. Or can you demonstrate a
way that means that every single visitor will get the font? You can't
because it isn't possible.
That doesn't automatically make them applicable to everyone else.
Yes it is. Unless you know the personal and technological profile of
every individual visitor your site will ever have you can not claim
that the font can be seen by all visitors.
Glad we agree. Or are you using some strange definition of subset that
means something other "a part of"?
Of COURSE. Duh. But you dont make web sites for "everone on the WWW".
Potentially. Why should I not?
If you're even trying, you're doing it wrong.
Not at all. A web page is available to everyone on the web and I don't
want to do anything to reduce that. Even if they get a less enhanced
presentation or fewer bells and whistles they can still get that
content. And if the content can not presented in any way other than
with a certain font then that is impossible and hence that content is
not suited for the WWW. It can still be put up on the WWW but some
people may get it wrong.
Let's say someone wanted to put text from Mein Kampf (is that a
Godwin? I think it's a fair example here) online displayed in a comedy
font. Users who see it in the ordinary font will get a very different
impression than those who see it in the comedy font.
This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about when I say that if a
font is essential for a message (i.e. to elicit a certain emotional
response) then the message is not suitable for the WWW. Not some
marketing blurb displayed in the corporate typeface - in that case the
typeface and copywriting will hopefully complement each other so that
if the typeface isn't see then message still has the same tone.
You design for your audience, not everyone.
I have never seen any convincing statistics that give a string
correlation between demographics and/or interest groups and the
technology they use or the disabilities they may have. If you have
maybe you could the post the URL here.
You do what is required to indicate a particular bit of media is not
available without the correct "viewer". You also provide the legally
required accessible versions of your content, where possible.
For my example above - if you render whole pages of text as graphics
then you make the page too large for many users, you also hit an
accessibility problem. If you add an alt text then users who see the
alt text and not the graphic will get the wrong font and hence the
wrong message. If you omit the alt text then those users get a blank
page. If you say "Passage from Mein Kampf shown in a comedy font" then
you rather spoli the joke. So how can these people get the message?
How is it possible?
You misunderstood
Then you didn't explain it well enough. You said that "the look and
feel may BE the message". Not part of the message, not and enhancement
to the message. But the message itself. So what did you really mean?
Yes. Because you dont design for everyone. Like any form of media, you
design for a particular audience.
Again, show me the correlation between demographics and technology.
Show me the correlation between liking a certain band and having or
having a certain disability. Where are the studies that allow you to
know what your target audience can or can not see on the WWW?
Just read over the posts. See what the subjects are. It's all technical,
This is a technical newsgroup. There are design orientated newgroups.
You may be better off discussing design issues in those. (Though IIRC
you first arrived here during a cross posted thread from one of those
groups.)
Which is wrong. Because there are ways of delivery a font to a client,
so long as they have a visual way of displaying content (ah, gotta have
your accessibility caveat
)
How do I deliver a font to a lynx user? Or to a non-IE user with
images and plugins turned off because their on the end of a shitty
connection?
You'd be wrong then. Sometimes "font X" is EXACTLY what is required
because it's part of brand or image.
It can not be requiered if the brand is to work on the WWW because
some portionn of the WWW will not, can not, see the font.
You must find a way to achieve that without making your site unsable.
It can not be achaieved. Only some percentage.
A good designer will know that "fond
X" cannot be used for everything on the site, so wouldn't ask for it in
the first place.
Exactly my point. Good WWW designers know that a font will never be
seen by everyone and hence can not be relied upon.
However were it IS required, you should provide it.
It will be provided. I gave techniques to provoide it. I know that
none of those techniques reaches 100% of the audience (target or
otherwise) and that each of those techniques comes with other
disadvantages. You seem deluded into thinking that you can reach all
your audience but you haven't told us how you would do so.
It is terribly short sighted to suggest WWW cannot be aristic, which
seems to be the jist of your comment.
Of course the WWW can be artistic. Web sites can exist as works of art
in their own right, in which case the normal rules of design don't
need to apply (some art works by ignoring the normal limits of a
medium, some art benefits by working within the medium). Art can also
be incorporated into more normal web sites and there part of the
designers job is to incorporate the art into the medium.
To me, it seems that you dont have
a clue about interacting with people on an emotional level.
Oddly enough, I did a test on the BBC web site today which said quite
the opposite.
Art/Design are one and the same thing.
No they're not. They draw on some of the same skills and they can
inform each other but ultimately they have very different goals.
Confusing the two leads to poor design and poor art.
HOW design is more important that the content.
Never.
If you get the design wrong, you may as well have the
no content.
That is true. But good design can never make up for lack of content.
Content is always more important.
Steve
