Anders Sandberg <email@example.com> wrote:
> "Lee Daniel Crocker" <firstname.lastname@example.org (none)> writes:
> > > Though this is not directly pertinent to Extropianism, my web site is
> > > up. It's graphically challenged, but my hope is that the content
> > > for that.
> > > http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
> > Most web sites should apologize for the /presence/ of graphics,
> > not for their absence. The site is fast, clean, and has valuable
> > content. Leave the gee-whiz animations and angry fruit salad
> > colors to to teenagers on GeoCities.
> I agree completely. Graphics should help reading a website, not hinder it.
> BTW, the backgrounds may be in the hindering category on some pages :-)
I agree totally, but some people seem to want flashy graphics. I have a page at http://newstaffinc.com/security that is my best attempt to make a functional site without graphics. It is a reference page for hacking and security resources. I have tried to squeeze in as much stuff as possible, while keeping the download time low, and without making it look too boring. I'm still afraid this type of layout will be seen as dull.
I would appreciate it if anyone wants to look at it and tell me if I have compensated for the lack of graphics. The boxes, buttons, pull-down menus, borders and colors are all done with standard HTML. No graphics, no java, no scripts, no plugins, no hassles. I'm trying to figure out if this sort of approach is viable as opposed to the all graphics sites, where every button, color, box, is a little image file that has to download.
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto://email@example.com> <http://newstaffinc.com> Author, Consultant, Engineer, Legal Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.