[log in to unmask] wrote:
> I think this may misjudge the situation that some people have. It is
> not a case of errant old webmasters who are promoting duff style, but
> of webmasters in department X whose design skills are as good as, or
> better than, the naff agency employed by the central admin. They don't
> need reining in because their work is horrid, but simply because its
> different.
Quite. If you've provided web resources that work and that your visitors
value, it's not surprising that the prospect of an insensitive corporate
makeover can be most unwelcome: and when a young profession's concerned, two
way communication hopeully bubbles good practice to the top of the pile.
'21st century design skills' can bring us browser-specific sites, pop-up
ads, and the web equivalent of the 'Digital On-screen Graphic' loved by
corporate broadcasters and loathed by most of their (remaining) viewers. In
broadcasting and perhaps in the web, we're into an era of great
insensitivity towards content.
Best wishes
Mark
As an off topic: more on DOGs here:
http://www.transdiffusion.org/insidetv/presentation/dogs.htm
|