> Actually, I find clean, relatively simple sites
very appealing.
Personally, I have nothing against CSS. (Actually, not quite nothing;
it's a waste of perfectly good bandwidth, but usually to a minor extent
at worst.) What I do find horrid is pages that do not fall back
gracefully when the CSS, images, embedded Flash, and the like get
ignored and everything's rendered as text. I use lynx, y'see.
Nah, I'm just miserable with visual stuff. I can
code HTML pretty
well, but I just don't know what appeals to the eye.
That's not surprising, because "what appeals to the eye" is
ill-defined, unless you are talking about a particular viewer. (Or
group of viewers, which, if sufficiently similar, can cut the
ill-definedness down to the point where it vanishes for practical
purposes.) Many of the things that enhance usability in general - or
at least appear to be widely believed to do so - severely cripple
usability for me. For example, I will not tolerate dark-on-light for
routine text; large areas of bright are anathema to me. But, even on
the rare occasions when I use Firefox (which I do every once in a
while, at work), it's the depressingly rare page that actually renders
decently with background overridden to black and foreground overridden
to white.
The _real_ problem with CSS, though, is that it's on the wrong end of
the HTTP link. Content providers should not be presentation imposers.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at
rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B