readings response and the color pink
no, i hadn't forgotten about my blog, i'd just put off posting anything in here for awhile. then we got the reading assignment for this week, and my brain said, "hey! that's right! you're supposed to post things about the readings here!" henceforth, i ventured bravely back.
i've always liked webmonkey, but i can't help feeling i would've gotten more out of that (thankfully short) article if i had a better background in .css. same with the second article, although i think it did a better job of relating .css to accessibility. matt's article (i just realized both the author's names were matt, in this case i'll clarify by christening them "matt 1" and "matt 2")--matt 1's article basically seemed to talk about things you could do with stylesheets: doing this brings up a picture, doing this brings up sound, doing this prints something, etc. etc.
matt 2's article was more straightforward, and less about how you can control what your site looks like and more about, well, website accessibility. it's obviously geared toward non-personal websites, because personal websites would worry less about accessibility. wouldn't they? it seems to be the natural order of things. no, i suppose it's debatable. if, you know, a personal website owner was trying to get famous/popular via the internet by detailing every facet of his life, ahem. accessibility would be an issue in those cases, but as for people who are catering to a specific audience, accessibility would be less of an issue.
example: a girl makes a webpage about the color pink. she's crazy about the color pink. she belongs to a web ring (do people even join those anymore?), she puts up photos of pink things, and she blogs about dying her hair pink and all her misadventures about shopping for pink panties that match her entire pink ensemble. she's got a pink layout, with hot pink on pastel pink or vice versa if she wants to spice things up a bit. pink girl isn't going to be worried about the purple guys or the blue meanies (HAHA IM SO KEWL) enjoying her site. worldwide accessibility isn't an issue with her. at least i hope not. website makers hankering for as wide of an audience as possible would hopefully have the sense to not make every bloody thing on their site in pink. it's not impossible, of course, but so very few people do it well. neon colors are bad for the web, mmkay?
matt 1's article will probably make more sense after we've had a little .css experience (which i'm sure a handful of people in the class have had already, though i'm not one of them).
my "personal relationship" with .css is just fiddling around with and changing colors of my lj layout, but ever since livejournal implemented system 2 for changing your layout, i don't mess around with the raw stuff anymore. well, wait, that's not true. i continued messing around with the raw code until my birthday last year, when one of my friends bought me a paid lj account. now that i have access to all the cool paid account layouts, i don't mess around with the raw code via system 1 anymore. alack and alay!
that was probably more info than anyone wanted to know about my piddly little ".css experience via livejournal." cooler stuff next time, maybe.
i will say that i'm looking forward to playing around with .css! html wasn't that big of an issue with me, but .css always tended to leave me stumped. probably because i was too lazy to try and pick that up after screwing around w/html so long. some of the prettiest websites i've seen have been made with .css (though no links immediately come to mind), so i've always admired people that can use it well, but loathed it when i tried to do ANYTHING with it.
in extra non-related news, xin nian kuai le! (like a week ago.) and happy early ♥ day, too.
i've always liked webmonkey, but i can't help feeling i would've gotten more out of that (thankfully short) article if i had a better background in .css. same with the second article, although i think it did a better job of relating .css to accessibility. matt's article (i just realized both the author's names were matt, in this case i'll clarify by christening them "matt 1" and "matt 2")--matt 1's article basically seemed to talk about things you could do with stylesheets: doing this brings up a picture, doing this brings up sound, doing this prints something, etc. etc.
matt 2's article was more straightforward, and less about how you can control what your site looks like and more about, well, website accessibility. it's obviously geared toward non-personal websites, because personal websites would worry less about accessibility. wouldn't they? it seems to be the natural order of things. no, i suppose it's debatable. if, you know, a personal website owner was trying to get famous/popular via the internet by detailing every facet of his life, ahem. accessibility would be an issue in those cases, but as for people who are catering to a specific audience, accessibility would be less of an issue.
example: a girl makes a webpage about the color pink. she's crazy about the color pink. she belongs to a web ring (do people even join those anymore?), she puts up photos of pink things, and she blogs about dying her hair pink and all her misadventures about shopping for pink panties that match her entire pink ensemble. she's got a pink layout, with hot pink on pastel pink or vice versa if she wants to spice things up a bit. pink girl isn't going to be worried about the purple guys or the blue meanies (HAHA IM SO KEWL) enjoying her site. worldwide accessibility isn't an issue with her. at least i hope not. website makers hankering for as wide of an audience as possible would hopefully have the sense to not make every bloody thing on their site in pink. it's not impossible, of course, but so very few people do it well. neon colors are bad for the web, mmkay?
matt 1's article will probably make more sense after we've had a little .css experience (which i'm sure a handful of people in the class have had already, though i'm not one of them).
my "personal relationship" with .css is just fiddling around with and changing colors of my lj layout, but ever since livejournal implemented system 2 for changing your layout, i don't mess around with the raw stuff anymore. well, wait, that's not true. i continued messing around with the raw code until my birthday last year, when one of my friends bought me a paid lj account. now that i have access to all the cool paid account layouts, i don't mess around with the raw code via system 1 anymore. alack and alay!
that was probably more info than anyone wanted to know about my piddly little ".css experience via livejournal." cooler stuff next time, maybe.
i will say that i'm looking forward to playing around with .css! html wasn't that big of an issue with me, but .css always tended to leave me stumped. probably because i was too lazy to try and pick that up after screwing around w/html so long. some of the prettiest websites i've seen have been made with .css (though no links immediately come to mind), so i've always admired people that can use it well, but loathed it when i tried to do ANYTHING with it.
in extra non-related news, xin nian kuai le! (like a week ago.) and happy early ♥ day, too.
posted by Jen, the girl with no hobbies at
10:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home