> >That's a one-sided creative freedom, which is fine when you're designing
> >yourself or for your graphic design clique. As long as you're the
> >then the design looks spiffy and you're happy. But the audience doesn't
> >matter? Whatever happened to interactivity anyway?
> This is reductio ad absurdum, surely: at one extreme we have the 'reader
> designer' model, and at the other we have designers who do not listen to
> their audience? There is a middle way.
Certainly. There are many ways in between the two extremes and up and down
and around them. I was specifically addressing Hrant's statement:
> 1. It reduces the participation of the designer. And if we
> assume that creative freedom is important, that's bad.
Which implies that having the designer share the external, or superficial,
layout duties with the intended audience somehow stifles the designer's
creative freedom. It does and it doesn't. That's deep, isn't it? :)
There are too many intents and purposes for web pages, and there are so many
approaches to designing them that they can't all be addressed collectively.
That said, Tom, your points are well taken.