Re: My "control" argument

At 07:02 AM 8/20/2003, George Arvell wrote:
>My characterization of Scott's argument to which I object:
>i) The issue is about control: who controls the web page, the author or the 
>viewer.

But this is not the question I raise.  This is the question I raise:

  When a user visits a web page, who should control the details of the
  viewing experience, the author or the visitor?

Slightly later, I continue as follows:

  Let me be clear at the outset that the struggle I'm addressing here is
  over the *details* of the viewing experience, not the basic
  structure. Site authors properly control the content of each page as well
  as the basic structure of their pages. Authors determine whether and
  where to use links, tables, bulleted lists, etc.

>Why I reject the argument:
>i) The author actually has, and should have, control over the web page 
>content.

As shown above, I explicitly agree in the draft chapter.

>ii) A viewer has and should have control over the resources released to the 
>web page (although in practice, this control is operating system and browser 
>limited).

This sounds rather similar to my argument that viewers should control "the
details of the viewing experience."  Which leads me to wonder what it is
that I'm arguing that you don't agree with.

>iii) The real issue then is that a well designed web page will respond 
>gracefully to a variety of platforms and resources, just as we expect well 
>designed software to respond gracefully to a variety of platforms and 
>resources.

This, too, is an argument that I make explicitly.  We seem to be in
agreement pretty much across the board, and yet you believe that we
disagree.  Do we actually disagree, or is it more that you don't like the
way I present the arguments?

It sounds like you think that the resource-use argument suffices and that
the control argument should be eliminated, but they are separate arguments.
I know for a fact that many web page designers argue that readability is of
paramount importance, and they use that to justify not having a
variable-width page.  (I've had the arguments with them.)  From a resource
point of view, this isn't necessarily objectionable: we don't encourage
programmers to fill up memory and disks just because they can.  From a
control point of view, however, this is very objectionable, because it
precludes a user from doing something that (1) they might want to do and
(2) they have a *right* to do.

Scott