5 ms·

change "words" to "content".

adventured 13y ago
I don't think so. That isn't what the person said. Their entire post was built around stripping down web design to the words. In fact, the author was very precise in the usage of the term "words." This for example: "But the most powerful tool on the web is still words." That blatantly is not the case in my opinion. Photos are vastly more powerful than words on today's web. That's why 3/4 of all the posts on Reddit's home page are links to imgur. That's why a gazillion photos are uploaded to and shared on Facebook every day. That's why you can read about protests in Brazil all day long, and until you see the photos, the sheer power of the protest will not ring anywhere near as loudly. This has been true so long as photography has existed. Whether we're talking about the Holocaust and WW2, an atomic bomb going off, or a photo of a kitten or puppy, you name it and photos win 9 times out of 10 over words. What would walking on the moon be like without photos (and video) to go with it? Would reading the transcripts have amazed the world like the imagery did? I say not even remotely. Imagine reading about a man standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square, versus seeing it. Another side note to all of this: there are almost a billion illiterate people still, sadly. And another billion that are only partially literate. Nearly every one of them can understand imagery. Imagery also crosses languages, you don't have to understand Mandarin to grasp the Tiananmen Square protest.
- weixiyen 13y ago
  He was taking a stab at visual design / aesthetics being prioritized over content when building a product. Words are used simply here to better communicate his point. Nowhere did he say that words are more important than photos or video. You say "No" to him, but yet you know he would not disagree with what you have said regarding photos and video. I find the whole response to his original post borderline strawman.
  - adventured 13y ago
    Nowhere did the author actually say that. I would argue the evidence for focus on "words" is overwhelming, and that you're attempting to change the meaning of the piece. The author did say this however: "At it's heart, web design should be about words. Words don't come after the design is done. Words are the beginning, the core, the focus." The title is "Words" The author uses "writing" and "reading" and "words" over and over again. The word "content" isn't used once, nor anything like it (except as a negative, against content management systems). And the author says: "If you're a web designer, or a client who is working with one, I'd like to challenge you to think about words first. Instead of starting with a style guide or a Photoshop mockup, start with words on a page." Again, the author is intentionally guiding toward a very precise thing: words. There is no confusion on the focus, it's blatant.
- kragen 13y ago
  I have never seen a still image that conveyed the horror of the Holocaust to me in the way that Elie Wiesel's Night did. I have seen a movie that did: Schindler's List, which was fiction, made with actors; and which was made at enormous expense because of the things people had said and written. Beyond that, though, while images and movies are highly effective, if very expensive, ways of influencing people's feelings, they work just as well in the service of falsehood as in the service of truth. As such, they primarily work to amplify the influence of the powerful. Language allows you to share your thoughts instead of your feelings, and text in particular provides a much better way to gradually explore our way toward the truth. With language and text, mere power stands helpless before reason.
- exizt88 13y ago
  > That's why 3/4 of all the posts on Reddit's home page are links to imgur They still have titles. And many of those posts are memes that have words in them.
- mijustin 13y ago
  OP here. My point wasn't that we should remove all other types of media from the web. (I love other types of media) My point was that the most powerful tool on the web is still words. Here's why: 1. Words are an excellent starting point. All you need is a text editor. Words are a great way to express ideas in a concrete way. Words can stand on their own. 2. It's easy to add things to words. Adding an image, video, or other media to words has the power to further strengthen the message. Side note: there's also the (negative) potential for adding too much, or for muddling the message. 3. Text on the web is small. My page was 4KB. Most people around the world, even with a bad connection, would be able to view that page. You're right: images can be powerful. But on the web, I think text still rules. (I notice you responded to this thread with words, and not an image or a video)
  - falcolas 13y ago
    I would go one step further, and say that while images are very popular on the internet, most are light on meaning. The parent mentions the some large percentage of the links are to imgur, which is absolutely true. However, the actual content of those images is so shallow they could each be summed up in a sentence apiece; ironically enough, looking at the front page this very instant, half of the images contain words to convey a specific message, and the rest rely on the title of the post to convey context to the image. The right picture may be worth a thousand words, but much to my dismay there are very few pictures of that quality to be found.
jkestner 13y ago
Right. The majority of images on webpages are the design elements, not the photos. His point would still stand if he included a relevant image inline. Focus goes to the content, not the chrome.
alex_hitchins 13y ago
A good example - http://stallman.org/ http://stallman.org/ Horrendous on the eye but gives everything you need. And more.

I don't think so. That isn't what the person said. Their entire post was built around stripping down web design to the words. In fact, the author was very precise in the usage of the term "words." This for example: "But the most powerful tool on the web is still words." That blatantly is not the case in my opinion. Photos are vastly more powerful than words on today's web. That's why 3/4 of all the posts on Reddit's home page are links to imgur. That's why a gazillion photos are uploaded to and shared on Facebook every day. That's why you can read about protests in Brazil all day long, and until you see the photos, the sheer power of the protest will not ring anywhere near as loudly. This has been true so long as photography has existed. Whether we're talking about the Holocaust and WW2, an atomic bomb going off, or a photo of a kitten or puppy, you name it and photos win 9 times out of 10 over words. What would walking on the moon be like without photos (and video) to go with it? Would reading the transcripts have amazed the world like the imagery did? I say not even remotely. Imagine reading about a man standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square, versus seeing it. Another side note to all of this: there are almost a billion illiterate people still, sadly. And another billion that are only partially literate. Nearly every one of them can understand imagery. Imagery also crosses languages, you don't have to understand Mandarin to grasp the Tiananmen Square protest.

weixiyen 13y ago
He was taking a stab at visual design / aesthetics being prioritized over content when building a product. Words are used simply here to better communicate his point. Nowhere did he say that words are more important than photos or video. You say "No" to him, but yet you know he would not disagree with what you have said regarding photos and video. I find the whole response to his original post borderline strawman.
- adventured 13y ago
  Nowhere did the author actually say that. I would argue the evidence for focus on "words" is overwhelming, and that you're attempting to change the meaning of the piece. The author did say this however: "At it's heart, web design should be about words. Words don't come after the design is done. Words are the beginning, the core, the focus." The title is "Words" The author uses "writing" and "reading" and "words" over and over again. The word "content" isn't used once, nor anything like it (except as a negative, against content management systems). And the author says: "If you're a web designer, or a client who is working with one, I'd like to challenge you to think about words first. Instead of starting with a style guide or a Photoshop mockup, start with words on a page." Again, the author is intentionally guiding toward a very precise thing: words. There is no confusion on the focus, it's blatant.
kragen 13y ago
I have never seen a still image that conveyed the horror of the Holocaust to me in the way that Elie Wiesel's Night did. I have seen a movie that did: Schindler's List, which was fiction, made with actors; and which was made at enormous expense because of the things people had said and written. Beyond that, though, while images and movies are highly effective, if very expensive, ways of influencing people's feelings, they work just as well in the service of falsehood as in the service of truth. As such, they primarily work to amplify the influence of the powerful. Language allows you to share your thoughts instead of your feelings, and text in particular provides a much better way to gradually explore our way toward the truth. With language and text, mere power stands helpless before reason.
exizt88 13y ago
> That's why 3/4 of all the posts on Reddit's home page are links to imgur They still have titles. And many of those posts are memes that have words in them.
mijustin 13y ago
OP here. My point wasn't that we should remove all other types of media from the web. (I love other types of media) My point was that the most powerful tool on the web is still words. Here's why: 1. Words are an excellent starting point. All you need is a text editor. Words are a great way to express ideas in a concrete way. Words can stand on their own. 2. It's easy to add things to words. Adding an image, video, or other media to words has the power to further strengthen the message. Side note: there's also the (negative) potential for adding too much, or for muddling the message. 3. Text on the web is small. My page was 4KB. Most people around the world, even with a bad connection, would be able to view that page. You're right: images can be powerful. But on the web, I think text still rules. (I notice you responded to this thread with words, and not an image or a video)
- falcolas 13y ago
  I would go one step further, and say that while images are very popular on the internet, most are light on meaning. The parent mentions the some large percentage of the links are to imgur, which is absolutely true. However, the actual content of those images is so shallow they could each be summed up in a sentence apiece; ironically enough, looking at the front page this very instant, half of the images contain words to convey a specific message, and the rest rely on the title of the post to convey context to the image. The right picture may be worth a thousand words, but much to my dismay there are very few pictures of that quality to be found.

jkestner 13y ago

Right. The majority of images on webpages are the design elements, not the photos. His point would still stand if he included a relevant image inline. Focus goes to the content, not the chrome.

alex_hitchins 13y ago

A good example - http://stallman.org/ http://stallman.org/ Horrendous on the eye but gives everything you need. And more.