4 ms·
In defense of words, hypertext markup language has a lot of tags for words (more than I could count on two hands) vs two hands worth for images, pictures, video
by zanny 13y ago
In defense of words, hypertext markup language has a lot of tags for words (more than I could count on two hands) vs two hands worth for images, pictures, video, etc combined. Throw in CSS (which makes words pretty) and you have a lot of stuff to do with words, and not that much to do with arrays of pixels or sine waves.
- adventured 13y agoOk, but I'm not sure how the quantity of tags determines the value of the content contained. I can vary a graphic element or photo a near infinite number of ways prior to inserting it via one tag. I wouldn't say that argues in favor of imagery over text, or vice versa, however.
- zanny 13y agoI'm not arguing the value of the content, just the original intent. HTML was just meant to be a markup document language to display rich text over http.
- adventured 13y agoI definitely get you on that. Does that original intent say anything of whether words should be the heart and soul of web design however? Should black and white photography be the heart and soul of photography just because limitations (or costs) of technology started us there? I'm guessing you wouldn't argue that original intent should define future value, but these are all interesting points to discuss.