A new render of newxml

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 4 06:18:26 PDT 2004

Bill's LFS Login said the following on 04-05-2004 15:04:
> Not a cheap shot by intention. But when people use words like "stupid"
> describing things in disagreement with their own views, the question
> arises "who is being served". "Stupid" is a value judgment that serves
> limited purposes.

It was in reply to the statement that top links are actually more usable 
and convenient then bottom links. I don't agree with that statement and 
ask for arguments which support it. Perhaps I should have put it 
differently, but I didn't think people would take offence or would not 
hear my arguments as soon as I started using such a word.

 > The usability/convenience for graphics users here is the big issue. 
If you look at all the LDP pages, they all have links at the top.

That's stupid. People read from top to bottom. The most logical place 
for navigational links is thus at the bottom. What are their reasons for 
placing them at the top?

> Anyway, not important. If you took offense, I meant none. I was only
> trying to highlight that there are different audiences possible here. If
> the designers serve themselves, one criteria applies. If thy serve
> users, a different criteria may apply.

I don't intend to serve myself, like I stated since the beginning of 
this thread. It seems that the people who oppose my proposal do so more 
then myself though (because of the inconvience in your methods of 
browsing/scanning/searching the book - to which I replied that you can 
still use access keys and the bottom links).

Anyway, the thread has continued long enough now, I'm getting tired of 
fighting and it seems there are sufficient supporters for the convience 
argument (to put it bluntly). I'm changing my original proposal to just 
remove the <head> links if nobody objects to that.

Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list