🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1174556359.647350.297300@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 1:39 am, "Eric" <englere_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have a favor to ask. Could you kindly change the background image on
>> your site to something more mellow that doesn't clash with the text? I
>> find it difficult to read the text.

>If you find the background distracting, you can switch it off (in
>Internet Explorer) using 'Tools... Internet Options... General...
>Accessibility... Ignore colors specified on web pages' (then click on
>OK).  

G'day Richard,

I have to say I'm in sympathy with Eric on this one.
Why expect the *reader* to have to correct defects in page design?

>You might also want to check your monitor adjustments (contrast
>and brightness) because the background 'watermark' is designed not to
>be distracting with correct settings.

Perhaps "not to be *too* distracting" would be closer to the mark?

I don't understand why people go to the trouble of writing stuff, then 
assume no one will really want to read it "so better make the page 
at least look pretty".  

Many modern magazines have adopted the same approach, to the extent 
that much of their stuff is completely unreadable.  Mind you, in 
that case their position is probably justifiable in that much of their 
content is not worth reading anyway -- mostly "reviews" plagiarised 
directly from advertising blurb; and editorial material full of 
garbled facts, incomplete sentences, and redundant paragraphs.
 

Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID