From: kouyaheika@canithesis.org   
      
   Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 15:37:25 -0800, John Ames wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 23:12:32 -0000 (UTC)   
   >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> This is why browsers allow you to override site style definitions   
   >>>>> with your own.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yes, but it would be very much nicer if that wasn't *necessary.*   
   >>>   
   >>> On the contrary. This is an integral part of the whole concept of   
   >>> separating form from content.   
   >>   
   >> Separation of form from content does *not* mean that web designers   
   >> are obligated to use overwrought, kludgy, or abusive design patterns   
   >> that the user then has to direct their browser to ignore. That's an   
   >> absurd thing to say.   
   >   
   > “Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder” would seem to be the most   
   > polite response.   
      
   Is this supposed to mean something? Am I supposed to be content with   
   horrible design choices? Am I supposed to just deal with these   
   resource-hungry and usually unusable webpages just because someone out   
   there must like them?   
      
   This is just plain bad design. The web wasn't meant to be experienced by   
   tweaking various configurations using extensions/add-ons for the browser   
   just to get any glimpse of functionality. I shouldn't even have to mention   
   how a majority of crap-loaded pages will just refuse to work if you dare   
   change the way you view them.   
      
   If a good user experience requires complicating the setup for a chance of   
   little reward, then it isn't really a good user experience.   
      
   Someone out there might actually look at the garbage and think they can't   
   live without it. I hope I am there to give them a goddamn intervention.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)