[stareatgoats]

I think aesthetics is sometimes equated to "superficiality", "commerciality" even "girlishness" and the surface impression tends to be the polar opposite for niches that really want to distance themselves from anything such. Which is not commendable but there you go.

[metagame]

I don't think you hit the mark at all, as the person who wrote the page. Nothing you note is a bad thing; they're all positives. Superficiality is my specialty.

Your comment kind of shows some biases you might want to work on.

[stareatgoats]

I hardly think I'm wrong just because you don't (think you) fit the bill. I may still be wrong, but it would take more than one single indignant denial to prove.

But I grant that my comment was flippant and OT, potentially ad hominem denigrating even if unintended. I'll try better next time. You on the other hand might try harder to make websites that are readable to ordinary people. Or not.

[metagame]

I think it's fine to accuse people of things, even though I did feel a little sad about it. I don't think the problem is that you broke rules of a web forum, or that you attacked me. I wasn't complaining that you were flippant and off-topic, I was complaining that you think silly web designs are a masculine trait, which is incredibly sexist, as well-intentioned as the sentiment is. Geocities was almost gender-balanced, which included a lot of people of all different kinds of backgrounds making strange-looking web pages. Neocities has more web pages by women than nearly anywhere else on the Internet, and many of those designs aren't to corporate sensibilities, either.

My post is WCAG AA-compliant, except for the very specific occurrence of meaningless social links, and those meaningless social links render well in a browser's 'Reader View'. My site contains no ECMAScript aside from what was necessary to get the toy working. I care deeply about making things accessible; it's important to me.

[stareatgoats]

> you think silly web designs are a masculine trait

So, this seems to be a simple misunderstanding then. Because that's not what I mean (nor wrote). Anyhow, although we can probably continue to debate the finer points of this, I propose we don't. Have a good evening.

[jedimastert]

Which is really interesting given how male-dominated the web design field is

[stareatgoats]

I assume that was a convoluted way of disagreeing with the attribution of (some) "girlishness" to aesthetics? Suffice to say, the male domination doesn't by itself exclude all (pleasing) aesthetics, except in those niche corners of the internet with the "no girls allowed" sign on. At least maybe, it's really just a theory ;-)