<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Smarties and Dumbells</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1055/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1055</link>
	<description>Jason Scott's Weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:54:36 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob "Flack" O'Hara</title>
		<link>http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1055/comment-page-1#comment-4117</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob "Flack" O'Hara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ascii.textfiles.com/?p=1055#comment-4117</guid>
		<description>Two comments.

One, something you didn&#039;t mention that I recently realized greatly affected the way I wrote on BBSes was the fact that, at least in the old Commie/Apple II days, BBSes were in 40 columns. I&#039;ve been calling (telnetting) a few C64 BBSes lately and I had forgotten just how quickly you can write a screen-full of text at 40x25. On forums today I&#039;ve noticed that even the best written posts will get skimmed over or even skipped if they appear to be too long. At 40 columns, and sometimes without the ability to scroll back, it was to your best interest to keep your post on one page.

A second thought, unrelated to the first but related to your post, is how interesting it is that design, through CSS and other means, has become seperated from content. Most of the forums I&#039;m on have a button you can click that will instantly change the entire look of the site -- colors, layout, graphics, everything. Back in the BBS days, your layout was quite possibly the ONLY thing that made your BBS different from the next guy&#039;s. The concept of allowing your users to avoid seeing your custom drawn menus was unheard of. Sysops went to great lengths to ensure that their board looked unique. I guess the spark of the thought there is how interesting that back then unique design was an important part of a board&#039;s character; now, not as much. It should be, though.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two comments.</p>
<p>One, something you didn&#8217;t mention that I recently realized greatly affected the way I wrote on BBSes was the fact that, at least in the old Commie/Apple II days, BBSes were in 40 columns. I&#8217;ve been calling (telnetting) a few C64 BBSes lately and I had forgotten just how quickly you can write a screen-full of text at 40&#215;25. On forums today I&#8217;ve noticed that even the best written posts will get skimmed over or even skipped if they appear to be too long. At 40 columns, and sometimes without the ability to scroll back, it was to your best interest to keep your post on one page.</p>
<p>A second thought, unrelated to the first but related to your post, is how interesting it is that design, through CSS and other means, has become seperated from content. Most of the forums I&#8217;m on have a button you can click that will instantly change the entire look of the site &#8212; colors, layout, graphics, everything. Back in the BBS days, your layout was quite possibly the ONLY thing that made your BBS different from the next guy&#8217;s. The concept of allowing your users to avoid seeing your custom drawn menus was unheard of. Sysops went to great lengths to ensure that their board looked unique. I guess the spark of the thought there is how interesting that back then unique design was an important part of a board&#8217;s character; now, not as much. It should be, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
