W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > September 2002

Re: [Article] Web-Quality v1.1

From: Matthias Gutfeldt <thatlist@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20020920231623.770.qmail@web14501.mail.yahoo.com>
To: public-evangelist@w3.org

--- Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:
> a few corrections, minor updates to the article Web-Quality
> 	http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality
> I would like to add two points, but I need your help.

Not the help you asked for, but I find the title "My Web site is
standard! And yours?" a bit unfortunate. It sounds like the owner is
proud of having a boring old standard website instead of a sizzlin'
hot high-tech standards-compliant supergizmo!

IOW: It's not the site that should be standard, it's the code. The
site should be extraordinary and special. At least that's what many
webdesigners aim for.

> * "Major companies have invalid websites. They don't care about 
> standards, why I should care?"

Cite URLS of other major sites that have valid HTML, correct CSS,
accessible code, and look great and are fun to use.

> * "I'm working in the real world, I'm doing business with real 
> clients and they don't care about standards, they want something
> that works."

"If it doesn't work, don't blame it on the standards; blame it on the
industry that hasn't caught up with the standards."

OTOH, that raises the question how "standard" these standards really
are if the industry doesn't use them. So scratch that.

In my experience, working with standards doesn't cost more time than
working without them. But the overall technical quality of the
product is often better (depending on your and the client's
definition of "quality", of course), easier to maintain, and has a
longer life expectancy. 

You could also bring examples from other fields where standardization
has saved costs, enhanced quality, and worked.


Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 19:16:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:17 UTC