W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > December 2009

Issues concerning web standards

From: Andrew Jenery <ajenery@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:14:41 +0000
Message-Id: <COL118-W367ABFFACCE1FC13C808F0A18B0@phx.gbl>
To: w3c help <site-comments@w3.org>
This is a repeat of a previous message, as I forgot to include a  
subject title.  My appologies...
-----

To W3C,

Hi,

I have a number of issues concerning current standards for web-page  
creation/implimentation, but do not know which W3C department to  
contact, so I have sent this email here...

The main issues/problems that I experience; indeed have experienced  
for some time, are as follows:

Creating so-called 'standards based/complient' web pages is (for me at  
least, although I am sure the following is true for many people) far  
from simple and strait forward.  The whole process is still far too  
complex and convoluted, especially for those that were/are used to  
table-based web-page creation using WYSIWYG editors, i.e Dreamweaver.   
Now however, and for many years already, this is no longer enough.

It is now almost a criminal offence not to use CSS, and here lies the  
problem.  Many people do not have CSS knowledge; indeed they did not/ 
do not have even html/xhtml knowledge which is why WYSIWYG html  
editors were made very popular in the first place - indeed, this  
worked very well for many years.

The process was simple and problem-free; you created x-number of web  
pages using an editor, you checked things like meta tags, added  
content, and then uploaded the pages to a host's server.  Now however,  
it has to be CSS'd; but because many do not have this knowledge and at  
the same time cannot afford to hire professional programmers, etc,  
they are forced into the CMS route - Content Management Systems, such  
as Joomla!; Wordpress, etc.

But these are not simple or straitforward either.  The content  
management aspect of CMS's is very good and most welcome, but you are  
still required to have naked html and especially css knowledge (none  
of these CMS's have wysiwyg html/css editors), which puts the vast  
majority of 'web entrepreneurs' back to square one.

Why therefore, is W3C so CSS-biased?  Why does W3C insist on bullying  
people into not accepting or staying with table-based web-pages/ 
websites?  This is not a benefit for many web developers, it is a  
hazard!

To this, W3C may say 'what is the problem', considering that recent or  
updated versions of wysiwyg editors do support latest css  
requirements?  This is true, however many of these updated versions  
are far from cheap; they are very expensive - many web developers are  
still relying on much older versions of these editors.

For instance, I still use - and would like to continue using  
Dreamweaver 4.0 which was released circa 2001/2002 (I forget the exact  
year).  My budget simply does not allow me to buy upgrades, and this I  
would state without any hesitating, is the case for many thousands of  
website developers/publishers.

So, to sum-up what my concerns are; it is that there is far too much  
of this ramming css down people's throats, and wagging the finger (on  
forums, etc) at anyone who still dares to want to publish simple,  
table-based sites (that worked perfectly well for many years) on the  
www.  Google, for instance, will not even list none-css sites!  It is  
as though W3C and Google and certain other players are in-league on  
this issue...




Regards,
Andrew Jenery




Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email  
accounts. Find out how.
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 03:57:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:32 GMT