W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2012

Re: W3C discussion of CSS prefixes

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:36:50 +0200
Message-Id: <069A00CD-2D85-4F4E-B4AA-7E0C6E65E794@opera.com>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
To: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
Peter,

Le 16 mai 2012 à 06:37, Linss, Peter a écrit :
> Authors using experimental features also (IMO at least) have an obligation to update their content once the standard equivalent is available, or accept that their page will break.

I understand the will, but this doesn't match what is happening in the Web *social* and *economic* infrastructure most of the time.

A middle size Web agency (20-100 persons), not saying it is always like this down there, but it is a pattern I have seen plenty of times in a few Web agencies.


1. Client comes to the Web Agency with a desire "I need to redo my Web site", "I need to add a new service", etc.

2. Web Agency business account persons give a brief to the creative team. Wild, sound, stupid ideas start.

3. The Artistic Director creates photoshop screens for a few pages.
   (Option in rare case, the prototype will be html)

4. The project manager and business person compute a raw evaluation of the budget.

5. Client and business persons talk about the budget and the artistic proposal. Project Manager becomes the policeman of the project.

6. Back to the Artistic Director to decline everything for all pages.

7. Start of the HTML Web site. Web developer (backend: python, php, java) + Web Integrator (html/css/JS) start working.

8. The Web Integrator *cuts* the photoshop screens to create the design given by the artistic director. 

9. Project starts to kick ass of the Web Integrator because hours are counted and we approach the release date and the budget will explode.

10. The client has a last minute idea, he has seen on another Web site an effect in a chrome demo Web site and he wants it on his Web site. The client is king. The Web agency is in an highly competitive environment.

11. The Web site integrator is testing the Web site on his own computer and browser, eventually the one of the client too. If a bit of time, the thing is tested in another browser. If the browser has no market shares in previous Web sites made by the Web agency, forget it. No time and budget for it.

12. The product is released to the client. Discussions, conflicts, Rinse and Repeat, arguments over the budgets.

13. The site is released. The project manager closes the file. The site is hosted. Anything that the client would ask would be billed. The client has burnt his budget for the next two years. 

14. The 1% browser-market-share user complaints 10 months later that the site is broken to the client site. If the user is lucky, the client asked why to the Web agency. The Web agency replies it was not in the requirements you asked us, or there are not that many users with this browser, just ignore them (same goes with accessibility).


The client doesn't care about Web standards. 
The Web agency has no budget to care about Web standards.
Things which are deployed are NOT fixed.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 07:37:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 May 2012 07:37:51 GMT