Re: New evangelism article open for review: "Buy standards compliant web sites"

Salut Dom,

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote:
> "Buy standards compliant web sites"
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements

Here's a quick review, with mixed general comments, proposed
rewordings, etc. Participants to the list, feel free to say whether you
agree or not with this review, and of course, feel free to send in your
review, too.


* Abstract *

[ ordering a web site to a Web Agency? ]
	Yes, but it also may apply, in "bigger" companies/organisms, 
to the "web or IT department". Don't forget internal development
sometimes use business logic (requirements, contract, deadlines, etc).

[ open standards? ]
	Here I agree with a comment I saw some place else. Yes, we're
talking about open standards, but we're talking to decision-making
executives. "standards" is certainly already a frightening word for
them, so maybe "open standards" is too much. I'd suggest you use it once
or twice, but replace most occurences by "standards'. 
Saves bandwidth, too :)

[ level of quality for final product ]
	for {the/a} final product?

[ See also the specific requirements... ]
	This sentence is... awkward. I don't know exactly why. At least
I'd link "specific requirements" to #reqlist. But I feel there's 
something missing, as if "also" was "in addition to...what?". 

Proposed rewording, as one paragraph.
"Adding open standards compliance to your requirements helps achieve a
more powerful, accessible, and maintainable final product, and leverages
the energies put into the standards creations. This document details
those benefits induced by the use of standards. See also the _specific 
requirements_ that will help you achieve this goal."


*Open Standards for the Web*

[ tested by some of the leading experts ]
	drop "some of the"?

[ implemented by several developers ]
	This is confusing, one could think "so what, it's implemented 
by several people, not only one person alone...", whereas the point is
there must be several interoperable implementations. I'd suggest
"implemented into several compatible products" if you don't want to talk
about interoperability.

[ develop consistent architectural principles across the time and technologies ]
	Please clarify "across the time and technologies".

[ your applications won't depend on a unique provider ]
	I'm not fond of "provider". Any idea for a better term?

[ stuck with formats you don't have access to ]
	Well, *now* is the right moment to explain why you're talking 
about _open_ standards. Using the terms _open_ standards will likely
displease a few execs ("you mean, like these open-source communists?")
But on the contrary, speaking of "black-box technologies you can't rely
on nor understand" instead of "formats you don't have access to" might
ring a bell :)


[ select from many tools from many different producers ]
	Is this done on purpose because you're talking about XQuery? 
I like "choose" better than "select". I would also say "a wide range of
tools". Maybe worth adding, too, is the fact that these are very diverse
tools, suiting various need, requirements, budgets, etc. The power of
choice, in some sense.

[ the infamous feature creep ]
	Infamous who? Oh you mean feature creep[1], the result of
creeping featurism[2] a.k.a creeping featuritis[3] in its "medical"
version... OK. May be a good idea to add a link to the definitions for
idiots like me who didn't know the term :).
	

[1] http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/f/feature_creep.html
[2] http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/c/creeping_featurism.html
[3] http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/c/creeping_featuritis.html


* What you should include in your requirements list *

Another possible rationale for CSS use is the power of alternate
presentation mechanisms it offers.

Another possible rationale for PNG : patents, anyone? [4] [5]

[4] http://www.forgent.com/company/press_room/in_the_news.shtml
[5] http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/Gif/origCompuServe.html

* Generally speaking *

I love the article, it's well written, clear yet full of marketing-ish
buzz-talk such as "technologies that already belong to the future" (oh
my, oh my, where'd you get this one?) that are likely to please execs,
or at least speak a language they're used to hear.

One arguments that doesn't seem to be developed, and may be worth
it, is the fact that well-designed websites save bandwidth. 
fits in the "Reduced maintenance costs" section I guess. Tell
decision-makers to remember their hosting/network bills, and
then give the figures and arguments (was it Zeldman?) gave :
stylesheet cached once and for all, no more <FONT COLOR=#000000
FACE=TIMES_NEW_ROMAN_GOTHIC_WINGDINGS SIZE=2> and friends (yum) 
that account for 20% of your web volume, etc.

Keep up the good work.
Cheers, olivier
-- 
Olivier Thereaux - W3C http://www.w3.org/People/olivier
| http://yoda.zoy.org

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 04:24:33 UTC