- From: Chris Hubick <chris@hubick.com>
- Date: 09 Jul 2002 16:53:13 -0600
- To: W3C Evangelist <public-evangelist@w3.org>
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 15:22, Jeff Moyes wrote: > This would be incredible information if it can be found/compiled. At least > in the corporate world, (tangible) cost-benefit analysis is almost always > the underlying determinate factor. If you can show a manager that it will > save time and/or money (thereby "making" money) they will go for it. If they > don't see this than it's questoinable. I have had to do whatever upgrading > to standards compliant code I've done as a "black project" - i.e. slipping > it in during normal development, without taking any additional resources to > do so. The problem is, you have to start by getting the developers on board who are actually building the pages. Yes, web designers could really use a cost-benefit analysis in order to convince management, but if they don't care, and aren't even trying to convince them, it won't matter. I think right now, getting the designers on board is the larger task. I think you and your "black project" attitude are definitely the educated exception, but I don't think our current situation on the net is as a result of management shooting down standards. Personally, when I do consulting... I don't even treat it like it's an option. It takes as long as it will take to create those pages, and they will, at very least, validate - it's not optional. It never even gets up to management. A non-validating page to me is like programming source code which won't compile - there is no decision to make. Everyone repeat after me... If it doesn't validate, IT'S NOT HTML! :) -- Chris Hubick mailto:chris@hubick.com http://www.hubick.com/
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 18:51:56 UTC