Re: web standards project article

I have a feeling some of the below may drift off-topic, for which I 
apologise.

Ant wrote:
> 
> One of the main problems standards advocacy faces is that the majority 
> of Web designers have a method of creating acceptable Web sites and 
> simply haven't thought any further on the topic. As can be seen from the 
> above example, this doesn't necessarily reflect their intelligence or 
> ability to understand. Part of the standards advocacy program must 
> therefore attempt to encourage deeper thought, it is simply not enough 
> to place usable information onto the web and expect people to flock to it.

This technology has very little in the way of barrier-to-entry, for a 
novice, which is splendid. However, crossing those barriers provokes 
deeper thought in other disciplines.

I'd rather see us evolve into something like the architectural 
profession (creative & technical), than continue in it's current 
disorganised, car-mechanic-like(*1) direction.

> I feel there is a requirement for more usable information about 
> standards and that it must come from the W3C so as to avoid this loss of 
> accuracy.

I concur.

The topics that Molly covered should lead us to reconsider why we are, 
and to whom we are, advocating standards.

It's all too easy for discussions about standards to degenerate into 
'religious' arguments, between parties who have adopted a position based 
  on their interpretation of, or understanding of, W3C's published 
information.  Molly's reference to the media type argument is the 
perfect example.

Consider the following, there are 2 developers with opposing arguments, 
  (the media-type argument, tables vs css, whatever), and someone who 
must make a decision.

Chances are, that someone is not technically minded, so they see the 
'religious' debate and are frustrated, by their own inability to decide 
and the inflammatory, time wasting nature of the argument.

There is no single, official, resource that explains the facts in 
layman's terms(*2).

We need to solve that problem, and create demand for 'standards 
compliant' website design, and the only way to do that is to educate the 
people 'buying the service' - a substantial undertaking.


Maybe we should consider creating a new official resource(*3) with 
information separately targeted at:

a) designers, developers, industry
b) employers, non-technical, management, 'clients'
c) press, media, other (non-involved) interested parties

It's primary function being basic, myth-killing, simple explanations of 
the technology, using whatever analogies and graphics(*4) best explain 
the problem.  Backed up by a library of more detailed information, and 
links into the technical documentation at the current w3.org site.



My other two-pennies-worth: if this stuff is *not* actually a standard 
now, why isn't it? and why not make it one?
If we're not clear on this, how do we expect anyone else to be?



.Pid



- - -

(*1) car mechanic
You might find a good one, or they might suck their teeth and say "Well, 
it's not the labour, it's the /parts/...".

Either way, you won't know if they're right, let alone any good, until 
you've paid up & they've done the work.


(*2) laymans terms
There's something called "The Crystal Mark", 
(http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/crystal.html).

The Plain English Campaign is an independent pressure group fighting for 
public information to be written in plain English (substitute your pref 
language here).


(*3) new resource?
There are many excellent published works which already succesfully 
describe, advocate, etc web standards. Requesting the right to republish 
this content should be a trivial matter.

Being published in a W3C 'journal' of this nature (forgive my ignorance 
if there is one) would offer a certain cachet - it works in other 
disciplines.


(*4) analogies & graphics
Anyone who works with clients in this game will have favourite analogies 
and doodles for explaining this stuff, should the topic come up in 
meetings. Don't they?




-- 



pid@neutralgrey.com

ng m: (+44|0)7976 411939
ng w: www.neutralgrey.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is copyright (c)2004 neutral grey ltd
reg. in england: co.no.04927018

This message is intended only for the use of the individuals to which it 
is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and 
confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you 
have received this transmission in error; any review, dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this transmission is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and all of its 
attachments.

Received on Saturday, 30 October 2004 11:40:43 UTC