- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:17:11 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > Putting something in the spec carries little weight if you cannot get > people to use it. All the semantics defined in a spec are useless for > markup consumers if you can't get people to produce semantic markup > *correctly* and in the quantity that makes it worthwhile for consumers > to prepare to consume those semantics. You also can't get people to produce that semantic markup if that semantic markup isn't even available, and the only options present in the spec are non-semantic. > There are four general ways to get people to do something: > 1) Make it fun. Well, semantics don't seem fun for most people. > 2) Make people believe that they are morally required to do it. This > works for a subset of authors, but it appears that moral arguments don't > move the authoring masses. > 3) Threaten with enforcement that after possible levels of indirection > reduces to a threat of violence. (E.g. fine people for non-compliance > and have it known that refusal to pay up leads to guys with guns coming > to take the offender to jail.) Currently, there doesn't appear to be > political will to use the government-backed enforcement apparatus to > enforce certain Web authoring practices. > 4) Provide amoral incentives that make people do the right thing as the > side effect of pursuing their self-interest. This seems to work. 5) Modify the tools that they use (for the most part), let the tool do a lot of the heavy/boring/non-fun work for them, present the choices to the users in clear and usable ways...this makes users adopt the new standard in a transparent way which is invisible to them. 6) Start building tools that consume semantic markup *now*, for localised applications/sets of documents, rather than waiting for this "quantity that makes it worthwhile". See for instance what's happening on the microformats front - far from mainstream, but tools are already out there and are slowly finding adoption. These tools can either be directly aimed at end users (in the mF case, extensions for FF like Operator), or act behind the scenes (unknown to the actual end user, but present nonetheless). For another similar example, think of RSS/Atom and aggregation...only now it's hitting the mainstream, with tools for end users, but the technology has been developed and used even before your suggested critical mass was in place. And for nr 3 - as amusingly as you worded it: enforcement can happen at organisational level...in the same way that it's often done for accessibility policies. Will this cover the non-organisational, amateur, hobbyist coder who doesn't use a tool as outlined in 5)...fine, I can live with that. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 21:17:22 UTC