- From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 17:54:27 -0400
- To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- Cc: "tag" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Amy van der Hiel" <amy@w3.org>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
The minutes of the TAG do not give the expected outcomes of this Developer Workshop/Camp. At the Privacy API workshop, I remember Dan Appelquist mentioning something similar. In the minutes I read these two sentences: Le 2 sept. 2010 à 14:56, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group a écrit : > Developer Workshop / Camp at F2f […] > <noah> Chair is curious whether anyone else thinks this is high > value? […] > Tim: We could pick well-known established architects and/or people > who have been making decisions that we care about... If it's about the Web architecture document, there are a few unknown dimensions to W3C usual world which are tied to the business and social infrastructure of Web agencies. The Web architecture is, let say, a reasonable documents for implementers developing Web frameworks, libraries, APIs, etc. Basically, the people involved in building Web applications. There is another crowd which has a lot of influences on Web sites. The UX designers [1], Web designers are often the ones making decisions on how the Web site is interacting with the users. Their decisions have consequences which sometimes make difficult to apply Web architecture documents. The Web developers being at the end of the Web agency food chain, they do not have a lot of influence if, by chance, they know about Web architecture. I tried a few times with some UX colleagues, as an experiment, to make them read the Web Architecture document. It's usually not very successful. The document is not in their own languages with their own metaphors. There is a need here for a document and I guess discussions. I'm still experimenting. Another crowd which is also challenging for Web architecture in a Web agency is SEO people [2]. It is interesting to understand their own business constraint to find the right compromises. A quick example is content language negotiation in the context of a bilingual site. To maximize the traffic (then revenues), you need to use different uris for different languages. The content language negotiation is "harmful" in their own world. That leads to interesting discussions in a Web agency ;) All of that said, there might be interests for people at TAG to have a dialog with not so common type of implementers of the Web architecture, but having influences on the Web as it is now. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience_design [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Sunday, 5 September 2010 21:54:49 UTC