Grim reality...

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Travis Newbury, Nov 24, 2005.

  1. Here is the grim reality of the world. The new Georgia Aquarium
    was just built (the largest in the world I might add) Anyway, they
    obviously needed a website.

    Starting from scratch they could have done anything. But they
    didn't they did this (warning it may not work in your particular
    browser with yor particular settings):

    http://www.georgiaaquarium.org

    Or I should say, they hired this company to do it for them:

    http://www.spunlogic.com/

    Now go look at their list of client's. (Some of them are on the
    front page, but there are more)

    So, here in alt.html we read/preach/rant about validation, and
    using CSS, don't require javascript, flash blows, you know the
    drill. But in the real world we seem to find the exact oposite. At
    least the real world as known to Americans (which is obviously the
    target for all these companies).

    I am not bringing this contrast up to argue which is better as
    there are more than enough threads in this group that talk about
    that. (Hell I have myself participate in one or two threads like
    that...) But rather to point out how there is a HUGE job market
    for many of the skills frowned upon in this group. As a matter of
    fact in Atlanta, the job market for IT positions is at pre-internet
    bubble burst levels. So what is causing this boom in the "evil
    technology"?

    Could the growing number of developers aware of validation etc, be
    shrinking the number of developers heading in the "non validating"
    direction, thus causing a need for these type of developers in the
    companies where the web page is still run by marketing?

    Or could it be that more people want the web to be more interactive
    and sites like these are making tons of money, and that is why
    there is a boom for these types of developers?

    I find this contrast interesting.

    Civil comments?

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Nov 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Travis Newbury

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Here is the grim reality of the world. The new Georgia Aquarium
    > was just built (the largest in the world I might add) Anyway, they
    > obviously needed a website.
    >
    > Starting from scratch they could have done anything. But they
    > didn't they did this (warning it may not work in your particular
    > browser with yor particular settings):
    >
    > http://www.georgiaaquarium.org


    Yikes. Horrible, horrible, horrible.
    Very slow to load. Major usability problems. Major accessibility
    problems.

    Numerous "Connection closed by remote server" errors.

    What is the point of having the purchase tickets form on the home page
    for everyone if only logged in users can use it? The same form even
    appears on the login page that appears after you tried to purchase
    tickets from the home page. And does it remember the number of tickets
    I entered so that after I have registered I don't need to re-enter that
    information? No, of course it doesn't.

    Why put the e-mail subsscription form in the location that has become
    de facto standard for the search form?

    The School Group&nbspReservations in the menu is a sure sign that very
    little QA was done. Works in IE but not in Firefox or Opera.

    Why <title>Georgia Aquarium - 43</title> for the home page? What does
    that 43 mean? And does every other page just have <title>Georgia
    Aquarium </title> instead of a unique title?

    > I am not bringing this contrast up to argue which is better as
    > there are more than enough threads in this group that talk about
    > that. (Hell I have myself participate in one or two threads like
    > that...) But rather to point out how there is a HUGE job market
    > for many of the skills frowned upon in this group. As a matter of
    > fact in Atlanta, the job market for IT positions is at pre-internet
    > bubble burst levels. So what is causing this boom in the "evil
    > technology"?


    Most of the problems with http://www.georgiaaquarium.org have nothing
    to do with the skills/technologies used to create the site. It's just
    bad design, poor planning and very little QA. With a bit of thought the
    same site could be accessible and easy to use with no loss of style.

    Same in every industry. Lots of jobs for people who do quick, cheap
    jobs and don't contradict the client. And a smaller number of jobs who
    do quality work. Just thank your lucky stars that people like surgeons
    have professional bodies that regulate and license practitioners. Good
    job web sites are just web sites and not anything important like heart
    surgery.

    > Could the growing number of developers aware of validation etc, be
    > shrinking the number of developers heading in the "non validating"
    > direction, thus causing a need for these type of developers in the
    > companies where the web page is still run by marketing?


    The whole sector is growing, thus the small sub-sector who do good work
    and the large sub-sector who do ordinary work will both be growing.
    What is positive is that the principles of good web design and
    development are trickling down. Yes, the majority of work being done is
    still poor, but on average it's not as poor as it was in the late '90s.

    > Or could it be that more people want the web to be more interactive
    > and sites like these are making tons of money, and that is why
    > there is a boom for these types of developers?


    Interactivity has nothing to do with it. Lots of interactivity in well
    made sites. Just lots of clients who want a web site cheaply, quickly
    and exactly how they want it and who don't want any so called 'expert'
    advising them differently. Luckily there are also clients who want
    decent web sites.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Nov 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Or could it be that more people want the web to be more interactive


    Ah, that weasel word "interactive" again.

    My experience has been that most sites which claim to be "interactive"
    are in fact doing their best to take away the natural user-driven
    interactivity which comes with any normal web page, and feeding the
    user with a pre-programmed experience, with just a few occasional
    choices of pre-determined options.

    Don't get me wrong: sometimes (e.g for a demonstration, simulation, a
    certain kind of tutorial, etc.) this can actually be just what's
    wanted. But to promote that as "interactive" seems to me to be
    bass-ackwards.


    ObWWW:

    [clear.gif]
    [clear.gif]
    [imageLogo.jpg]
    [clear.gif]
    [headerModulesSide.gif]
    [clear.gif] [clear.gif]
    [titlePurchaseTickets.jpg]
    ____________________ [clear.gif] # of Adult Tickets
    [clear.gif]
    ____________________ [clear.gif] # of Child Tickets (age 3-12)
    [clear.gif]
    ____________________ [clear.gif] # of Senior Tickets (age 55+)
    [clear.gif]
    [clear.gif] [clear.gif] [buttonSubmitNew.gif]-Submit
    [imageTixModHR.jpg]
    [clear.gif]
    [buttonAnnualPass.gif]
    [buttonpassReservations.gif]
    [buttonGroup.gif]
    [clear.gif]

    What price Section 508 ?
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Nov 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Travis Newbury

    Jim Higson Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Here is the grim reality of the world. The new Georgia Aquarium
    > was just built (the largest in the world I might add) Anyway, they
    > obviously needed a website.
    >
    > Starting from scratch they could have done anything. But they
    > didn't they did this (warning it may not work in your particular
    > browser with yor particular settings):
    >
    > http://www.georgiaaquarium.org
    >
    > Or I should say, they hired this company to do it for them:
    >
    > http://www.spunlogic.com/
    >
    > Now go look at their list of client's. (Some of them are on the
    > front page, but there are more)
    >
    > So, here in alt.html we read/preach/rant about validation, and
    > using CSS, don't require javascript, flash blows, you know the
    > drill. But in the real world we seem to find the exact oposite. At
    > least the real world as known to Americans (which is obviously the
    > target for all these companies).


    Just a note, I don't think respecting standards is as much about validtors
    as people make out, that's just an easy metric to point to. More important
    for me is creating with the intended spirit of the format.

    Validation might be the minimum, but it does not guarantie the formats are
    used correctly. The obvious example is tables for layout, but there are
    many others, such as the dominance of CSS for creating fixed-width layouts.

    In the case of the Aquarium, this is the kind of site that'd I'd use without
    too much moaning if it'd been created several years ago, but for a new site
    the effort to make it compatable with standards is lamentable. Having said
    that, it does work fine in Konqueror, which puts it above many
    non-standards sites.

    > I am not bringing this contrast up to argue which is better as
    > there are more than enough threads in this group that talk about
    > that. (Hell I have myself participate in one or two threads like
    > that...) But rather to point out how there is a HUGE job market
    > for many of the skills frowned upon in this group. As a matter of
    > fact in Atlanta, the job market for IT positions is at pre-internet
    > bubble burst levels. So what is causing this boom in the "evil
    > technology"?
    >
    > Could the growing number of developers aware of validation etc, be
    > shrinking the number of developers heading in the "non validating"
    > direction, thus causing a need for these type of developers in the
    > companies where the web page is still run by marketing?


    I don't think this is about developers as much as the people who pay for the
    sites. Most people commissioning a site don't know anything about web
    standards, so with no increased payout for creating quality there's no
    incentive for the web developers to improve their sites.

    > Or could it be that more people want the web to be more interactive
    > and sites like these are making tons of money, and that is why
    > there is a boom for these types of developers?


    > I find this contrast interesting.
    >
    > Civil comments?
    >
     
    Jim Higson, Nov 24, 2005
    #4
  5. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Jim Higson wrote:

    > Just a note, I don't think respecting standards is as much about
    > validtors as people make out,


    You're certainly misquoting or misinterpreting some of us "people".
    I'm a firm supporter of valid syntax; but failure to validate is just
    a symptom. Curing the symptom alone is unlikely to cure the disease.

    > that's just an easy metric to point to.


    Exactly.

    > More important for me is creating with the intended spirit of the
    > format.


    But IMHO it's not worth the effort of looking at the spirit, if the
    validator says bzzzzzzzzzzt. (With rare and unusual exceptions, e.g
    the mythical <wbr> tag can sometimes have its uses).

    > I don't think this is about developers as much as the people who pay
    > for the sites. Most people commissioning a site don't know anything
    > about web standards, so with no increased payout for creating
    > quality there's no incentive for the web developers to improve their
    > sites.


    When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house, surely
    you expect them to comply with the applicable building codes - even
    those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it be different for
    building web sites?
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Nov 24, 2005
    #5
  6. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:11:46 +0100, Alan J. Flavell
    <> wrote:

    > When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house, surely
    > you expect them to comply with the applicable building codes - even
    > those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it be different for
    > building web sites?


    Because with building a house the lifes of the future inhabitants are at
    risk. With a web site this is rarely the case.

    --
    ,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
    | weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
    | webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
    |zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Nov 24, 2005
    #6
  7. Travis Newbury

    Jim Higson Guest

    Alan J. Flavell wrote:

    >
    > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Jim Higson wrote:
    >
    >> Just a note, I don't think respecting standards is as much about
    >> validtors as people make out,

    >
    > You're certainly misquoting or misinterpreting some of us "people".
    > I'm a firm supporter of valid syntax; but failure to validate is just
    > a symptom. Curing the symptom alone is unlikely to cure the disease.


    Ok, noted.

    >> that's just an easy metric to point to.

    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    >> More important for me is creating with the intended spirit of the
    >> format.

    >
    > But IMHO it's not worth the effort of looking at the spirit, if the
    > validator says bzzzzzzzzzzt. (With rare and unusual exceptions, e.g
    > the mythical <wbr> tag can sometimes have its uses).


    I was not talking specifically about examining faulty websites on alt.html
    so much as what is important when a developer creates one. Hopefully then
    you are taking the effort to look at the spirit. If someone comes to
    alt.html with a badly non-validating site, it is completely right to ask
    them to get it valid and come back.

    There are occasions where non-valid syntax is a kind-of necessary, for
    example using that awful AlphaImageLoader stuff in CSS to get IE to display
    PNGs properly.

    >> I don't think this is about developers as much as the people who pay
    >> for the sites. Most people commissioning a site don't know anything
    >> about web standards, so with no increased payout for creating
    >> quality there's no incentive for the web developers to improve their
    >> sites.

    >
    > When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house, surely
    > you expect them to comply with the applicable building codes - even
    > those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it be different for
    > building web sites?


    It shouldn't, but unfortunately it is.
    Probably because most people at least know that building codes exist. I
    don't think most people know the W3C exists.

    --
    Jim
     
    Jim Higson, Nov 24, 2005
    #7
  8. Travis Newbury

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:34:50 GMT, Travis Newbury
    <> wrote:

    >I find this contrast interesting.


    I don't think either of your points is really representative.

    IMHE, the good readers of this newsgroup (well, c.i.w.a.h maybe) are
    _far_ more knowledgeable than any manager I have ever encountered who is
    commissioning these sites, or judging their quality. I know that I
    personally have regularly had huge arguments with managers over _not_
    doing things that were all-around a bad idea for "good" design, but were
    how the manager wanted it.

    Usability is commercially unnecessary. There is no good hard commercial
    reason why a site has to get it right. There's no enforcement of the
    supposed legal requirement, there's no need to make life easier for
    those compelled to use a site (any UK .gov site) and there's no
    measurement to count the trade lost by a poor site.

    Training is also poor. There is no commercial training available that is
    of a good quality. Anyone who does have "the clue" is almost entirely
    self-taught. As a result, job recruitment (especially through agencies)
    will _actively_ discourage good people and encourage those too naive to
    know more than the M$oft or Macromedia party line, viewed through a
    handful of the boom-year k00l-site books.

    If you think CIW training is bad, then take a look at the
    OU (Open University)
    http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01T183_8_0

    Comments from a _recent_ student of it
    "we are using Netscape Composer"
    "We have been taught to create the pages using tables,"
    "we have been taught the 'single pixel gif trick', "
     
    Andy Dingley, Nov 24, 2005
    #8
  9. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Jim Higson wrote:

    > > But IMHO it's not worth the effort of looking at the spirit, if the
    > > validator says bzzzzzzzzzzt. (With rare and unusual exceptions, e.g
    > > the mythical <wbr> tag can sometimes have its uses).

    >
    > I was not talking specifically about examining faulty websites on alt.html
    > so much as what is important when a developer creates one.


    Fair comment

    > Hopefully then you are taking the effort to look at the spirit.


    If it's a site that offers me something that I want to use, then I'll
    try to use it. It's only if/when that fails that I start trawling its
    internals, honest!

    [...]
    > There are occasions where non-valid syntax is a kind-of necessary,
    > for example using that awful AlphaImageLoader stuff in CSS to get IE
    > to display PNGs properly.


    I understand what you're saying. It's a pity we can't just feed that
    back-level browser-like object with the back-level content that suits
    it. Yes, I know...

    > > When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house,
    > > surely you expect them to comply with the applicable building
    > > codes - even those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it
    > > be different for building web sites?

    >
    > It shouldn't, but unfortunately it is.
    > Probably because most people at least know that building codes exist. I
    > don't think most people know the W3C exists.


    They maybe don't know that there's /any/ interworking specifications,
    let alone the W3C's. But without interworking specifications, of
    various kinds, their Internet connection would be useless.

    all the best.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Nov 24, 2005
    #9
  10. Travis Newbury

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Travis Newbury <>
    >
    > browser with yor particular settings):
    >
    > http://www.georgiaaquarium.org
    >
    > Or I should say, they hired this company to do it for them:
    >
    > http://www.spunlogic.com/
    >
    > Now go look at their list of client's. (Some of them are on the
    > front page, but there are more)
    >
    > So, here in alt.html we read/preach/rant about validation, and
    > using CSS, don't require javascript, flash blows, you know the
    > drill. But in the real world we seem to find the exact oposite. At
    > least the real world as known to Americans (which is obviously the
    > target for all these companies).
    >
    > I am not bringing this contrast up to argue which is better as
    > there are more than enough threads in this group that talk about
    > that. (Hell I have myself participate in one or two threads like
    > that...) But rather to point out how there is a HUGE job market
    > for many of the skills frowned upon in this group. As a matter of
    > fact in Atlanta, the job market for IT positions is at pre-internet
    > bubble burst levels. So what is causing this boom in the "evil
    > technology"?
    >
    > Could the growing number of developers aware of validation etc, be
    > shrinking the number of developers heading in the "non validating"
    > direction, thus causing a need for these type of developers in the
    > companies where the web page is still run by marketing?
    >
    > Or could it be that more people want the web to be more interactive
    > and sites like these are making tons of money, and that is why
    > there is a boom for these types of developers?
    >
    > I find this contrast interesting.
    >
    > Civil comments?
    >


    Perhaps this is going on: the folk who are good at making money
    have not had time to study and read and practice better
    standards of website construction. Nothing in best practice
    stops use of the interaction or flair you refer to. But it
    requires time and patience to do both jazzy frontend and solid
    backend stuff. The folk going for the (perhaps more superficial)
    popular styles etc can get it without quite so much effort using
    crappy source and/or wsiwigs.

    Division of labour thing going on: they are hell bent on the
    output and anything will do to make it how they want it (and
    that means mainly in IE). If it mostly works, why spend time on
    validation issues (they think... or "don't think"!) They get
    good at providing reasonably quickly what people find
    immediately attractive - this makes for a marketable skill more
    quickly acquired....

    --
    dorayme

    (as usual, speaking from BdeZ killfile)
     
    dorayme, Nov 25, 2005
    #10
  11. "dorayme" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:BFACAAC6.1A867%...
    > > From: Travis Newbury <>
    > >
    > > browser with yor particular settings):
    > >
    > > http://www.georgiaaquarium.org
    > >
    > > Or I should say, they hired this company to do it for them:
    > >
    > > http://www.spunlogic.com/
    > >
    > > Now go look at their list of client's. (Some of them are on the
    > > front page, but there are more)
    > >
    > > So, here in alt.html we read/preach/rant about validation, and
    > > using CSS, don't require javascript, flash blows, you know the
    > > drill. But in the real world we seem to find the exact oposite. At
    > > least the real world as known to Americans (which is obviously the
    > > target for all these companies).



    > > I am not bringing this contrast up to argue which is better as
    > > there are more than enough threads in this group that talk about
    > > that. (Hell I have myself participate in one or two threads like
    > > that...) But rather to point out how there is a HUGE job market
    > > for many of the skills frowned upon in this group. As a matter of
    > > fact in Atlanta, the job market for IT positions is at pre-internet
    > > bubble burst levels. So what is causing this boom in the "evil
    > > technology"?
    > >
    > > Could the growing number of developers aware of validation etc, be
    > > shrinking the number of developers heading in the "non validating"
    > > direction, thus causing a need for these type of developers in the
    > > companies where the web page is still run by marketing?
    > >
    > > Or could it be that more people want the web to be more interactive
    > > and sites like these are making tons of money, and that is why
    > > there is a boom for these types of developers?
    > >
    > > I find this contrast interesting.
    > >
    > > Civil comments?
    > >

    >
    > Perhaps this is going on: the folk who are good at making money
    > have not had time to study and read and practice better
    > standards of website construction. Nothing in best practice
    > stops use of the interaction or flair you refer to. But it
    > requires time and patience to do both jazzy frontend and solid
    > backend stuff. The folk going for the (perhaps more superficial)
    > popular styles etc can get it without quite so much effort using
    > crappy source and/or wsiwigs.
    >
    > Division of labour thing going on: they are hell bent on the
    > output and anything will do to make it how they want it (and
    > that means mainly in IE). If it mostly works, why spend time on
    > validation issues (they think... or "don't think"!) They get
    > good at providing reasonably quickly what people find
    > immediately attractive - this makes for a marketable skill more
    > quickly acquired....
    >
    > --
    > dorayme
    >
    > (as usual, speaking from BdeZ killfile)




    Interesting thread.
    No sign of water on Mars, yet?

    --
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/laegenheter-i-italien.php
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 25, 2005
    #11
  12. Travis Newbury

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Luigi Donatello Asero" <>
    >
    > Interesting thread.
    > No sign of water on Mars, yet?


    How's secret business? Making a lire or two?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 25, 2005
    #12
  13. "dorayme" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:BFACB5B3.1A871%...
    > > From: "Luigi Donatello Asero" <>
    > >
    > > Interesting thread.
    > > No sign of water on Mars, yet?

    >
    > How's secret business? Making a lire or two?



    Lire were used in Italy not on Mars.. Dorayme...
    and nowadays they are not used any longer..
    (parli lĀ“italiano?)
    Mars is still a topic and will probably be on topic on the press for a
    while..
    But back to the main topic...
    I guess that the reasons why a website is
    successful or not depend on so many different reasons...
    not only design...
    Personally, I see validation as an advantage.
    As to design itself, colours and so on they are often a matter of personal
    taste..
    --
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/en/holiday-lodgings.php
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 25, 2005
    #13
  14. Travis Newbury

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Jim Higson quothed:

    > > When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house, surely
    > > you expect them to comply with the applicable building codes - even
    > > those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it be different for
    > > building web sites?

    >
    > It shouldn't, but unfortunately it is.
    > Probably because most people at least know that building codes exist. I
    > don't think most people know the W3C exists.


    Furthermore, some people know it exists but wish they didn't.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Nov 25, 2005
    #14
  15. Travis Newbury

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

    > Here is the grim reality of the world. The new Georgia Aquarium
    > was just built (the largest in the world I might add) Anyway, they
    > obviously needed a website.
    >
    > Starting from scratch they could have done anything. But they
    > didn't they did this (warning it may not work in your particular
    > browser with yor particular settings):
    >
    > http://www.georgiaaquarium.org
    >
    > Or I should say, they hired this company to do it for them:
    >
    > http://www.spunlogic.com/
    >
    > Now go look at their list of client's. (Some of them are on the
    > front page, but there are more)
    >
    > So, here in alt.html we read/preach/rant about validation, and
    > using CSS, don't require javascript, flash blows, you know the
    > drill. But in the real world we seem to find the exact oposite. At
    > least the real world as known to Americans (which is obviously the
    > target for all these companies).
    >
    > I am not bringing this contrast up to argue which is better as
    > there are more than enough threads in this group that talk about
    > that. (Hell I have myself participate in one or two threads like
    > that...) But rather to point out how there is a HUGE job market
    > for many of the skills frowned upon in this group. As a matter of
    > fact in Atlanta, the job market for IT positions is at pre-internet
    > bubble burst levels. So what is causing this boom in the "evil
    > technology"?
    >
    > Could the growing number of developers aware of validation etc, be
    > shrinking the number of developers heading in the "non validating"
    > direction, thus causing a need for these type of developers in the
    > companies where the web page is still run by marketing?
    >
    > Or could it be that more people want the web to be more interactive
    > and sites like these are making tons of money, and that is why
    > there is a boom for these types of developers?


    That's exactly it. However, a fully standards-compatible, usability-
    friendly site can be just as attractive, attention-getting, and
    "awesome" as any archaic site on the web, -in fact even more so. The
    secret is in using javascript.

    I know, I know, -what if Joe Blow or Jolene Blowess doesn't have js
    turned on? The answer is: who cares? You, as the pagemaker, are trying
    to impress the client, not the user. If the client wants spangles, give
    him all the js spangles he wants. With just a little acuity, you can
    have your cake and eat it, too.

    >
    > I find this contrast interesting.
    >
    > Civil comments?
    >
    >


    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Nov 25, 2005
    #15
  16. Jim Higson <> said:
    > I don't think this is about developers as much as the people who
    > pay for the sites. Most people commissioning a site don't know
    > anything about web standards, so with no increased payout for
    > creating quality there's no incentive for the web developers to
    > improve their sites.


    So you believe the demand is more or less caused by the marketing
    departments (they are the people that"pay" for the sites) driving
    web development. I also lean that way. But I also think people
    are accepting or god forbid enjoying it. Especially if they have
    broadband.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Nov 25, 2005
    #16
  17. "Alan J. Flavell" <> said:

    > When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house,
    > surely you expect them to comply with the applicable building
    > codes - even those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it
    > be different for building web sites?



    Yea, but when I want someone to make me dinner, I want the chef to
    add his own personal touches. The recipe is only a guide... Proving
    analogies are meaningless to prove a point...

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Nov 25, 2005
    #17
  18. "Travis Newbury" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns971948685623Etravisenewburyhotmai@69.28.186.121...
    > Jim Higson <> said:
    > > I don't think this is about developers as much as the people who
    > > pay for the sites. Most people commissioning a site don't know
    > > anything about web standards, so with no increased payout for
    > > creating quality there's no incentive for the web developers to
    > > improve their sites.

    >
    > So you believe the demand is more or less caused by the marketing
    > departments (they are the people that"pay" for the sites) driving
    > web development. I also lean that way. But I also think people
    > are accepting or god forbid enjoying it. Especially if they have
    > broadband.
    >
    > --
    > -=tn=-


    Large companies do not probably base their advertising campaign too much on
    their ranking on search engines...
    and as long as most users use IE and they can access the site and provided
    most users have a fast connection like broadband, flash sites can probably
    get many visits..

    --
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/italien/ligurien/ferienwohnung-in-le-cinque-terre-badzimmer.php
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 25, 2005
    #18
  19. dorayme <> said:
    > Nothing in best practice
    > stops use of the interaction or flair you refer to.


    Yea it does, but that's a different argument.

    > But it
    > requires time and patience to do both jazzy frontend and solid
    > backend stuff.


    Something that does not exist in corporate America. The american
    culture does not have time to wait for people to learn. They want
    it, and they want it now. And if something shinier comes along
    they will suddenly turn direction.

    > The folk going for the (perhaps more superficial)
    > popular styles etc can get it without quite so much effort using
    > crappy source and/or wsiwigs.


    Folks going for the superficial are called Americans. Remeber
    superficial, and wanting things right now, and sudden changes of
    whims are unbelievably bennificial to capitalism. It helps the
    economy grow.

    > Division of labour thing going on: they are hell bent on the
    > output and anything will do to make it how they want it (and
    > that means mainly in IE). If it mostly works, why spend time on
    > validation issues (they think... or "don't think"!) They get
    > good at providing reasonably quickly what people find
    > immediately attractive - this makes for a marketable skill more
    > quickly acquired....


    Yep you are exactly right.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Nov 25, 2005
    #19
  20. "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> said:

    > Interesting thread.
    > No sign of water on Mars, yet?


    Obviously you are not watching, They have found signs of water on
    mars ages ago.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Nov 25, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. main\(\){};
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,061
    Steve McLellan
    Dec 14, 2004
  2. Tormod Hystad
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    433
    Tormod Hystad
    Jul 4, 2003
  3. win
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    377
  4. gavnosis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    527
    gavnosis
    Aug 2, 2003
  5. Stephen Ferg
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    309
    Skip Montanaro
    Sep 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page