Why are standards important?

[Kevin Scholl]

bjg wrote in message ...



That's the policy of the company that I work within. They cater for the
*majority* as in many walks of life.

Why limit yourself to the so-called "majority" of IE, when coding to
standards allows your sites to work not just in IE, but a host of other
modern (and future) browsers as well? Seems to me the wiser business
choice is to allow for the possibility of more customers.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Andy Dingley]

The reason I ask, is I have always seen standards as important for my own
personal projects, but how do you convince your boss that?

Different question. That one is "What do I do about a company
structure that rewards clueless people by placing them where they can
do the most harm ?"


There is no good boss-friendly answer to your first question.
But this is an interesting read.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

 

[Whitecrest]

Maybe. And if your site _needs_ a rewrite every year or so, then you
are probably redesigning it to make it incompatible with previous _and_
future browsers.

Regardless of content, if your site has not be redesigned in that length
of time you have bigger problems.

 

[Eric Bohlman]

The reason I ask, is I have always seen standards as important for my
own personal projects, but how do you convince your boss that? I work
for a large well-known online retailer, and soon we are re-designing
the site.. I have seen the other people's work who are helping and
they don't even care about standards. Time = money and it takes time
to make a site comply with standards, especially if you're a messy
coder who has no idea.

By question would have been better phrased, as what are some reasons
why standards are important for a high-traffic website? "If it looks
good in IE, who cares" seems to be the attitude at work. I don't think
I can persuade them with moral arguments...

"Auxiliary Benefits of Accessible Web design"
(<http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html>) by the W3C might be helpful
for this purpose: it sets out to make a business case for standards
compliance (particularly accessibility standards, but not limited to them).

 

[Whitecrest]

Well, "corporate" website is probably a better way to put it. More like a
website for my one-man business. I slip into bad words every now and than,
but hey, I'm Norwegian. Is that a good enough excuse?

No excuse needed. A site like yours, a one man business site, had
better work on ever possible browser it can. Same for other business
sites where the company is dependant on the customer being able to
purchase something.

There is however, a HUGE sector out there that do not rely on the sales
from their web sites. These sites are there for different reasons.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

My company's policy is that it's only *nerds* who use browsers other than
IE, so they don't give a damn about Opera etc., users

Really? Nerds are often of quite high salaries. They also tend to know a
lot about how the Internet works so are happier using their credit cards
online.

 

[Barry Pearson]

One of the most succinct responses to this question I've ever seen
comes from Dan Cedarholm's SimpleBits site --
http://www.simplebits.com

I think the items below include things that are not to do with standards.
(Assuming "standards" includes specifications & recommendations).

- Decreased bandwidth and server space

Why? In what way would conforming to HTML 4.01 Transitional, without CSS, do
that? Yet it is a valid standard.

If you are promoting the use of Strict plus CSS then I agree. But that is
simply a *different* standard. (My own target now is Strict + CSS, but before
I used CSS much I still validated my Transitional pages).

- Improved accessibility to all browsers and devices (including those
with disabilities)

Hm! I still have a lingering hope that this is true, but frankly I am
sceptical. Browsers appear to be very tolerant, especially where HTML is
concerned. (They are less tolerant where CSS is concerned, and of course some
don't handle all of CSS2 properly - but that would be an argument for sticking
to HTML instead of using CSS! That isn't a good path to pursue).

I would like to see evidence that compliance with standards makes web sites
more accessible, when all other factors are controlled. For example, don't
compare a web site developed by a novice with one developed by an expert! The
latter is very likely to be more accessible - but that is because experts know
how to do these things, and can do so automatically.

What aspects of compliance with standards improves accessibility? I've tried
browsing valid Strict pages using a speaking browser, to see what it is like,
and I found that the factors that made web sites most accessible (at least to
me) were simplicity and predictability. Simple linearising content, no new
windows, etc. Structural mark-up helped, because it provided an aid to jumping
around bigger pages - so I would certainly agree with that. But I was using
IBM HPR, which uses IE as its browsing engine, and that appeared to be
tolerant in this use too.

- Increased separation of presentation layer code from content

With HTML 4.01 Transitional? This is an argument for a particular standard,
not just standards in general. Also - this separation is a *means to an end*,
not an end in itself. It needs to be related to the objectives of the web
site - is it actually needed? Is it just *nice to have*?

See: "Separation of concerns":
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/content_presentation/

- Simplified updating of look and feel

Again - this is an argument for CSS. I think now that this is what this whole
list is really about.

- Faster page loading
Ditto.

- Lower costs

Ah! Now this needs heavy qualification!

If an organisation is highly standards-oriented, then they will save costs.
Yes! But ... getting to that state costs a lot initially. The hard part is to
find a way to convince a project manager that *now* is the time to start. Many
of them want to be the 2nd, not the 1st, to try a new approach, such as a new
standard or a standards-oriented workflow. Identify managers' concerns and
show how standards can help. Don't overload them - make it look simple with
identifiable payback. Provide examples. Show them an HTML template linked to a
simple CSS and demonstrate that this can be replicated so they hit the ground
running, or at least walking. See if they have a task in the plan for
validating the site and getting senior management to approve it, and show that
there will be less cost & risk at that stage if CSS and templates and whatever
else you think is good are used. Etc.

I would also add to that more consistent, universal browser support.
Why code for IE-only when standards-compliant code will largely work
not only in IE, but also a host of other modern browsers?

There are 2 separate issues here. They overlap, of course, but both must be
kept in mind:
1. Writing compliant stuff. But that doesn't guarantee it will work in other
browsers - you still have to test it there.
2. Testing in other browsers. But this applies whether it is compliant or not.

What you have to do here is show how the cost (and there typically will be a
cost) of training people to write such code, and then checking that they have
done so, helps the project. This can be a hard step in a
non-standards-oriented organisation. If you identify suitable tools - that may
be the answer.

 

[A Hess]

Somewhere around 2/13/04 1:51 AM, Steve R. typed wildly with reckless
abandon:

Kim André Akerø wrote in message ....


trustworthy).

My company's policy is that it's only *nerds* who use browsers other than
IE, so they don't give a damn about Opera etc., users

Remind me NOT to do business with a (your) company who turns away
knowledgable customers in favor of the naive.

Thanks for at least trying to set them straight. I hope you can do it.

Aron

 

[Barry Pearson]

All the world is a game and all the men and women merely players.
In this vase, the game, or play, was a demonstration through a thought
experiment. Unfortunately the future cannot be seen, so we need to
"play games" if we wish to stay tuned to the future at all.

Gosh! I can't compete with a 21st Century Shakespeare!

[snip]

How could you know you're in the crowd? Surely the future browsers (or
versions) will aim at compatibility, often after a heroic attempt at
conforming to specifications. But full compatibility is impossible
in practice, and sites will be lost, and how do you know you're not in
that crowd?

Good question. But I'm a bit puzzled about that "impossible" statement. When I
was helping to design and architect mainframe systems and large-scale computer
systems, we had a systematic approach to backward-compatibility. We sometimes
kept both sets of code in place. We sometimes implemented "glue" from old to
new interfaces. We did so according to a programme plan. We never realised
that it was supposed to be impossible.

My guess is that there will be lots of published analysis about what major new
browsers can do and will stop doing. And this will provide enough notice for
people who care, to change. Perhaps months or even years. (The major case is
probably Longhorn).

The real question is how to create pages that make sense, now and in
the long run. The "standards" are a good starting point, but much in
them is just experimental, or poorly designed, or unimplemented, or
horrendously poorly implemented. Moreover, as many people have said,
the real problem with very many sites is that their designers never
really though _why_ they are creating them - what the site should
accomplish. No standard can cover such things. Many sites are just
exhibitions of their authors' technical skills (sometimes real, often
tragicomic). Little does it matter if pages "work" on IE, or on any
browser for that matter, if their content is just boring brochures.
And it seems that quite often brochures are what the management wants.
I have no cure for that.

I agree totally with those sentiments! The web is about communicating with the
target audience. And that is a subservient activity to some higher-level
business objective. I moved from computer systems architecture to business
consulting, and I hope I understand the key steps in analysing this.

The OP here probably has at least 2 levels of problem. One is to do with
convincing the project manager that standards are important. But the project
manager is trying to make a defined thing happen. So the other problem is
trying to convince the manager who commissioned the project that it should
treat standards as important.

Any of those people can browse the web and display pages published several
years ago, to old standards or none at all. That may make it hard to
demonstrate to them that modern standards are needed for the target audience
to access their pages! And those people may not care about what the state will
be in a few years time. They are trying to make a profit in the next few
months, and keep their own job for a year or 2. So what if those pages will
need significant revision in a few years time? So will just about every aspect
of what the company does!

Either work with those managers, and try to achieve a win-win, or go
elsewhere. Having to play games all the time gnaws at your insides and isn't
worth it.