Let me start by stating that I have no real interest in Web Standards and I barely deduce the meaning when I read the phrase…
redev.org had a post about a site that the webmaster considered an IE-compliant-only site is OK. Also Sean Corfield blogged about this and stated that IE stats shouldn’t be 97% as the webmaster believed (Quite interesting comments there).
I don’t care much about Web Standards. If my personal site looks OK in IE then it’s OK for me, because IE is the de facto web standard today. I assume there’s a committee or similar that sets the standards on paper but practically, as far as I’m concerned, IE 6 sets the standards. And if any other browser cannot show a page correctly where IE can, then that browser needs a fix.
I remember Borland’s Assembler TASM had a ‘Enable MASM Quirks’ mode, which made TASM behave like the buggy MASM (Microsoft’s Assembler). You can’t ignore the current ‘standard’ and set your own. Well, you can try. If another browser becomes the practical standard, then it’s OK for me too, but for a personal site I cannot bother with more than one browser blaming each other or some spec on paper…
I heard many times IE being criticized because it was too forgiving for incorrectly nested tags or missing close tags. Well, I think it’s a great feature. It surely speeds up the development.
I don’t know if it’s there already but I think this forgiving behavior should make its way into Web Standards because it’s great and because it’s the current practical standard.
SWF specs are open and documented. But the Flash Player, much like IE, is very forgiving and it will play many non-standard SWF files correctly. Most of the time these SWF files are produced by 3rd party applications. Their authors test their produced SWFs with the Flash Player and it’s OK for them as long as the Player plays them. So if anyone today tries to write a Player for the general audience from scratch, he’ll have to face many serious compatibility issues, even though SWF specs are open…
If our software cannot open a SWF file, while the SWF plays fine with the player, who do you blame? Flash Player sets the de facto, practical standards / specs for SWF files, not some document available for download.
Current SWF Player also supports many depreciated features, even though the size is extremely important. It plays version 6 SWF files exactly as version 6 Player will play them, it even duplicates buggy behavior etc., backwards compatibility is important.
But someone makes a browser with some cool extra features with no backwards compatibility with the main feature of displaying web pages and hopes everyone will adopt the browser because of the cool extra features and because he has barely followed a spec on paper. I won’t, for one.
My point is, Flash Player (for SWF files) is in a position very similar to IE (for web pages). Even though SWF specs are available, Macromedia doesn’t have the Player source open because ‘this will surely lead to incompatible Players’, very much like the browsers around today. [And I think this has been a very clever move. (Flash Player source is available for licensing for only new platforms).]
What if a 3rd party Flash Player comes to the scene, which implements the specs but breaks many existing content. Will you switch to it because it has the option to disable the ‘about’ menu completely? or because it’s open source? or because it has a cool name?
Well, I won’t, until it’s compatible with existing content first.
Loading ...
I support what all these web designers are trying to accomplish. By globally supported standards, you can actually make web design more profitable rather than spending more time in the process of creating a site to work with not only many different browsers and OS’, but many different versions of those browsers & OS’. The technology is a vehicle to the result; the result should be judged on it’s merits rather than it’s portrayal in the vehicle at the end of the trip to the end user.
And this is the main reason I broke from the majority of my graduating class in college; I didn’t want any part of that web design insanity. However, this now puts me, and you, in a unique position. We are not web developers, but users. In that case, we are right.
…but then it’s complicated again because we make personal sites. HTML is nice in that it empower’s me and you to quickly make a place where we can share out thoughts and learnings in Flash with the community and have a limited discourse on that subject. The accomplishment is great, but because our sites do not reach certain audiencies, by their choice our not, puts responsiblity on us as web designers, even if temporarely. Suddenly, even on a personal site, it’s not about us anymore. That is such an oxy-moron, and the irony is annoying.
I liken it to White Privaledges. For example, White people don’t have to learn about a lot of Black history in school, but Blacks have to learn about White history without a choice to learn more about Black history.
As user’s, it’s our User Privaledge to use what browser we wish, and even develop for it.
However, I like to give most Web Standard extermists the benefit of the doubt, and understand they are really looking for equal opportunity in web design to allow continuity in their technology to actually work as intended; empowering them to more cost & time effectively reach their target audience.
So, rather than assume they want you to have your web page validate to some arcane engine you’ve never heard of, or support some browser supposedly is the only that works, they are really trying to improve the way we browse web pages, ensure easy ways to collaborate with technology that actually works as expected, and move onto improving & innovating existing things rather than attempting to make things work.
…Microsoft knows the attitudes of app developers vs. web app developers, hence their marketing touting Rich Applications vs. Rich Internet Applications. Hell, they gave up on their browser.
But as a user, I like it and it works. I’m with you on that, just don’t take it as a personal attack on you for using and deploying to IE. Your just doing what works and there is everything right with that.
Interesting stuff, thanks… there seem to be several subject entwined, so please ‘scuse me if I pick out different strands that interest me:
Anyway, good stuff above, thanks for raising it!
“What if a 3rd party Flash Player comes to the scene, which implements the specs but breaks many existing content. Will you switch to it…?” You can’t. Your audience may, because it’s distributed technology, but it’s really hard to them what software they must install in order to deal with you. (Rephrased, designMachine != serverMachine != runtimeMachine.)
Re: SWF vs IE… one of the differences here is SWF was, from the start, a capability-defined format… the SWF SDK defines what the current Player can do. HTML started as “here’s the type of document we all can make and which we all can render”… the focus was on the format, rather than the renderer.
There’s also a different social dynamic involved… a lot of the folks in the SWF world seem to say “Hey, look, I can do *this*, what can you do!?” In the “web standards” world, I get the sense that a frequent inner conversation is “No, I won’t obey *their* book of ‘How Things Must Be Done’, but will instead write my own book of ‘How Things Must Be Done’ and I shall make them obey it!” There’s a focus on ideal behavior, on prescribed behavior, on hewing to the line and applying social pressure against deviancy. This may be a big reason there’s so much heat applied against HTML which does only IE/Win additions.
For the viewing public, I think one of the big arguments is “Okay, I can handle it if you’re a little weird, but when you tell me to change into proper clothes before speaking to me, that’s a little too much.” It’s easier to be forgiving of others if they extend it to you too, huh…?
jd
Sure IE will be the de facto standard for most sites for some time to come, but I predict that within two years at the most certain types of sites (eg tech blogs!) will be browsed by alternative browsers (eg Firefox/Safari/Konq) in the majority of cases.
IE 6 is no de facto standard. Sure I will make sure that the site functions and looks OK on IE6 for the PC, however, I am much more concerned that is renders perfectly through Safari/Firebird/Konq who support a global standard and not propreitary technologies. By allowing Microsoft to make its IE6 a de facto standard you promote their big business and allow some not so great software to be a requirement for many unwilling people. Supporting a global standard allow more competition for a better product and a piece of mind for the user
Thanks for all the comments.
I did develop sites for about 4 years (1996 to 2000) [along with many CD-ROMs with Director 4 to 8]. So, though I’m an outsider now to web development, I’m no total stranger.
I’m also not opposed to the Web Standards thing going on… I just think I have a point, not absolutely sure where it fits
Totally agree – and I use firefox.
The thing that annoys me most about ‘web standards’, is a lot of them don’t even work. Some committee appointed itself to dictate standards, then got in some petty squabbles and ended up with a bloated spec *that actually doesn’t do the said job properly*. And we are supposed to run out and adopt this? Look at svg – and no player out there that actually implements the full spec. Vrml, smil, even html is full of bonehead stuff. We adopt standards that suit us, they aren’t automatically a god thing – some things are best left to evolve over time.
That is not to say these things can’t become standards, some are great and everyone uses them, that’s good. They are as legitimate as anyone else, just not more. Let them fight it out on merits with everyone else. I don’t remember ever voting for the W3C, or anyone in it — not sure why I should automatically cede anything to them… Thankfully no one really does.
So, you’re saying IE should be the ONLY browser? Or would you like M$ to release their source code so other people can make browsers with the same quirks?
Interesting thread. but I had to strongly disagree with this statement
“The result should be judged on it’s merits rather than it’s portrayal in the vehicle at the end of the trip to the end user.”
I would not buy anything based soley on the merits of its assembly. I buy it based on its performance when all is said and done. If it was assembled well it should perform well.
That’s a given. so the question then becomes what’s different? does it perform better than expected? does it look better? is the price better? is it easier to use?
There are many perfect websites that have been developed by the book, according to standards, and function properly on all levels and in all browsers. The problem is that if that’s all your looking for you could very well end up with something pretty uninteresting and pretty bland. Web developers should be careful what they ask for. Because when an ultimate standard is set, one that everyone learns and lives by, then the only thing left is the “design” area. And many many many hard core code junkies simply don’t have what it takes to do anything impressive on the design side.
They could find themselves developing according to the international standard but loosing a anykind of edge because now so are the “artsy” “designer” folks, except now the artsy designer folks are not only following the standard because there is now a cohesive standard set, but they are also crushing the old school hard core coders on the front end that’s presented to the user.
It’s been my experience that no matter how perfect your code is. The end user doesn’t understand nor care and will “ALWAYS” say that the more interesting and visually stimulating design is a better website. And its the designer of that site who will get the next contract. Its also been my experience that if a customer says “I want this.” and shows you and example site, to which you reply with “Well that shouldn’t be done, its not a good idea and the developer of that site should have told that customer that” you will get a rather questionable look and quickly the customer may come to not trust you. (rule #1 never speak trash about the competitor or the competitors work, it makes you look like a untrustworthy trash talking back stabber, if you absolutely must you might make polite suggestions on how “you” would make it better.) After all they saw the site. It works. They showed it to you. And it seems as though you just don’t like it or don’t want to do it. They don’t care if “you” don’t “think” its a good idea. When they want it, they want it. And you will most likely find the next day that the developer who would do it now has the job.
The old mantra used to be “Know your target audience!!”
Yet most of what I consider to be “old fashioned” designers forget that first and foremost the audience likes to be entertained, the audience likes to see interesting layouts, interesting graphics, interesting and captivating interactive elements, combined with pleasurable music and or a interesting navigational sound scheme. Regardless of who your audience is they like eye and ear candy. And when asked if they mind that the site they are viewing has no meta tags. the answer would most likely be “what’s that? it looks and works fine to me.”
What’s nice about this kind of reluctance to be flexible in design that the old school bunch exhibits, Is that here in my area I get a bit of business here and there because a few of the designers (1 in particular) in this area warn customers strongly against implementing audio in a site, because its just too much for dial up customers.!! is this not 2005? those customers just look elsewhere for someone who is willing. After all they sit at home and browse site after site that implements audio, and it all seems to work just fine. SO again they begin to question the credibility of the developer they are talking with. Because what he’s telling them doesn’t quit jive with what they view regularly on the web.
If your still developing solely for a dwindling target audience of dial up customers. Then I suggest a career change because in 3 to 5 more years. You will be developing for a very very small audience. And at that time the demographic of your typical dial up customer is not going to be the type of demographic worth marketing to.
One last personal observation (not that anyone here needs tips from me) NEVER tell a customer something can’t be done. Chances are they have seen it implimented elsewhere if they are asking for it. And again you send your credibility down the drain. (regardless of wether what they saw was done right or not.)
There are two opposite ends of the spectrum. The WYSIWYG/ “Tables for layout”/ “I’ve-been-doing-it-this-way-for-ten-years”
crowd (who make a good living at $50/hr) and the standardista/ XML/ 508/ “How-will-I-being-doing-this-ten-years-from-now” crowd, who will always win the large-scale contracts and make a -great- living at $250/hr.)
The line has been drawn and to be honest the ‘bloated specs’ are established by the W3C which includes major Internet stakeholders like Microsft and IBM. These recommendations are trimmed down with every revision and the revisions aren’t going to stop. Check out the forthcoming XHTML 2, CSS 3 and WCAG 2 specs.
Unless, of course, your comfortable with your resume blending in.