Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
Well, I'm with Mike Kear on this one one hundred percent... Agreeing on standards is like McDonald's and Burger King agreeing to have the same type of french fry recipe. Where is the secret sauce that makes you want to go their restaurant? And where is the reason why I should use one browser over another? If all browsers are going to be the same, why should anyone make or even support another browser in the first place? No matter how you slice, fry, or bake a french fry, the thing is still a potato at it's most basic level. Flashiness is fine, as long as all browsers stem off the same, basic principals. Hello? Standards? This is definitely a person whose words I wouldn't take into any real consideration now or in the future. -- Ryan Christie| e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harrisonburg, VA | w: http://shadyland.theward.net ---() ()-- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
On 6/14/04 3:00 AM Marc Greenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: A friend of mine sent me this link; http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx He loves to play devils advocate so he just refuses to adopt current standards, it's ok though cause he's the competition. Yeah but those sites are the biggest *ahem* sites on the internet! Wow. Rick Faaberg * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
How cute. What good are standards when browsers change so fast by adding new features every month? Or, the needs and demands of the users change with the latest killer app? It appears that your friend has been living in a cave since the browser wars... The rest is the usual well, these big sites are not valid, so why bother drivel. Kept me entertained for all of 17 seconds. P Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Marc Greenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 June 2004 11:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Interesting reading A friend of mine sent me this link; http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx He loves to play devils advocate so he just refuses to adopt current standards, it's ok though cause he's the competition. Happy reading :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
The author's an idiot. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Greenstock Sent: Monday, 14 June 2004 8:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Interesting reading A friend of mine sent me this link; http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx He loves to play devils advocate so he just refuses to adopt current standards, it's ok though cause he's the competition. Happy reading :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
Ok let me expand on my earlier opinion and give a bit more detail He's a bloody idiot. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Greenstock Sent: Monday, 14 June 2004 8:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Interesting reading A friend of mine sent me this link; http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx He loves to play devils advocate so he just refuses to adopt current standards, it's ok though cause he's the competition. Happy reading :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
On 6/14/04 3:34 AM Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: It appears that your friend has been living in a cave since the browser wars... The rest is the usual well, these big sites are not valid, so why bother drivel. Kept me entertained for all of 17 seconds. Yeah, but you should s'plain a bit, IMO. If the biggies ignore the standards scenario, what are *we* doing? Rick * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:00:45 +1000, Marc Greenstock wrote: http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx Gentlemen, The article in question uses inflammatory language and fails to back up its claims. Might I suggest we retain our professional demeanour and not sink to the author's level? or Mind your language, please! Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Web Design, Usability, Information Architecture, Search Engine Optimisation Brisbane, Australia * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
Yeah, but you should s'plain a bit, IMO. If the biggies ignore the standards scenario, what are *we* doing? Ok, let's expand a bit. There are at least two reasons why the biggies are ignoring standards: the speed of change in large organisations (management can often move at the speed of glaciers) and the fact that a lot of the big sites rely on large CMS applications (bespoke or off-the-shelf) which do not output standards-compliant (x)html. Both these aspects take time and money to change. Examples of large companies and sites which HAVE adopted standards-compliant code abound...or are we going to start the game of yes, but this site is bigger than that site / my dad could beat up your dad? Also: some large sites are obviously striving for validating code, but fall short on some occasions (unescaped special characters, ampersands, etc). Do these count as well? Changing over to standards is a journey, a process... particularly when you're retrofitting content and trying to tame an antiquated CMS or similar system. P Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
Hi Rick, If the biggies ignore the standards scenario, what are *we* doing? I suspect the problem with the biggies is normally that they have grown so big that making significant changes in the name of web standards isn't as big a priority as other business aims, such as increasing sales, etc. Oh, and hello. I just joined WSG. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Director, Chopstix Media Limited http://www.chopstixmedia.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
There is a fair point in there. We need people to bend, stretch and break standards in order to push out the boundaries of the technologies we use. Who would be completely happy with the Standards set in 1992? Didn't the late nineties Browser wars come up with non-standard stuff that's now included in the standard. I'm not saying ignore standards, just that sometimes breaking them serves a purpose too. mike 2k:)2 -Original Message- From: Patrick Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 June 2004 11:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Interesting reading How cute. What good are standards when browsers change so fast by adding new features every month? Or, the needs and demands of the users change with the latest killer app? It appears that your friend has been living in a cave since the browser wars... The rest is the usual well, these big sites are not valid, so why bother drivel. Kept me entertained for all of 17 seconds. P Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Marc Greenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 June 2004 11:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Interesting reading A friend of mine sent me this link; http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx He loves to play devils advocate so he just refuses to adopt current standards, it's ok though cause he's the competition. Happy reading :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
I think any of us that have worked in big companies know just how slowly things move in terms of technology. Im working on a redesign of a fairly high profile site now and, although the company Im working for and the client are both reasonably knowledgable about standards and realise there benefit, the planning for this redesign was done a good 6-12 months ago (when web standards weren't as widely adopted) and to introduce it even now would cos enormous amounts of extra cash (for a whole new load of HTML to be supplied by the design agency then for us to intergrate and test it with the back end). This situation does annoy me alot as it's terrible going to this huge effort of making a massive new site when I know full well that it's going to need to be rebuilt again in a year or two but that's the way it is with huge projects like this. I'm am starting to see a definate slant towards standards in a lot of the high profile companies in the UK (the ones I've worked with anyway) so we shouldn't be discouraged. I've be involved in a couple of pitches to very large ecommerce companies where the main focus of the pitch was the adoption of web standards and its benefits and the clients seem to be very responsive (although I interested to see if they put their money where their mouth is. Has anyone else seen any changes in larger organisations? Quoting Ian Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Rick, If the biggies ignore the standards scenario, what are *we* doing? I suspect the problem with the biggies is normally that they have grown so big that making significant changes in the name of web standards isn't as big a priority as other business aims, such as increasing sales, etc. Oh, and hello. I just joined WSG. All the best, -- Ian Fenn Director, Chopstix Media Limited http://www.chopstixmedia.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
Who would be completely happy with the Standards set in 1992? Didn't the late nineties Browser wars come up with non-standard stuff that's now included in the standard. Yes, but: before becoming part of the standard, most of these innovations were extended, expanded, generalised and made consistent with the way existing standards worked. Not every single proprietary extension made its way into the standard. Every extension was scrutinised by a larger group without - ideally - a vested interested in breaking any existing standard. Then again, according to the article (rant): changing standards = OXYMORON ;) P Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
Then again, according to the article (rant): changing standards = OXYMORON That's why there are different versions and subversions. 3.2, 4.0 and 4.01 are all different beasts. They don't change. If you're an idiot that doesn't think a doctype is required because you don't understand it, then what do you expect? The author doesn't understand what a standard is. Putting features into a browser outside the standard doesn't make the browser non-compliant. It's when they don't implement something that is in the standard (or get the implementation wrong as in the box model) that the problem occurs. If IE7 puts in some support for new proprietary tags that are undefined in any standard, fine, as long as we don't use them and discourage anyone else from doing so. The same reason that client-side VBScript failed will prevail. Who is this person? http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_07.aspx makes it even worse. He hasn't a clue. Just because you store the content in a database doesn't mean that it needs to be output in a table. It's not worth the effort responding. It's like talking to a confirmed racist. They make up whatever excuses they can satisfy themselves with. He'll feel like a fool when he eventually gets it as it'll all be in the wayback machine for posterity. Obviously why his name isn't on it. I don't care if Yahoo! uses invalid code. A) I don't (and refuse to) use it and B) I don't have to maintain it. A perfectly named company describing the people that run it :) Let it go. P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
I guess my characterisation of this author didn't meet with universal approval. Fair enough Lea, but I don't take any of it back. Some thoughts about what he's written: IF Microsoft introduced the most fantastic, whiz-bang, easy-to-use new feature in the next version of IE, that wouldn't be enough to get a wise developer to use it. It's only when the majority of the site users can use it (and for most web developers that includes mozilla users, mac users, opera users et.al) that they'll actually build it into their sites. Unless I have a site where 95% or more are using this new browser I wouldn't use the new feature. So Microsoft and Netscape and the others can innovate all they want and I approve of that, but until there's a positive advantage for me as a site owner or developer, it's all academic. Oh, and what do we have when the other browsers all support this new feature?? A STANDARD!! He says that If they, Microsoft won't even make their very own webpages compliant, don't expect the next version of IE to be fully compatible with other browsers.But he ignores the point that it's in Microsoft's interests to have their pages break in other browsers. I had a MS techo tell me once when I tried to point out a broken page in Netscape, well you should be using a proper browser instead of Netscape. That's ok for Microsoft - its in their interests - but its not ok for the vast mass of us, who need every user we can get. I'm not here to plug Microsoft's products or Firefox or Opera - they'll have to do it without me. I'm here to develop my own business and those of my clients, and they need to have sites that are workable and practical for as many of their users as possible. I have yet to find a better way to achieve this than to omit all proprietary browser features and stick to valid, compliant code. Why do large organisations not switch to standards compliance? Well some do. A splendid case in point is the Sydney Morning Herald, which site we've heard about and witnessed the change right here on this list. Through that we know that it's not a trivial matter to change a large system to or from anything. At MXDU this year, Macromedia's site manager (was it Sean Cornfield?) talked about how Macromedia is moving towards compliance. He said they have 40,000 pages to convert, and they have to do it in stages as they get to review each part of the site. It's a massive job and they just don't have the money to dedicate to switching to standards compliance if there isn't any other reason to touch that part of the site. SO he said their site is moving towards compliance but will take time to get there. Sounds like a sensible view to me. The author of that site's an idiot. No he's not ... he's a expletive deleted idiot. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lea de Groot Sent: Monday, 14 June 2004 9:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Interesting reading On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:00:45 +1000, Marc Greenstock wrote: http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx Gentlemen, The article in question uses inflammatory language and fails to back up its claims. Might I suggest we retain our professional demeanour and not sink to the author's level? or Mind your language, please! Lea * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
Has anyone else seen any changes in larger organisations? Yep, we do work for some medium-to-large companies and nonprofits in the US (Clairol, Marriott, Disney), and while individual client interest in standards varies (usually dependent on clients' general technical awareness, IMO), we do get some questions about it, and clients are always happy when we implement standards-based solutions. Nonprofits and government clients almost always focus on it as a requirement. Once deployed (especially for db-driven sites) cost of updates drops dramatically, which is a significant ROI. I suspect the problem with the biggies is normally that they have grown so big that making significant changes in the name of web standards isn't as big a priority as other business aims, such as increasing sales, etc. I agree that the big guys are going to be late adopters, due primarily to bureaucracy and the use of non-standard third party CMSs (and they focus more energy on ad sales than standards compliance). Some ad services simply send a code snippet that must be included to display ads - site owners cannot control standards compliance within this snippet either. I'd be interested in seeing a study that links standards to CMSs, ad services, etc., rather than just URLs - it would get more to the heart of the issue. I would also be interested in hearing how many of those site owners are *happy* with their sites' status quo. Referencing all of those sites is merely an effective illustration of a common situation - it is illogical to conclude that these site owners prefer nonstandard deployments. Chris * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Interesting reading
Has anyone else seen any changes in larger organisations? I was hired by Ingles Markets (15,000 employee grocer chain) back in Fenruary, and was lucky enough to have free range over how to best upgrade our web site. Naturally, I went with a standards-based solution. No one here would know the difference between a valid or invalid site, but I have had numerous comments on the faster load times and ease of use among various platforms. My bosses were amazed that after I redesigned the site and moved it to an in-house server, the footprint on our bandwidth was very small. It's funny that the Decloak guy mentions ESPN's site, which is by-and-large a standards-based site save for some third party ads that keep it from validating. (More info here: http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/espn-interview/01/ ) Also, the IBM site he mentions is one trailing slash away from validating. I took a peek at Macromedia's code, and while they have an XHTML Transitional Doctype, it does not validate (yet). They do, however, use CSS for layout. Will Chatham Webmaster Ingles Markets ooOo-o 828.669.2941 - ext.534 www.ingles-markets.com -- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
El lun, 14-06-2004 a las 12:00, Marc Greenstock escribió: A friend of mine sent me this link; http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx He loves to play devils advocate so he just refuses to adopt current standards, it's ok though cause he's the competition. Happy reading :) cite # Another thing with the IMAGE tag. Do we really need LONGDESC tag, i.e.LONG DESCRIPTION? Can't the screen reader already know the length of the description in the first place before reading it? Just have the screen reader have a default number of words to read in the first place and ask the user if they want to continue reading or tell them that it's so many words long and then ask them a question whether to read through it. /cite cite Screen readers think they are SMART by just reading the Heading tags first e.g. H1. However, web designers and developers rarely use H1 or header tags anyway. What screen readers should do is automatically read text that is BIGGER than the text below it or around it. How hard could that be to program? Not hard at all. Just have have the screen reader do a text size comparison just like the browser does. If this text is much bigger than the surrounding text, then that's what the screen reader should be reading first as the header /cite This guy is either joking or very close to insanity :) I mean one thing is as reasoned argument pro layout tables and other is a nonsensical rant full of non-sequiturs. -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65http://simplelogica.net escribe en Logicola http://simplelogica.net/logicola/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
I can't believe y'all are taking this guy seriously enough to even comment - it's pretty obvious to this newbie to css standards, he's trolling - he got you ~ I think enough has been said about his dubious commentaries ~ let it go - please Marie About Certified XHTML Developer - Level 1 Vanille's Place - http://marie-str.com Technicolour Rainbow - http://techrain.ca the FlipSide - http://the-flipside.com El lun, 14-06-2004 a las 12:00, Marc Greenstock escribió: A friend of mine sent me this link; http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_05.aspx * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
I can't believe y'all are taking this guy seriously enough to even comment - it's pretty obvious to this newbie to css standards, he's trolling - he got you ~ I think enough has been said about his dubious commentaries ~ let it go - please Marie About Certified XHTML Developer - Level 1 I agree, where all equals, but within ourselves - we'll never argue if Eric Meyer happened to look in and have his comment first. Theres a point where you become somewhat superior petty things like that. Camz www.t94xr.net.nz http://freelance.t94xr.net.nz/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
Marie wrote: I can't believe y'all are taking this guy seriously enough to even comment I can. I'm guessing that the reason so many have commented is that they are so blown away by the nonsensical idiocy put to HTML. Often in situations, such as this one, where one is overwhelmed by the conflict between what their senses tell them (in this case through reading) and what they know to be true, almost as a reflex they are compelled to comment. I myself would probably have commented too, were it not that by reading what others had to say my own need to shout THIS ISN'T TRUE! was largely satisfied. (That, and sneaking a few comments into my meta-comment.) he's trolling I'm not so sure; I get the feeling that he actually believes his own drivel--sad as that may be. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Interesting reading
Hahaha, I knew this would ruffle a few feathers. Marc. - Original Message - From: Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Interesting reading Marie wrote: I can't believe y'all are taking this guy seriously enough to even comment I can. I'm guessing that the reason so many have commented is that they are so blown away by the nonsensical idiocy put to HTML. Often in situations, such as this one, where one is overwhelmed by the conflict between what their senses tell them (in this case through reading) and what they know to be true, almost as a reflex they are compelled to comment. I myself would probably have commented too, were it not that by reading what others had to say my own need to shout THIS ISN'T TRUE! was largely satisfied. (That, and sneaking a few comments into my meta-comment.) he's trolling I'm not so sure; I get the feeling that he actually believes his own drivel--sad as that may be. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
