>>Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: >>>as most folks/companies simply aren't aware of standards, >>> >JeffM wrote: >>aka incompetents. aka don't know how to do their jobs. >> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: >* Big-Wigs in company, >and sometimes their own press/PR departments > If an individual is *actually* a big-wig, he can steamroller those advocates for inferior methods.
>don't get the web. > I expect someone with a higher pay grade than Joe Average to be WORTH that increased compensation. That means that HE KNOWS MORE than his subordinates. If he hasn't done his homework, he's just another schlub and needs to be immediately replaced with a non-schlub. So, how difficult is it to get good information about this field? Not a bit. http://google.com/search?q=%22.Web.quality%22 Oh, look. The first 2 results are for W3C Schools and point to how to do ANYTHING Web-related properly. ...and right below that is W3C's page on what NOT to do. One assumes that people in positions to make these decisions are educated and are assigned decision-making tasks often. How difficult would it be to ask the question: Is there a common metric by which I can determine the quality of this individual's work product? (An automated method would be preferable.) The answer is YES. Start by running it through the W3C's validators. The total incompetents will be exposed immediately. Easy peasy. >when they price out a job or talk to the ones doing the website > ...and if those individuals were (lazy/incompetent) teachers, they would allow the student to grade their own papers. >([IF] they even hire someone >rather than having some [relative's] kid do it) > aka "The way a professional conducts business", apparently. >They rely on what it looks like to them > I'm not buying the argument that these people aren't smart enough to grok the Web. These educated people holding responsible positions have obviously been previously exposed to the concept of correct methodologies vs incorrect methodologies. Whenever browser sniffing is encountered, what is in evidence is lazy/incompetent/overpaid people. I like to use the metaphor of licensing of plumbers and electricians. If the tradesmen do lousy work and their supervisors don't subsequently take corrective action (training or replacing the incompetents), that's wrong piled on top of wrong. ...and it's too bad there *isn't* licensing required for this field. >many of these companies >(at least in the case of the app that deployed at my old college) >have builtin VERY VERY SPECIFIC UA string parsing, >that says what browsers they support, etc. > I've already mentioned incompetence and doing it wrong. You're not going to change my position by pointing to examples of blatant stupidity. >people who got lucky and got a job doing website design, and >never even heard of the w3c, or any "standards" bodies > Amateurs; incompetents; losers; jerks. Competent businessmen should be able to weed out these turkeys. We've been over this ground. >I once fell into this camp[...]only coding for IE (4) and[...] >found out he used this thing called 'netscape'[. . .] >Eventually I wrote two distinctly different pages, >where the main (IE) one had a link "If you use netscape, click here". > Thanks for the last-century stroll down Memory Lane. Now let's move forward a decade and start naming and shaming the incompetents who have been on cruise control since 1995. >this level of ignorance still exists today. > ...and is indefensible. If you're going to take the money, LEARN HOW TO DO THE JOB **PROPERLY**. If you're the one paying for work, LEARN HOW TO DETERMINE THAT THE JOB WAS DONE **PROPERLY**. This isn't rocket surgery. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
