Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Jay Gilmore]

I thought of a number of points relating to this standards issue... The icons by w3c and others are meaningless and are a problem. They need to have meaning to the reader. The average web visitor doesn't even know that the W3C exists, let alone that they make recommendations or determine structure and validity. When I first moved into the realm of writing better code (still honing skills) I didn't know what they were.In order to create meaning it has to represent actual value, ROI or benefit to users and buyers of our services. We, as developers need to be talking, not to the individual business owner but to business leaders in each segment and show them, not tell them how this will benefit them. I belong to several business forums and nowhere are you going to see a discussion of web standards and accessibility as most of these people don't know what that don't know. They all feel that how a site looks determines quality. Like it or not -- the only measure of the success of a website is the return on investment or an increase in profits or some other metric. If a business can achieve that with tag soup they are going to be happy. But most small business owners don't even consider this point. They just want a website, so they hire a firm that has websites they like to look at or that look good. We as an industry need to band together and make standards mean something that business owners can't live without. No FUD just a commitment by a segment of our industry that support web standards and that promotes the benefit to business consistently and continually. We need to stop preaching to the choir and build broad awareness that business is getting short changed but "design" firms who do website design are playing jack of all trades (although I would argue that web firms cannot be mutually exclusive to marketing). We need to create an environment that will make decision makers say to themselves, "Where can I get me a standards-based, accessible site?" This whole argument of licensing and regulation is ridiculous because like most regulations there will be segments of the industry that lobby to keep eligibility for the standards to an absolute low or argue that this standard is designed to be protectionist. Why don't we make it that the tag soup chefs have no choice but get on board by creating client demand for clean efficient code. Strictly on the topic of this thread, one point I make to clients is that the code will be easily edited by anyone in the future and will require no special software to modify and therefore cost less to maintain. I don't usually get into these discussions with clients though because my local competitors can't even make good looking tag soup -- so I win be default. That will eventually change. All the best, Jay Jay Gilmore Developer/Consultant Affordable Websites and Marketing Solutions for Real Small Business. SmashingRed Web & Marketing P) 902.529.0651 E) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ric & Jude Raftis wrote: You are absolutely correct Andreas.  Bit the same as an Australian Safety Standard, or Certificate of Electrical Compliance and the myriad of other bits of pieces of terminology and standards that we live with every day.  But if we don't educate the public, how will they ever learn.  The tag soup coders certainly won't tell them! I certainly don't think it's about designers "stroking" their egos.  If it's compliant then tell the world, the visitors but MORE importantly.....tell the client!  Make them proud to have the icon on their site. Regards, Ric Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: These icons with "AAA", "W3C", "HTML", "XHTML" on it only confuse most users. So often in usability tests I have heard users ask me: "What does this mean"? ****************************************************** The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************