The W3C make it clear that they wish to include the public, that is
in their remit.
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/
Sadly, W3C would seem content to be a club of Techies. Although I
take my hat off to Backstage for allowing public comment, the
barriers of lexical language exist even here, as has been shown
recently.
Today, no one needs to know the rules or standards to build web-
pages, hence 99.95% of people, mostly the public, actually drive the
whole application to unknown ends.
As we have seen with censorship and government intervention, the
"lawmakers" are running along behind playing catchup. Eg.I don't
recall the introduction of GeoIP being a public event for the BBC.
So, I stand by my original point, either include the public by making
a better presentation, or just lose ground. That doesn't stop members
from discussing the detail.
Anyone remember the debate over dual key encryption?
Since that point, around 1992 from memory, the public has paid a
pretty huge price for lack of security in computing.
The audience is the public, and the more that we are included the
better.
My three pence worth. :-)
P.S. Never read a book of HTML in my life, but 1170 pages of Java
were useful. :-) < 20 years of using the web have been even more fun.
Regards,
Richard Edwards.
On 3 Dec 2006, at 23:46, gareth rushgrove wrote:
Hi All
On 30/11/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree, its all about the audience - W3C is a resource listing
technical specifications of complex standards going back well over 10
years. I'd imagine its audience is highly technical and couldn't
really
give a damn about the design or fluff text.
I guess that's the problem. The W3C's audience is, directly, us
techies (who have all read the HTTP spec several times, right?) but
also, indirectly, everyone who uses the web.
If you want to learn HTML or any of the other standards specified
then
you should buy a book like HTML Goodies by Joe Burns (like I
did!), but
if you want the definitive, specified standard then you should go
to the
no-nonsense w3.org site.
Again I agree, but for the want of more made up stats only 0.05% of
web users want to know how it's made.
So the W3C has a choice to make. Should it remain, and focus upon,
being a technical specification and standards body soly for techies
(so people should stop including the initials in tenders and
non-proper-technical documents and the like) or should it expand it's
remit into the social "making the web a better place" political
spectrum?
I think the community model around backstage has something to offer
both approaches. For the former, it's a good model of community
involvement and submission, if mainly a UK based one. For the latter,
then the general elevation of usefulness, in terms of ideas, is an
interesting one.
Just my tuppence. I might have more to say on the whole W3C subject
soon too as the company I work for recently joined. So I get to be on
the other side of the fence for a while.
G
J
________________________________________________
Jason Cartwright
Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Desk: (0208 22) 59487
Mobile: 07976500729
"Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your
having
been here" - Ray Bradbury
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P
Edwards
Sent: 30 November 2006 14:44
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [backstage] W3C and the Overton window
From looking at their web-site, perhaps Backstage could show them
the
way to a better designer.
On the front page it mentions W3C over 40 times...... I fell of my
seat
before I got to the About page, but I was smiling broadly as I got up
off the floor.
Freakonomics can definitely be a recommendation for them if they
agree
with Overton.
For sure they could do more to include, involve, and promote the
positive direction. Beginning with the language they use.
Regards
Richard
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To
unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/
2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
--
Gareth Rushgrove
morethanseven.net
webdesignbookshelf.com
refreshnewcastle.org
frontendarchitecture.com
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,
please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/
mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-
archive.com/[email protected]/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
