Maybe Im wrong with a decision I made? Back in the day, there was this debate (and probably still exists).
The question was: Do you create a website that works right down the middle - generic (eg. compatible with everything) or, something that requires the end user to "upgrade" their system (i.e. install the latest flash, or have javascript enabled) etc etc. and which is best? This argument came about mostly from people in the media industry who wanted to push the envelope when it came to creating good looking sites vs functional (yes another debate). So for me, I chose to create the best of both. i.e aesthetics and functionality. I think a website that can balance both, is successful. However, I lean mostly to a site that depends on new systems (i.e. javascript) and browsers that can handle. Theres another debate there... IE6... do you keep creating code for that? So for me, I've made the decision to create the site to the higher end (new machines, latest browsers, javascript enabled etc) and if someone has an old crusty browser, too bad. I'll cut the loss. Id rather have a site thats a little bit on the "edge". Maybe I've not made the right decision? but really, I think that decision is mine to make (for my own projects) and my customers decision (for their projects) and it comes down to expectations and meeting (or exceeding) those. Yes, I agree with compliance as much as possible but there are other influencing factors such as time line and budget (funny that). This starts a whole new debate also, about AGILE development which seems to be a new approach by some (yes I know its been around for a while) and where do you draw the lines with that? What about Googles approach to creating new things? They craete something albiet, it might have bugs and issues, but they put it out there to see what the response is. If its good response, they refine it. Otherwise, you could spend many hours, dollars, time, energy building something perfect, that nobody likes. Food for thought huh. These things I try to weight up in balance. On Mar 19, 8:58 am, Jennifer Geard <[email protected]> wrote: > A quick comment about standards compliance, which for me includes WCAG 2.0 > AA: it's both hard and not-hard. > > It's hard the first time. It's really hard if you're trying to bolt standards > compliance onto a project that's already mostly designed and built. > > Once you've got your head around what's involved and built your patterns of > thought and libraries of code, though, it's just another aspect of what you > do. > > I'd love to see more developers around who have standards compliance "in > their bones". > > If you have the resources, getting a solid external audit of your work is an > amazing eye opener. > > (For the record, I'm usually in the position of commissioning code and then > tailoring/managing it, not cutting it from scratch. Only one of the sites I > run is currently compliant. I'm working on the others, including actively on > the main one.) > > Cheers, > Jennifer -- NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
