Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Robert O'Neill]

I made the comparison to the construction industry because:

1. we are both in the business of building things

and 

2. the standards used benefit the end user.

A 'brickie' lays bricks in one of a number of standard methods using standard materials. The benefit of this is that the house shouldn't fall down on top of you under agreed environment conditions. 

The other intrinsic link betwen the two industries is legislation. Health and Safety Law has driven many of the standards introduced into the building trade, and they have become a legal requirement before a brick is laid. 

Accessibility leglisation will drive standards for websites just as they do access to shops, businesses, and government buildings. I do not condone nor ever wish for a central agency telling us how we must design our sites, we should retain some form of artistic license just as architects, shop front designers, and window dressers do. However I am totally in favour of a central agency regulating how the sites are actually constructed. 

Whether 'illegal' websites are persued by law as much as dangerous buildings is in truth unlikely. Bad buildings kill, bad web sites are just a pain to some, but that doesn't make me any more comfortable with the idea of constructing a site with tag-soup, both morally, ethically, or legally.





 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/2005 17:52:38 
The other problem with the validation logos is that they don't always mean that the page is valid. In my experience, a large number of sites with these logos don't serve valid code and fail the test that they link to. I think that this analog with the construction world is not really satisfactory as the need for, and potential repercussions of, standards and 'validity' and compliance when building a house is much greater than when just serving data. BEFORE I get shot down in flames for blasphemy, I DO think that web standards are important and I agree that XHTML should not be abused. BUT when a website fails, no-one gets injures (except maybe the mainainter if they have a violent boss :) ). I don't think that any suitable analogy can really be used for this case because the potential benefits of Semantics and good data presentation are immense and unique, but only for large data sources. There is a reason why LaTeX isn't taught to 16 year-olds in schools to do essays with, it may produce nice, accurate, readable layouts but to spend the time and effort trying to beat it into people is counter-productive. StephenRobert O'Neill wrote: If I wanted new windows in my house I'd buy from the BS Standard  compliant company every time, wouldn't you ?  The thing is though, if I click on the BS Standard logo it can't prove  to me that the company is actually compliant , however in our  industry, we as web designers can use our W3C logos to prove the  point, by linking them to the validators.  Some might find this argument slightly flaky as a BS Standard is an  acknowledgment of quality rather than validity. The problem we have  though is that until the consequences of legislation fully kick in  (DDA etc) we are still being allowed to regulate ourselves and W3C  !
validation seems to be the only option available.  So I'll continue to add W3C validation logos to my sites until an  official Govt. Standard is set. Considering the UK Government bases  most of its current web standards (eGIF, NHS Standards etc) on W3C  recommendations, I'll hopefully be in a decent position should that  ever happen.  Rob O.   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/2005 16:42:46  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 lo!
ok 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 

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Stephen Stagg]

I was being specific and not defining the situation well, my bad.  In 
the UK it is against the law to provide an inaccessible service.  
Therefore ONLY in the field of Accessibility, it is within the rights of 
any disabled person to demand that any UK site should be accessible.  In 
practice, it means at least passing the WAG 1 test. 

I don't think that Managers and The-people-who-control-the-money do 
believe that not following standards will cost them and publicising web 
standards is still a big issue.


Stephen

Duckworth, Nigel wrote:
Stephen Stagg: 
  

A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility
standards would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled 
people, to sue companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible 
sites. Once people and customers realize that getting it 
wrong will cost them, I'm sure that they will soon mend 
their ways.



Wow. Isn't one of the arguments for web standards that getting it wrong
will cost you? Obviously not enough in your estimation. I do believe
that standards and accessibility are beneficial but that's a question
that each individual, designer and business should decide for
themselves. No one has the right to force them to conform [1]. In my
opinion such we know what's good for you arrogance only harms the
standards movement. 

Regards, 


-Nigel

[1] http://nigelduckworth.com/publishing/?p=3

**
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] talking points for standards

[Robert O'Neill]

Yes, the key to this argument/discussion is whether your site offers a service to the general public. As suggested earlier we cant expect someone hosting his/her home page on Geocities to follow web standards, but anyone offering services online bears a moral responsibility to make those services available to as many people as possible, regardless of whether they are a minority of your target audience or not, and, at least in the UK, a legal responsibility.



 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/2005 15:10:48 
I was being specific and not defining the situation well, my bad. In the UK it is against the law to provide an inaccessible service. Therefore ONLY in the field of Accessibility, it is within the rights of any disabled person to demand that any UK site should be accessible. In practice, it means at least passing the WAG 1 test. I don't think that Managers and "The-people-who-control-the-money" do believe that not following standards will cost them and publicising web standards is still a big issue.StephenDuckworth, Nigel wrote: Stephen Stagg:   A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled  people, to sue companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible  sites. Once people and customers realize that getting it  wrong will cost them, I'm sure that they will soon mend  their ways.  Wow. Isn't one of the arguments for web standards that "getting it wrong will cost you"? Obviously not enough in your estimation. I do believe that standards and accessibility are beneficial but that's a question that each individual, designer and business should decide for themselves. No one has the right to force them to conform [1]. In my opinion such "we know what's good for you" arrogance only harms the standards movement.  Regards,  -Nigel [1] http://nigelduckworth.com/publishing/?p=3 ** 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.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list  getting help**

***  IMPORTANT NOTICE ***
*** PPA DISCLAIMER***
This e-mail and any attachments transmitted with it, including replies and forwarded copies subsequently transmitted (which may contain alterations), contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged.
The content of this e-mail is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the person authorised as responsible for delivery to the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this e-mail
or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Network Team at the Prescription Pricing Authority via e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] including a copy of this message. Please then delete this e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to validate this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses, as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus that might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
This e-mail is from the Prescription Pricing Authority whose principal office is at Bridge House, 152 Pilgrim Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 6SN. Switchboard Telephone Number :- +44 (0)191 232 5371

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions wrote:

The building codes analogy is one I often use myself, but as pointed out
already, it does fall flat when asked for the governing bodies that are
policing the web.

When faced with a client/agency/designer that doesn't (want to/need to)
understand the 'technical' aspects (bandwidth, ease of maintenance,
accessibility, cross UA compatibility, 'standards' compliance, etc) then a
certain amount of licence has to be applied to the explanation and reasoning
for adopting standards. If that involves making a comparison to a standard
in their field of business then so be it.


But if that comparison is inaccurate or outright misleading (your site 
will fall foul of regulations by some mythical central authority) you 
may be hurting your case more than helping it. What if they check with 
other people (so this other guy says the page will be against the law) 
and are told that there is no indication of this happening? You may as 
well go completely overboard and tell them that they're likely to get 
sued 
http://accessify.com/2005/12/legal-advice-from-automated-testing.php ... 
but I'm not sure if getting a contract because of FUD is the right way 
to go.


--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
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] talking points for standards

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya
 Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 3:40 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] talking points for standards
 
 On 12/5/05, Ric  Jude Raftis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The question is, how many designers include icons and links 
 on their 
  sites back to W3C for XHTML and CSS?  How many include an icon for 
  Accessibility?  Personally, I don't have all my sites Triple A 
  compliant, but they do pass automated validation and I include a 
  Statement to this effect on sites.
 
  I feel that by exposing clients and their visitors to such 
 icons that 
  it spreads the word about standards.  It makes more people 
 aware that 
  they actually exist and I would encourage all designers to include 
  such icons on their sites.
 
 I don't think those little icons/buttons are enough, though. 
 I think an About this site page with accessibility 
 features, explanation of standards compliance, etc. is a lot 
 better, since it explains the quality of the code rather than 
 just sending visitors to some cryptic validation page.

None of the general public cares about whether our sites are AAA compliant,
whether they follow any standards or guidelines or not. What they want is a
site that works. 

If you buy a washing machine and it tells you This washing machine follows
the AS/NZS2040 standards - do you care? Would you get out the manual and
read up on the AS/NZS2040 standard? And if you do care, then probably only
because you spent good money on that washing machine. 

The general user spends no money on a website. It works? Good. It doesn't
work? Bad.

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? Not because they care about standards, but because it is
something on the website that means absolutely nothing to them. Too many
people are already uncomfortable using website technology, how much more
terrifying do you make it by dumping technical abbreviations and standard
codes onto your site?

In my opinion the icons are mostly put onto the sites to make people feel
better about the work they have achieved. Web Developers spent a lot of time
making their sites standard compliant without anybody really noticing. By
putting an icon on the site we have found a way to say to other web
developers: Hey guys! I have put a lot of hard work into making my site
standards compliant! Now I want people to see it.

Coming back to the nice building codes analogy from earlier in this thread:
have you ever seen a house with a huge sign on it: This house is standards
compliant? 




**
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] talking points for standards

[Bob Schwartz]

Donna,in another thread, someone essentially asked "why code like this", in trying to convince a friend.  I don't think he's getting very good answers but at any rate, it made me think of a "problem" I'm having and I've decided to make a new thread. I've noticed that responses to your similar "dilemma" have been quite exhaustive.Is it because:1. You mentioned that I wasn't getting very good responses.2. Yours was work related, while mine had to do with a friend.3. Your name is Donna, not Bob and despite rumors to the contrary, chivalry is indeed not dead :-}In any case I'm glad you're getting such good response as it has helped me too.Regards,Bob

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Kim Kruse]

Hi Andreas,


None of the general public cares about whether our sites are AAA compliant,
whether they follow any standards or guidelines or not. What they want is a
site that works. 
 


True and so they should have.


If you buy a washing machine and it tells you This washing machine follows
the AS/NZS2040 standards - do you care? Would you get out the manual and
read up on the AS/NZS2040 standard? And if you do care, then probably only
because you spent good money on that washing machine. 
 

No... but if I bought a washing machine that used too much water, or it 
started to rust when it get in contact with water I would care. Wouldn't 
you? The same goes for the other analogy about building a house... I do 
care what kind of bricks etc they use. I'm gonna have it for a long time!


Same thing goes for a web site... why not get the most quality you can 
get (markup wise)?



The general user spends no money on a website. It works? Good. It doesn't
work? Bad.
 

But do they know not everybody runs XP/IE6? Just because the site looks 
good on their screen... blah blah



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? Not because they care about standards, but because it is
something on the website that means absolutely nothing to them. Too many
people are already uncomfortable using website technology, how much more
terrifying do you make it by dumping technical abbreviations and standard
codes onto your site?
 

Some people would like to know... others don't! Give them both a chance 
to do what they want. When you buy a car are you not interested in 
horsepower, economy etc? Besides... if you add the icons to your site 
why not send them to a page that explains before they hit the validator?



In my opinion the icons are mostly put onto the sites to make people feel
better about the work they have achieved. Web Developers spent a lot of time
making their sites standard compliant without anybody really noticing. By
putting an icon on the site we have found a way to say to other web
developers: Hey guys! I have put a lot of hard work into making my site
standards compliant! Now I want people to see it.
 

Maybe or maybe not. There is also such a thing as awareness and the 
only way we get anywhere is by letting people know.



Coming back to the nice building codes analogy from earlier in this thread:
have you ever seen a house with a huge sign on it: This house is standards
compliant? 
 

No... but I've seen... this house was build using only ecological 
construction materials or these houses are kids safe so I do see 
people trying to differ from others using what they have.


This is funny... a couple of day ago I watch a program on TV where these 
politicians should try to acts as a deaf/dumb, a blind person and the 
wheelchair user. There was this one politician who has all the right 
opinions and was so focused on disabled people. Then this guy asked him 
this... now that you're so into all the problems and so down with the 
disabled people why is it I can't access your parties website


Go figure
Kim





**
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] talking points for standards

[Alex James]

Bob wrote:
I've noticed that 
responses to your similar "dilemma" have been quite 
exhaustive.

Bob, 

It may of helped you but I'm doubtful it has convinced 
Donna?

That would be a better discussion - why with so much evidence to the 
contrary, can the list not convince Donna to fight the PR agency? 

Cheers,

Alex

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Mark Harris]

Alex James wrote:
 
That would be a better discussion - why with so much evidence to the contrary, can the list not convince Donna to fight the PR agency? 
 


I don't actually think it's a fight she wants to have or necessarily 
should undertake. Donna didn't ask us to bolster her up; she asked us 
for logical arguments to use as to why standards are important.


It's the NFP's decision, not hers, so she doesn't bear the 
responsibility for it. Sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away.


It's hard when it's a voluntary organisation that you started working 
with because you want to support their work, but you can only fight the 
good fight for so long when it's not your living.


You can lead a client to knowledge, but you can't make them think!

cheers, and good luck to you, Donna

mark


nitpick class=grammar id =AlexIt may have helped, not It may of 
helped/nitpick. Grammar is a standard we should care about too...

**
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] talking points for standards

[Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions]

 Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
 But if that comparison is inaccurate or outright misleading ...
 ...
 I'm not sure if getting a contract because of FUD is the right way to go.

Which is why careful licence must be applied to the analogies used.
Explaining something in terms that the listener can relate to and understand
is the aim. Making the listener believe that there is much more than a
similarity between the two can indeed be misleading, even wrong, and should
indeed be avoided. FUD is what _should_ be removed by the use of terms and
explanations that the listener can comprehend.

Regards

Scott Swabey
Lafinboy Productions
www.lafinboy.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] talking points for standards

[Ric Jude Raftis]

Now that is a pearl Mark!  Is it copyrightLOL.

Regards,


Ric

Mark Harris wrote:


You can lead a client to knowledge, but you can't make them think!



**
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] talking points for standards

[Lea de Groot]

On 06/12/2005, at 5:32 PM, Donna Jones wrote:

Thanks again for your kind note and understanding.


and, very timely, Roger Johansson at 456 Berea st has covered the  
same topic today -

Ten reasons to learn and use web standards
[http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200512/ 
ten_reasons_to_learn_and_use_web_standards/]
If thats not a set of headers for an agenda to run through with the  
client, then I don't know what is

:)

Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems
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] talking points for standards

[Ric Jude Raftis]

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
**

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Jon Tan]

Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Donna Jones said:

A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so has
recently...hired a PR firm.


Why do the PR firm think they should maintain the site and not you?

Have they put forward any compelling reasons why they are better qualified
to look after a web site? Get them to justify their position.

What are the long term implications when the grant money runs out? [...]


Terrence makes good points.

I'm not being funny but how, after an 8 year relationship, does a PR firm 
have the ability to over-ride your recommendations to the NFP? Sounds to me 
like you're due a little more respect and some support from the NFP in your 
work to make sure the NFP gets a good site. My points:


- Expert PR /= expert web technologist. They are not necessarily the 
professionals [1].
- I'd be asking why web standards are *not* important, not feeling I have to 
justify why they are.
- A quick demo with JAWS or even just no style view in FF should fix their 
claims to expertise when a test page is produced.

- Reference to statutory requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/

Also, money saved in rubbish web design from this PR firm can go to more 
effect work. Even if (and no disrespect meant by this) they love the PR 
firm's designs and don't like your own ideas they can always produce the 
visual design and you code it. Either way your NFP saves money.


Jon Tan
www.gr0w.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[1] http://webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_11.html#a000590 


**
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] 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
  
**
  
  
  
  
  
  

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Robert O'Neill]

If I wanted new windows in my house I'd buy from the BS Standard compliant company every time, wouldn't you ?

The thing is though,if I click on the BS Standard logo it can't prove to me that the company is actually compliant , however in our industry, we as web designers can use our W3C logos to prove the point, by linking them to the validators. 

Some might find this argument slightly flaky as a BS Standard is an acknowledgment of quality rather than validity. The problem we have though is that until the consequences of legislation fully kick in (DDA etc) weare still being allowed to regulate ourselvesand W3C validation seems to be the only option available.

So I'll continue to add W3C validation logos to my sites until an official Govt. Standard is set. Considering the UK Government bases most of its current web standards (eGIF, NHS Standards etc) on W3C recommendations, I'll hopefully be in a decent position should that ever happen.

Rob O.

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/2005 16:42:46 
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 GilmoreDeveloper/ConsultantAffordable Websites and Marketing Solutions for Real Small Business.SmashingRed Web  MarketingP) 902.529.0651E) [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 ** 

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Stephen Stagg]

The other problem with the validation logos is that they don't always 
mean that the page is valid.  In my experience, a large number of sites 
with these logos don't serve valid code and fail the test that they link 
to. 

I think that this analog with the construction world is not really 
satisfactory as the need for, and potential repercussions of,  standards 
and 'validity' and compliance when building a house is much greater than 
when just serving data. 
BEFORE I get shot down in flames for blasphemy, I DO think that web 
standards are important and I agree that XHTML should not be abused.  
BUT when a website fails, no-one gets injures (except maybe the 
mainainter if they have a violent boss :) ). 

I don't think that any suitable analogy can really be used for this case 
because the potential benefits of Semantics and good data presentation 
are immense and unique, but only for large data sources.  There is a 
reason why LaTeX isn't taught to 16 year-olds in schools to do essays 
with, it may produce nice, accurate, readable layouts but to spend the 
time and effort trying to beat it into people is counter-productive. 


Stephen

Robert O'Neill wrote:
If I wanted new windows in my house I'd buy from the BS Standard 
compliant company every time, wouldn't you ?
 
The thing is though, if I click on the BS Standard logo it can't prove 
to me that the company is actually compliant , however in our 
industry, we as web designers can use our W3C logos to prove the 
point, by linking them to the validators.
 
Some might find this argument slightly flaky as a BS Standard is an 
acknowledgment of quality rather than validity. The problem we have 
though is that until the consequences of legislation fully kick in 
(DDA etc) we are still being allowed to regulate ourselves and W3C 
validation seems to be the only option available.
 
So I'll continue to add W3C validation logos to my sites until an 
official Govt. Standard is set. Considering the UK Government bases 
most of its current web standards (eGIF, NHS Standards etc) on W3C 
recommendations, I'll hopefully be in a decent position should that 
ever happen.
 
Rob O.
 



 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/2005 16:42:46 
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 

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Peter J. Farrell]

Donna Jones wrote:

...but, yes, back to my problem child non-profit.  It may be time to 
let it go, it is hard to see them get a poor website and pay a fair 
amount of money for it ... it is also hard to validate myself and get 
them to know that i do know what i'm doing, at least tons more than 
the PR firm.
But thanks for saying that I didn't create the dilemma ... I'll try to 
take that to heart.  I suspect its a pretty common situation; and, to 
be honest, when i first took it on, at no reimbursement, i was simply 
chomping at the bits to have something to do and probably felt like i 
should pay them for letting me do it.  I've changed a bit since then!


The problem here is they are paying the PR firm and not you.  They 
probably are asking themselves -- how can unpaid person be right and a 
highly paid PR firm be so wrong?


Lets say you went to the doctor and he claims you have XYZ and need 
surgery ABC .  You leave the office and paid for your visit (either 
out-of-pocket or by insurance).  You meet a friend in your local grocery 
store -- he says you don't have XYZ and don't need surgery ABC.  He says 
all you have is an ingrown toe nail and you need QRS!  It's painful to 
walk on (no accessibility), but your foot this looks, smells and acts 
like a foot (a website) -- so why shouldn't I do QRS (accessibility)  
instead of XYZ?


It's all about perception and where your money goes.  Money clouds 
judgment -- especially when you don't have any knowledge about the issue 
at hand!  So you're fighting a battle (for accessibility and standards) 
with people who are going to automatically differ to the people they 
think the experts are (PR firm).


You mention above that you hate to see them pay a fair amount of money 
to get a poor website.  Same thing happened to me (at least in my 
opinion) in the story I told before.  I decided to walk away for the 
sake of my sanity and my feelings.  So ask yourself a question -- should 
I continue or is my time here done?


Non-profits are so much easier to get along with when they know how much 
your time is really worth.  I can't recall who said that you should bill 
your non-profits so they at least know how much money your spending on 
them.  I totally agree with this statement and I believe this is normal 
business practice anyways.  Usually, you can say you spent $10,000 of my 
time last year -- can you please consider that a donation in that amount 
and at least get yourself in a program/donor material/donor thank 
you/etc as well as some respect.  It's easy to stomp all over someone 
when you are ignorant on the subject...


Sorry, if I don't sound all to encouraging...my advice is think it over 
and think in the terms of what is good for you.  Do I have to pull my 
hair out maintaining and updating crappy code that I didn't get to write 
or have any input on?


Best,
.Peter

--
Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing
http://blog.maestropublishing.com

Rooibos Generator - Version 2.1
Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion for free!
http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/

- Member Team Mach-II
- Member Team Fusion!

**
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] talking points for standards

[Jay Gilmore]

Robert O'Neill wrote:

  
  
  
  If I wanted new windows in my house I'd buy from the BS Standard
compliant company every time, wouldn't you ?

Well I dunno? I am in Canada and I am assuming this might be the same
as the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). In North America BS stands
for BullS#it. so your comment fails to communicate to me fully what you
mean. 

  
  The thing is though,if I click on the BS Standard logo it can't
prove to me that the company is actually compliant , however in our
industry, we as web designers can use our W3C logos to prove the point,
by linking them to the validators.

A better comparison is the Better Business Bureau. Most people (in
participating countries) know who the BBB is because the organization
lobbies the public and consumers to educate and inform consumers about
its members and its mission. It even hunts downs and goes after
business who use their logo without authorization or membership. 

   
  
  Some might find this argument slightly flaky as a BS Standard is
an acknowledgment of quality rather than validity. The problem we have
though is that until the consequences of legislation fully kick in (DDA
etc) weare still being allowed to regulate ourselvesand W3C
validation seems to be the only option available.
  
  So I'll continue to add W3C validation logos to my sites until
an official Govt. Standard is set. Considering the UK Government bases
most of its current web standards (eGIF, NHS Standards etc) on W3C
recommendations, I'll hopefully be in a decent position should that
ever happen.
  
  Rob O.

Rob, I don't think legislating how businesses decide to build websites
is of any value or has any place, as they don't have any impact on the
public at large, if a business wants to build a crap site, much like
hanging a sign that no one can understand, it is, and should be, their
right to make whatever they want. If governments wish to set out policy
for contractors building sites for and with the government then go for
it. 

I don't really have a problem with the W3C logos per se, except we
cannot expect them to have any impact on anyone other than the already
converted. If you are placing them there as some hope to convince a
business owner to switch to you because you comply with some unknown
standard --you are going to waste bytes and bandwidth. All I was
suggesting is that the industry create meaning in the buttons for
business by marketing standards to business and not to one another. 

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Peter Williams]

 From: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
 
 have you ever seen a house with a huge sign on it: This 
 house is standards compliant? 

No, but washing machines, fridges and cars are all now displaying
stickers that advise of their efficiency in terms of an industry
and government agreed star rating scheme. 

Maybe we need a content vs page weight ratio measurement with star
ratings to emphasise the greater efficiency of standards based
page/site creation?

-- 
Peter Williams
**
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] talking points for standards

[Stephen Stagg]

Peter Williams wrote:

From: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]

have you ever seen a house with a huge sign on it: This 
house is standards compliant? 



No, but washing machines, fridges and cars are all now displaying
stickers that advise of their efficiency in terms of an industry
and government agreed star rating scheme. 


Maybe we need a content vs page weight ratio measurement with star
ratings to emphasise the greater efficiency of standards based
page/site creation?

  
A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards 
would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled people, to sue 
companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible sites.  Once people and 
customers realize that getting it wrong will cost them, I'm sure that 
they will soon mend their ways.

**
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] talking points for standards

[Christian Montoya]

On 12/6/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards
 would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled people, to sue
 companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible sites.  Once people and
 customers realize that getting it wrong will cost them, I'm sure that
 they will soon mend their ways.

I'm pretty sure that this is the only thing that has worked in every
other industry. People don't listen until the victims (in this case
those suffering from inaccessible websites) start pressing lawsuits.

This could be a double edged sword, though. What if the client messes
up a website you deliver and the user sues both you and the client?
Would you like to be responsible for someone else messing up your
code?

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] talking points for standards

[Stephen Stagg]

Christian Montoya wrote:

On 12/6/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards
would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled people, to sue
companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible sites.  Once people and
customers realize that getting it wrong will cost them, I'm sure that
they will soon mend their ways.



I'm pretty sure that this is the only thing that has worked in every
other industry. People don't listen until the victims (in this case
those suffering from inaccessible websites) start pressing lawsuits.

This could be a double edged sword, though. What if the client messes
up a website you deliver and the user sues both you and the client?
Would you like to be responsible for someone else messing up your
code?

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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
**


  
In the UK I think you are OK.  You have provided an Accessible 
service/product to the Company but they are delivering an inaccessible 
service to the End user.  The people who might have to worry are Web 
Hosts and Service Providers.

**
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] talking points for standards

[Kim Kruse]

IMO the way forward is not to let others fight your fights (disabled vs 
bad site owners) but to pick up the glove and fight back yourself... 
together with others.


I think Lea's idea about a badge is not bad. I came to think of the 
Dogme Manifesto (wonder why)  and maybe something in that direction 
would be fine. Instead of  The camera must be hand-held it could be 
something like...I followed best practice (to my knowledge),  the site 
conforms to 508, separation of ...(strict html, css), blah blah.


I think if such a thing should have any value it need something 
official...


Christian Montoya wrote:


On 12/6/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 


A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards
would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled people, to sue
companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible sites.  Once people and
customers realize that getting it wrong will cost them, I'm sure that
they will soon mend their ways.
   



I'm pretty sure that this is the only thing that has worked in every
other industry. People don't listen until the victims (in this case
those suffering from inaccessible websites) start pressing lawsuits.

This could be a double edged sword, though. What if the client messes
up a website you deliver and the user sues both you and the client?
Would you like to be responsible for someone else messing up your
code?

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] talking points for standards

[Duckworth, Nigel]

Stephen Stagg: 
 A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility
 standards would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled 
 people, to sue companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible 
 sites. Once people and customers realize that getting it 
 wrong will cost them, I'm sure that they will soon mend 
 their ways.

Wow. Isn't one of the arguments for web standards that getting it wrong
will cost you? Obviously not enough in your estimation. I do believe
that standards and accessibility are beneficial but that's a question
that each individual, designer and business should decide for
themselves. No one has the right to force them to conform [1]. In my
opinion such we know what's good for you arrogance only harms the
standards movement. 

Regards, 

-Nigel

[1] http://nigelduckworth.com/publishing/?p=3

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**

[WSG] talking points for standards

[Donna Jones]

Dear CSS Listers:

in another thread, someone essentially asked why code like this, in 
trying to convince a friend.  I don't think he's getting very good 
answers but at any rate, it made me think of a problem I'm having and 
I've decided to make a new thread.


A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so has 
recently had some special grant money and as part of a package hired a 
PR firm to work with that segment from the grant (including the 
website).  They would rather I continue to maintain it but the PR firm 
feels otherwise.  The situation now, the PR firm has put up a number of 
pages, its tag soup, tables, js menu (with graphics) - you know.  I've 
done the same, based on the PR's firm design - css-p etc.  The 
non-profit doesn't know what code is, doesn't know there are browsers 
other than IE and don't feel they have the time to learn.


I need to be able to explain, by looking at the surface, the difference 
between standards coding versus you-know-what.  Just about the only 
thing I can come up with is the ability to increase font size in IE.  I 
also thought of making a PDA example using Opera's PDA emulator and 
comparing the two codings, with screen shots, next to each other and did 
that but i don't think they get what they're looking at.  Or else make 
very short sentences i.e. what the PR firm is doing is the way someone 
would have commonly done it five years ago ... 


Any other ideas.  Also, I'm afraid, the PR firm has convinced them that 
I am just the in-house volunteer and that *I'm* liable to mess up the 
site ... quoting an experience they had when they turned over a site to 
another customer.


I hope this is enough on-topic for some discussion.

best regards,
Donna

**
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] talking points for standards

[Kim Kruse]

I tell my clients that the only way you can measure if your website 
(code wise) is any good is by using the industrial standards set by the 
W3 and the validators. This also means that if you can't maintain the 
site anymore any semi skilled coder should be able to take over. Not 
very likely with tag soup, huge scriptbased menus etc.


I'm aware that valid code is not the same as good (wellformed) code... 
and just because you use standards doesn't mean the 
usability/accessibility is any good.


Kim

Donna Jones wrote:


Dear CSS Listers:

in another thread, someone essentially asked why code like this, in 
trying to convince a friend.  I don't think he's getting very good 
answers but at any rate, it made me think of a problem I'm having 
and I've decided to make a new thread.


A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so 
has recently had some special grant money and as part of a package 
hired a PR firm to work with that segment from the grant (including 
the website).  They would rather I continue to maintain it but the PR 
firm feels otherwise.  The situation now, the PR firm has put up a 
number of pages, its tag soup, tables, js menu (with graphics) - you 
know.  I've done the same, based on the PR's firm design - css-p etc.  
The non-profit doesn't know what code is, doesn't know there are 
browsers other than IE and don't feel they have the time to learn.


I need to be able to explain, by looking at the surface, the 
difference between standards coding versus you-know-what.  Just 
about the only thing I can come up with is the ability to increase 
font size in IE.  I also thought of making a PDA example using Opera's 
PDA emulator and comparing the two codings, with screen shots, next to 
each other and did that but i don't think they get what they're 
looking at.  Or else make very short sentences i.e. what the PR firm 
is doing is the way someone would have commonly done it five years ago 
... 


Any other ideas.  Also, I'm afraid, the PR firm has convinced them 
that I am just the in-house volunteer and that *I'm* liable to mess 
up the site ... quoting an experience they had when they turned over a 
site to another customer.


I hope this is enough on-topic for some discussion.

best regards,
Donna

**
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] talking points for standards

[Donna Jones]

Kim Kruse wrote:

I tell my clients that the only way you can measure if your website 
(code wise) is any good is by using the industrial standards set by the 
W3 and the validators. This also means that if you can't maintain the 
site anymore any semi skilled coder should be able to take over. Not 
very likely with tag soup, huge scriptbased menus etc.


I'm aware that valid code is not the same as good (wellformed) code... 
and just because you use standards doesn't mean the 
usability/accessibility is any good.


Kim


Kim, I've tried that (they have no idea what the W3C is or validators or 
why it matters and don't want to learn) and it doesn't get me anywhere. 
 I've talked about accessibility and that gets me further (with the 
increase font-size bit).


The part about someone else being able to take it over more easily - i 
haven't talked about that much.  and maybe i could have more of a go 
with that.


thanks for your thoughts.

Donna

**
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] talking points for standards

[Kim Kruse]

Hi Donna,

That's why I mention the measure thingy and industrial standards. I 
get the feeling that's something companies appreciate from a business 
point of view.


Kim, I've tried that (they have no idea what the W3C is or validators 
or why it matters and don't want to learn) and it doesn't get me 
anywhere.  I've talked about accessibility and that gets me further 
(with the increase font-size bit).


The part about someone else being able to take it over more easily - i 
haven't talked about that much.  and maybe i could have more of a go 
with that.


thanks for your thoughts.

Donna

**
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] talking points for standards

[docbox]

Donna,

 That's why I mention the measure thingy and industrial standards. I
 get the feeling that's something companies appreciate from a business
 point of view.

Several of my coworkers and I recently gave a talk on when we chose to use
Web standards (and when we didn't). We created a handout with some links
to articles on using Web standards. Maybe one of the articles would be
useful to you?

Some of the reasons we chose to move to XHTML/CSS instead of table-based
design:
* Faster load-times.
* Smaller page sizes. (One site I did went from CSS-P to a table-based
template upon the customer's request, and the page sizes all tripled.)
* Better accessibility.
* Greater visibility in Web searches,
* Better compatibility with browsers.
* Future compatible with upcoming standards.

I'll be happy to provide additional information if you like.

Good luck with your situation.

Kim Nylander

--

These are some of the articles we used in the handout. Maybe they would
have something useful?

Why Use Web Standards?

Buy standards compliant Web sites (W3C QA article)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements

The Way Forward with Web Standards (MACCAWS)
http://www.maccaws.org/kit/way-forward/

What are Web Standards and Why Should I Use Them? (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/faq/

Web Standards Switch (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/03/web-kit

Using Standards

Learn the Standards (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/standards/

What Every Web Site Owner Should Know About Standards: A Web Standards
Primer (MACCAWS)
http://www.maccaws.org/kit/primer/

Making your website valid: a step by step guide. (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/09/Step-by-step

My Web Site is Standard. And yours? (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality

**
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] talking points for standards

[adam reitsma]

Donna,This is where you really need to be thinking in terms of what the customer wants.So it's the hippest, coolest, latest code - so what? They really don't care - and shouldn't care.Come up with points that assist them - as Kim was saying, show where your 'methods' (and you don't really need much more discussion on what your methods are, unless they ask) come out ahead:
- Compare the end size of one of your pages vs one of theirs. Show how that affects your site's bandwidth usage, and how that could affect dialup users.- If there's a change to your site that you could forsee (for instance, color scheme change, slight layout change, etc), outline the time (=money) savings in changing your code, vs theirs.
- Add that your methods provide better search engine ratings (providing that you are also supplying the right content), and that your methods allow for greater accessibility. For some non-profit orgs this can be a real advantage.
Show them some numbers that prove that you know what you're talking about - loading times, page sizes, % of other browsers, etc.Good luck!--adam--On 12/6/05, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Donna, That's why I mention the measure thingy and industrial standards. I get the feeling that's something companies appreciate from a business point of view.Several of my coworkers and I recently gave a talk on when we chose to use
Web standards (and when we didn't). We created a handout with some linksto articles on using Web standards. Maybe one of the articles would beuseful to you?Some of the reasons we chose to move to XHTML/CSS instead of table-based
design:* Faster load-times.* Smaller page sizes. (One site I did went from CSS-P to a table-basedtemplate upon the customer's request, and the page sizes all tripled.)* Better accessibility.* Greater visibility in Web searches,
* Better compatibility with browsers.* Future compatible with upcoming standards.I'll be happy to provide additional information if you like.Good luck with your situation.Kim Nylander
--These are some of the articles we used in the handout. Maybe they wouldhave something useful?Why Use Web Standards?Buy standards compliant Web sites (W3C QA article)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-RequirementsThe Way Forward with Web Standards (MACCAWS)http://www.maccaws.org/kit/way-forward/What are Web Standards and Why Should I Use Them? (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/faq/Web Standards Switch (W3C QA)http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/03/web-kit
Using StandardsLearn the Standards (WaSP)http://www.webstandards.org/learn/standards/What Every Web Site Owner Should Know About Standards: A Web Standards
Primer (MACCAWS)http://www.maccaws.org/kit/primer/Making your website valid: a step by step guide. (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/09/Step-by-stepMy Web Site is Standard. And yours? (W3C QA)http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality**
The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help**

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Samuel Richardson]

I'm going to have to name drop my article again here :)

http://www.geminidevelopment.com.au/html/article_whycomplient.php

Samuel


adam reitsma wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Donna,

 That's why I mention the measure thingy and industrial
standards. I
 get the feeling that's something companies appreciate from a
business
 point of view.

Several of my coworkers and I recently gave a talk on when we
chose to use
Web standards (and when we didn't). We created a handout with some
links
to articles on using Web standards. Maybe one of the articles would be
useful to you?

Some of the reasons we chose to move to XHTML/CSS instead of
table-based
design:
* Faster load-times.
* Smaller page sizes. (One site I did went from CSS-P to a table-based
template upon the customer's request, and the page sizes all tripled.)
* Better accessibility.
* Greater visibility in Web searches,
* Better compatibility with browsers.
* Future compatible with upcoming standards.

I'll be happy to provide additional information if you like.

Good luck with your situation.

Kim Nylander

--

These are some of the articles we used in the handout. Maybe they
would
have something useful?

Why Use Web Standards?

Buy standards compliant Web sites (W3C QA article)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements

The Way Forward with Web Standards (MACCAWS)
http://www.maccaws.org/kit/way-forward/

What are Web Standards and Why Should I Use Them? (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/faq/

Web Standards Switch (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/03/web-kit

Using Standards

Learn the Standards (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/standards/

What Every Web Site Owner Should Know About Standards: A Web
Standards
Primer (MACCAWS)
http://www.maccaws.org/kit/primer/

Making your website valid: a step by step guide. (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/09/Step-by-step

My Web Site is Standard. And yours? (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
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] talking points for standards

[Joseph R. B. Taylor]

In my own experience, I find myself using the house analogy again and 
again when it comes to websites and getting points across to clients.  
There's a code for what is considered a good building.  You cannot gain 
a certificate of occupancy with passing code.


You CAN launch a site without passing code, but there are groups that 
are working together to enforce the integrity of the code.  That usually 
puts them in the correct state of mind.


Joe Taylor
http://sitesbyjoe.com

adam reitsma wrote:


Donna,
This is where you really need to be thinking in terms of what the 
customer wants.


So it's the hippest, coolest, latest code - so what? They really don't 
care - and shouldn't care.


Come up with points that assist them - as Kim was saying, show where 
your 'methods' (and you don't really need much more discussion on what 
your methods are, unless they ask) come out ahead:
- Compare the end size of one of your pages vs one of theirs. Show how 
that affects your site's bandwidth usage, and how that could affect 
dialup users.
- If there's a change to your site that you could forsee (for 
instance, color scheme change, slight layout change, etc), outline the 
time (=money) savings in changing your code, vs theirs.
- Add that your methods provide better search engine ratings 
(providing that you are also supplying the right content), and that 
your methods allow for greater accessibility. For some non-profit orgs 
this can be a real advantage.


Show them some numbers that prove that you know what you're talking 
about - loading times, page sizes, % of other browsers, etc.


Good luck!

--adam--

On 12/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Donna,

 That's why I mention the measure thingy and industrial
standards. I
 get the feeling that's something companies appreciate from a
business
 point of view.

Several of my coworkers and I recently gave a talk on when we
chose to use
Web standards (and when we didn't). We created a handout with some
links
to articles on using Web standards. Maybe one of the articles would be
useful to you?

Some of the reasons we chose to move to XHTML/CSS instead of
table-based
design:
* Faster load-times.
* Smaller page sizes. (One site I did went from CSS-P to a table-based
template upon the customer's request, and the page sizes all tripled.)
* Better accessibility.
* Greater visibility in Web searches,
* Better compatibility with browsers.
* Future compatible with upcoming standards.

I'll be happy to provide additional information if you like.

Good luck with your situation.

Kim Nylander

--

These are some of the articles we used in the handout. Maybe they
would
have something useful?

Why Use Web Standards?

Buy standards compliant Web sites (W3C QA article)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements

The Way Forward with Web Standards (MACCAWS)
http://www.maccaws.org/kit/way-forward/

What are Web Standards and Why Should I Use Them? (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/faq/

Web Standards Switch (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/03/web-kit

Using Standards

Learn the Standards (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/standards/

What Every Web Site Owner Should Know About Standards: A Web
Standards
Primer (MACCAWS)
http://www.maccaws.org/kit/primer/

Making your website valid: a step by step guide. (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/09/Step-by-step

My Web Site is Standard. And yours? (W3C QA)
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
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] talking points for standards

[Christian Montoya]

 adam reitsma wrote:
  - If there's a change to your site that you could forsee (for
  instance, color scheme change, slight layout change, etc), outline the
  time (=money) savings in changing your code, vs theirs.

I think this is the top point. Sure, the tag soup option may look good
now, but what happens when you want to change something? In CSS it
takes 5 seconds. In a tag soup website, it's not so easy.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] talking points for standards

[Jan Brasna]

Some articles:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/csstalking/
http://www.graphicpush.com/index.php?id=49
http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000266.php
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/reference/web_standards_for_business.html
http://www.websitegoodies.com/article/38
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/The_Business_Benefits_of_Web_Standards
http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html

--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] talking points for standards

[Ric Jude Raftis]

G'day Donna,

The continuing fight against the incompetent and uncaring!  Would they 
allow their children to play with toys that didn't meet Australian 
Safety Standards (or whatever country you're in)?  Then why have a site 
that doesn't meet world standards for web design?


Regards,

Ric

Donna Jones wrote:



Any other ideas.  Also, I'm afraid, the PR firm has convinced them 
that I am just the in-house volunteer and that *I'm* liable to mess 
up the site ... quoting an experience they had when they turned over a 
site to another customer.




**
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] talking points for standards

[kvnmcwebn]

The processes of building a site with standards cool.
Best practices that cover every stage from 
planning to customer sign off that can be found on
this lists posts and moderators/members sites.
For me it makes job turnaround smoother and quicker.


**
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] talking points for standards

[Lea de Groot]

On 06/12/2005, at 1:01 AM, Donna Jones wrote:
I need to be able to explain, by looking at the surface, the  
difference between standards coding versus you-know-what.


Another point: standards based markup is lighter - their overall  
bandwidth will be lower, meaning they can buy the cheaper hosting  
package.
Granted, hosting doesn't cost much these days, but this is a non- 
profit and the bottom line is normally very important there.
I would compare the weight of the two sets of pages and predict when  
you will need to change up to the next (more expensive) hosting  
package for the two implementations.
Then I would mutter about how you're probably wrong because with the  
heavier pages the bots probably won't spider as well and they are  
liable never to achieve great rankings...

The contrast of savings money and not getting rankings is often enough.

The flip side is the accessability (which you've already mentioned) -  
as a non-profit do they have higher standards to meet? You appear to  
be in the UK - aren't the accessability rules for groups receiving  
govt money (I assume thats where the extra funds appeared from)  
fairly stringent over there?
'We have to meet accessability rules and *that* doesnt do it' is  
probably your biggest pushing point.


HIH
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems
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] talking points for standards

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:

You CAN launch a site without passing code, but there are groups that 
are working together to enforce the integrity of the code. 


And which groups would those be? And what authority do they have over 
the site? Here's where the analogy may well fall apart, rather than have 
the desired impact...


--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
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] talking points for standards

[James Ellis]

Hi

They are a PR firm, so they will respond to $$ arguments. I suggest you
build two compliant pages, of exactly the same html code and re-present
them differently using CSS (like floats, PDA style. Show this to them,
flick between the two explaining how both sites can use the same
backend and code base if needed, saving $$$.
Now, try and do the same thing with a page where the presentation is
locked up in the HTML Turn _javascript_ off and tell them about
functionality.

Explain to them about the importance of web sites being interoperable
with each other - of which standards are a stepping stone towards.

You need to do a CSS Zen Garden for PR :D - even better, take them through the csszengarden.com.

At the end of the day separating the business logic from the
presentation logic helps everyone in the site development and design
food chain. Remember PR and marketing people will respond to completely
different arguments than your web dev peers - $$$, results, traffic,
feet through the door etc etc they generally don't give a hoot about
closing end tags and the like.

HTH
James
On 12/6/05, Donna Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear CSS Listers:in another thread, someone essentially asked why code like this, intrying to convince a friend.I don't think he's getting very goodanswers but at any rate, it made me think of a problem I'm having and
I've decided to make a new thread.A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so hasrecently had some special grant money and as part of a package hired aPR firm to work with that segment from the grant (including the
website).They would rather I continue to maintain it but the PR firmfeels otherwise.The situation now, the PR firm has put up a number ofpages, its tag soup, tables, js menu (with graphics) - you know.I've
done the same, based on the PR's firm design - css-p etc.Thenon-profit doesn't know what code is, doesn't know there are browsersother than IE and don't feel they have the time to learn.I need to be able to explain, by looking at the surface, the difference
between standards coding versus you-know-what.Just about the onlything I can come up with is the ability to increase font size in IE.Ialso thought of making a PDA example using Opera's PDA emulator and
comparing the two codings, with screen shots, next to each other and didthat but i don't think they get what they're looking at.Or else makevery short sentences i.e. what the PR firm is doing is the way someone
would have commonly done it five years ago ... Any other ideas.Also, I'm afraid, the PR firm has convinced them thatI am just the in-house volunteer and that *I'm* liable to mess up the
site ... quoting an experience they had when they turned over a site toanother customer.I hope this is enough on-topic for some discussion.best regards,Donna**
The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help**

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

Additionally to the points already mentioned by others, one very good reason
for coding in standards is to ensure the website will last a long time.

I am sure the organisation you are talking about will not want to create a
new website in a few years time. Show them some of the many websites that
have been created just a few years ago and which now look shocking in new
browsers (e.g. Firefox) because the sites don't adhere to standards. If the
PR company doesn't stick to standards it is likely that new browsers in
future years won't display the site correctly. Which means for the
organisation running the website: spending more money on fixing it. Getting
it right in the first time will save them money and headache in the long
run.

From what you said about the PR agency it sounds as if they are trying to
push you out of the way to get the job (which of course is understandable
from their point of view). The best point you have against them is that they
are a PR agency, not a web development agency. They might be good in
marketing, but they don't have a clue about development. That already shows
in the few bits of code they have provided.

What about making a suggestion to the non-profit organisation: the PR firm
creates the marketing and the design, but you do the development. The
organisation can insist on that and if the PR company is clever they will
accept that offer.

Hope this helps.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Donna Jones
Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:01 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] talking points for standards

A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so has
recently had some special grant money and as part of a package hired a PR
firm to work with that segment from the grant (including the website).  They
would rather I continue to maintain it but the PR firm feels otherwise.  The
situation now, the PR firm has put up a number of pages, its tag soup,
tables, js menu (with graphics) - you know.  I've done the same, based on
the PR's firm design - css-p etc.  The non-profit doesn't know what code is,
doesn't know there are browsers other than IE and don't feel they have the
time to learn.

I need to be able to explain, by looking at the surface, the difference
between standards coding versus you-know-what.  Just about the only thing
I can come up with is the ability to increase font size in IE.  I also
thought of making a PDA example using Opera's PDA emulator and comparing the
two codings, with screen shots, next to each other and did that but i don't
think they get what they're looking at.  Or else make very short sentences
i.e. what the PR firm is doing is the way someone would have commonly done
it five years ago ... 

Any other ideas.  Also, I'm afraid, the PR firm has convinced them that I am
just the in-house volunteer and that *I'm* liable to mess up the site ...
quoting an experience they had when they turned over a site to another
customer.

I hope this is enough on-topic for some discussion.

best regards,
Donna

**
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] talking points for standards

[Joseph R. B. Taylor]

The analogy is quite simple...

If there weren't codes to set guidelines for best practices when 
constructing homes, what kind of homes would most people have?


People have been building sites for years now and have no idea that 
guidelines even exist, let alone take steps to meet them and be up to 
code.


That's the point.  That's why they want to have someone build a site for 
them that has a clue about this stuff.  The day WILL come when there is 
a governing body over the net.  There WAS a day when housing codes DID 
NOT exist and were being worked on and accepted.


Hopefully that clarifies.  At least it works on Realtors

Joe Taylor
http://sitesbyjoe.com

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:


Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:

You CAN launch a site without passing code, but there are groups that 
are working together to enforce the integrity of the code. 



And which groups would those be? And what authority do they have over 
the site? Here's where the analogy may well fall apart, rather than 
have the desired impact...



**
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] talking points for standards

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:

That's the point.  That's why they want to have someone build a site for 
them that has a clue about this stuff.  The day WILL come when there is 
a governing body over the net.  There WAS a day when housing codes DID 
NOT exist and were being worked on and accepted.


Call me a cynic, but I seriously doubt that any web standards savvy 
designer/developer may be able to convince clients to hire her by saying 
that in one day there will be a governing body that will make all 
non-standards compliant sites illegal.


--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
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] talking points for standards

[Mark Harris]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:

That's the point.  That's why they want to have someone build a site 
for them that has a clue about this stuff.  The day WILL come when 
there is a governing body over the net.  There WAS a day when housing 
codes DID NOT exist and were being worked on and accepted.



Call me a cynic, but I seriously doubt that any web standards savvy 
designer/developer may be able to convince clients to hire her by saying 
that in one day there will be a governing body that will make all 
non-standards compliant sites illegal.




Further, I seriously doubt that any one body will be governing the net 
and enforcing such standards within the lifetime of the technologies we 
are using to build sites today.


Housing codes are often unique to a municipality or country. What passes 
for housing codes in Pakistan won't fly in Melbourne (maybe Sydney, it 
depends on who you know ;-)


Standards are a good thing in their own right, Joseph. Don't drum up 
mythical fear tactics to try to enforce them. That's the sort of thing 
PR companies get paid to do...


cheers

Mark
**
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] talking points for standards

[Joshua Street]

The web is intrinsically anarchous to some extent, occasioned in no
small part by individual publishers not beholden to any particular
standard (or even aware of them) -- Geocities users have no incentive
to make their site accessed by a few friends 'standards compliant' if
that increases the amount of work they have to do (or, more
importantly, the knowledge barrier of entry that inhibits adoption).
No-one is going to legislate against this, much less dedicate
resources to enforcing such legislation. So where is the line drawn?
Are micro businesses with a business card website (i.e. one with no
content bar maybe a logo and a contact phone number) expected to
adhere to standards (which are, incidentally, largely not standards
at all)? Would a car raceway website be expected to be accessible by
blind users, who fall outside of their target market? What about music
websites and deaf (to whatever degree) users? Should they be expected
to provide captions for a marginal demographic outside their target?

We can get upset about how they're locking out users with PDAs and
mobile devices and hence potential customers, but that remains a
DECISION made by someone, for whatever reason. Not neccessarily an
informed and intelligent decision, but one nonetheless. Waving the
regulatory flag won't coerce these people into compliance, because
they're unlikely to be aware of what is required. One of the
interesting things about this list is that we all participate
completely contrary to our own commercial interests. Any competitive
advantage building to web standards may have once offered an
individual on this list is being progressively diluted!

Which is, of course, a great thing for the web.

The idea of not doing something now because it could be illegal in the
future is an interesting one, to say the least! Opium used to be
prescribed for medicinal purposes. If you happened to know that it was
bad for someone in the 19th Century, your most compelling argument
would [hopefully] not be hey, that's going to be illegal in a few
decades time, watch out!. I think we're going to see the same thing
with tobacco in the next century. The argument shouldn't be this
might be illegal in the future, so don't do it now -- it makes far
more sense to say hey, this is intrinsically bad for your health now,
and it's probably not a great idea to keep doing it.

Health is realised in accessibilty, interoperability, document
integrity in ten, fifteen, twenty years time, and myriad other things.
That strikes me as a far more sensible set of arguments than saying
it's bad and someone in the distant future MIGHT do something about
it and then you'll regret it.

Josh

On 12/6/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:

  That's the point.  That's why they want to have someone build a site for
  them that has a clue about this stuff.  The day WILL come when there is
  a governing body over the net.  There WAS a day when housing codes DID
  NOT exist and were being worked on and accepted.

 Call me a cynic, but I seriously doubt that any web standards savvy
 designer/developer may be able to convince clients to hire her by saying
 that in one day there will be a governing body that will make all
 non-standards compliant sites illegal.

 --
 Patrick H. Lauke
 __
 re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
 [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
 www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
 http://redux.deviantart.com
 __
 Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
 http://webstandards.org/
 __
 **
 The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
 **




--
Joshua Street

http://www.joahua.com/
+61 (0) 425 808 469
**
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] talking points for standards

[Barrie North]

Web standards

So assuming you want to make a case to a client

Strategy 1
Yes, accessibility, W3C, design for the future, screen readers, more elegant
code, blah blah blah

Try this and you will be sounding like the teacher in the Charlie Brown
cartoons I feel

Strategy 2
Do you want to save 20% on bandwidth costs?
Do you want to reach 10-20% more viewers?
Do you want to save 25% in your next site revision or redesign?
Do you want a site that is more usable and results in more viewer
conversion?

Call me a cynic, but its all about the green..

Barrie North
http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/dkbin?ml=72



**
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] talking points for standards

[Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions]

The building codes analogy is one I often use myself, but as pointed out
already, it does fall flat when asked for the governing bodies that are
policing the web.

When faced with a client/agency/designer that doesn't (want to/need to)
understand the 'technical' aspects (bandwidth, ease of maintenance,
accessibility, cross UA compatibility, 'standards' compliance, etc) then a
certain amount of licence has to be applied to the explanation and reasoning
for adopting standards. If that involves making a comparison to a standard
in their field of business then so be it.

A client generally simply wants the site to look the way they want and to
work. Can this be achieved using tables, tag soup, intrusive scripting,
deprecated tags and HTML2.0? Yes. Will that site be viewable in the vast
majority of UA's? Yes. So as far as the client is concerned they have a
website that fulfils their requirements.

The aim, then, is to look outside the 'magic' of web development, and put
the benefits into terms that can be quantified in direct financial terms, eg
smaller page size=reduced bandwidth=lower hosting costs, css=quicker site
wide changes=reduced maintenance costs, AND/OR site availability for a range
of users, eg scripting disabled, vision, mobility or mentally impaired, text
only or screen readers, etc. Preventing/limiting access to users corresponds
to a drop in financial return or effectiveness of the website.

Dollars and cents is the language that will convince most, if not all,
sceptics.


Regards

Scott Swabey
Lafinboy Productions
www.lafinboy.com

 Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
 
 The day WILL come when there is a governing body over the net.
 There WAS a day when housing codes DID NOT exist and were
 being worked on and accepted.

 Patrick H. Lauke wrote: 
 Call me a cynic, but I seriously doubt that any web standards savvy 
 designer/developer may be able to convince clients to hire 
 her by saying that in one day there will be a governing body that
 will make all non-standards compliant sites illegal.

**
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] talking points for standards

[Lea de Groot]

On 06/12/2005, at 12:46 PM, Joshua Street wrote:

We can get upset about how they're locking out users with PDAs and
mobile devices and hence potential customers, but that remains a
DECISION made by someone, for whatever reason. Not neccessarily an
informed and intelligent decision, but one nonetheless.


Actually, I tend to think that the real problem is that a decision  
*wasn't* made, but a 'path of least resistance' taken, in the face of  
ignorance[1]
The OP's clients aren't saying 'we've looked at all this standards  
stuff and have decided that a maintenance intensive, non-accessible,  
more expensive production is for us!' That would be a decision (and,  
yes, a strange one). Instead, they are saying 'we should what? huh?  
never heard of that! why should we? These experts we've paid lots of  
money too say thats not right'.



Waving the
regulatory flag won't coerce these people into compliance


but I generally agree with the rest of what you've said :)

Lea
[1] Sorry, I think I've mixed a metaphor there... certainly not  
meeting grammatical standards ;)

**
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] talking points for standards

[Bert Doorn]

G'day


Dollars and cents is the language that will convince most, if not all,
sceptics.


The problem I face in that regard is that a lot of sales 
enquiries I get are from people who want to maintain their own 
site, for next to nothing.


They don't want to spend money on a content management system 
(which is overkill anyway, if the updates are few and far 
between).  Many think they can maintain a site with Frontpage, 
which, after all, is relatively cheap.  I can't help them, unless 
I throw standards compliance out the door.


As far as (server) bandwidth is concerned, it only matters for 
big sites with a lot of traffic, or sites with a host that 
provides a ridiculously low quota.


When it comes to search engines, can anyone prove that lean code 
is better? Has anyone done research on this claim? Google is full 
of tagsoup sites that are highly ranked.


I searched for web design in Google (pages from Australia 
only).  The top 3 (non sponsored) sites used tables for layout, 
none of them validated and only one had a doctype. They all used 
some CSS but only in addition to the tagsoup.


So where are the benefits?

Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites

**
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] talking points for standards

[Terrence Wood]

Donna Jones said:
 A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so has
 recently...hired a PR firm.

Why do the PR firm think they should maintain the site and not you?

Have they put forward any compelling reasons why they are better qualified
to look after a web site? Get them to justify their position.

What are the long term implications when the grant money runs out?

Ultimately the PR firm works for the NFP, not the other way round, get
your NFP to grow a spine. (OK I realise you might need a lot more tact
than that, but y'know, fire them up a bit!!!)


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
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] talking points for standards

[Jay Gilmore]

Do you really want those customers who want to maintain their pages in
Frontage only to load up your design with unoptimized images, tables
and tag sludge? You put this site in your portfolio and a prospect goes
to visit your butchered site. These clients are also the worst for
taking up too much time. I am focused on small business but I am not
desperate for work. I don't do crap jobs for crap clients. If I have a
challenging client it is someone who has engaged my services on my
terms. 

I don't push standards, I build ever better sites. When I do something
of note for my client I let them know. I don't know if you will ever be
able promote standards to small business. You will have better luck
with larger companies.

I think I may take some of the suggestions in this article and
formulate a case for standards adoption for publication on my site.

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]




Bert Doorn wrote:
G'day
  
  
  Dollars and cents is the language that will
convince most, if not all,

sceptics.

  
  
The problem I face in that regard is that a lot of sales enquiries I
get are from people who want to maintain their own site, for next to
nothing.
  
  
They don't want to spend money on a content management system (which is
overkill anyway, if the updates are few and far between). Many think
they can maintain a site with Frontpage, which, after all, is
relatively cheap. I can't help them, unless I throw standards
compliance out the door.
  
  
As far as (server) bandwidth is concerned, it only matters for big
sites with a lot of traffic, or sites with a host that provides a
ridiculously low quota.
  
  
When it comes to search engines, can anyone prove that lean code is
better? Has anyone done research on this claim? Google is full of
tagsoup sites that are highly ranked.
  
  
I searched for "web design" in Google (pages from Australia only). The
top 3 (non sponsored) sites used tables for layout, none of them
validated and only one had a doctype. They all used some CSS but only
in addition to the tagsoup.
  
  
So where are the benefits?
  
  
Regards
  

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

[Ric Jude Raftis]

I've only recently joined this group and I find this an interesting 
discussion because it is a daily challenge for designers who are 
desperately trying to do the right thing.  I'm sure we would all love to 
see the back of the cowboys in the industry who throw a Frontpage site 
together with no doctype and proprietary styles for $200 to the 
unsuspecting and naive client.


The question is, how many designers include icons and links on their 
sites back to W3C for XHTML and CSS?  How many include an icon for 
Accessibility?  Personally, I don't have all my sites Triple A 
compliant, but they do pass automated validation and I include a 
Statement to this effect on sites.


I feel that by exposing clients and their visitors to such icons that it 
spreads the word about standards.  It makes more people aware that they 
actually exist and I would encourage all designers to include such icons 
on their sites.


Kind regards,


Ric
**
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] talking points for standards

[Christian Montoya]

On 12/5/05, Ric  Jude Raftis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The question is, how many designers include icons and links on their
 sites back to W3C for XHTML and CSS?  How many include an icon for
 Accessibility?  Personally, I don't have all my sites Triple A
 compliant, but they do pass automated validation and I include a
 Statement to this effect on sites.

 I feel that by exposing clients and their visitors to such icons that it
 spreads the word about standards.  It makes more people aware that they
 actually exist and I would encourage all designers to include such icons
 on their sites.

I don't think those little icons/buttons are enough, though. I think
an About this site page with accessibility features, explanation of
standards compliance, etc. is a lot better, since it explains the
quality of the code rather than just sending visitors to some cryptic
validation page.

Even then, though, I wonder if clients or users read that kind of
stuff. I'm having a hard time putting myself in their shoes on this
one.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] talking points for standards

[Donna Jones]

Terrence and all:  thank you for all your replies.

Lea said she thought accessibility was my strongest suit and I agree 
with that.  At least font-size increase is something that can be seen 
on the surface, and perhaps other accessibility issues that I haven't 
thought about.  I did think today of making screen shots in the Lynx 
emulator. its grant money but not government - yes, i guess there are 
still a few out there.  and, yes, they should care about accessibility 
and i think they do from a its the right thing to do standpoint.


Most of the other suggestions people have spoken of, though i find it a 
good review, are not applicable to my situation since i really am 
dealing with a what is a browser crowd.  I'd done the website 
(inherited at that point) for years before i could get anyone to pay any 
attention to it.


Lea, interesting you thought i was from the UK.  wonder if i type with a 
British accent - it should be a southern, u.s, but living in the 
northeast for the last 25 years accent! :)


Oh, someone mentioned showing everyone csszengardens  i did that 
already, in a very early meeting (the first and only one i was invited 
to).  my intent was to show the font-size increase bit.  Imagine my 
surprise when it wouldn't increase!  Yes, csszengardens won't increase 
font size in IE.  Of course, it would be different today so that's not a 
criticism and its interesting to read in CSS Zen Gardens (the book) 
about why the site is a time snapshot as far as the code.  Just don't 
go there to demonstrate accessibility. ;)



Terrence Wood wrote:


Why do the PR firm think they should maintain the site and not you?


Terrence, i don't think they want to maintain it, i think they want to 
deliver the whole thing as a way to justify the amount they had 
anticipated getting.


its all a bit convuloted (sp?) at this point - early on i told my 
non-profit that i would be happy to maintain it if the code met certain 
guidelines and those were spelled out and at least one place they were 
written down.  They were, off-the-top-of-my-head, css floating is the 
way it was written, no tables, font-size increasble, meeting accessible 
guidelines in general.  I also told them I would let it go if they'd 
rather get someone else but apparently there was no one chopping at the 
bit to take it on and they didn't want to look for anyone else.


A number of months have passed  the PR firm is saying now that 
they've done a lot of work (even to the point of volunteering, heh, 
can't imagine that)  they want to deliver the whole site.


I can't use their code and have done a lot myself.  so the bottom line 
is how to explain that i can't use the PRs firm's code.  I have a 
feeling the non-profit will end up paying the full amount for 
essentially two pages of design and i'll end up donating a *lot* of my 
time because the budget will be spent on the PR firm.



Have they put forward any compelling reasons why they are better qualified
to look after a web site? Get them to justify their position.

What are the long term implications when the grant money runs out?


well, the PR firm would not work for free, I would - therefore, I think 
I'll end up being the one responsible.  Unless I actively quit.  and 
the long-term implications are that i don't mind continuing my 
volunteering if its code that i find easy, and enjoyable, to work with. 
 I don't know what the $$ parameters are but my sense is that the 
non-profit doesn't understand why i have to change all the coding and 
therefore doesn't understand why i have to put all this work into it 
and I'm afraid the budget is eaten up by the PR firm and so the NP is 
feeling badly that I'm in the position, once again, of donating a lot 
of my time.  Ideally, in their view, i think, they'd like for me to say, 
yes, the PR's code is great and groovy and I'll continue maintenance, 
updating, no problem    I've created a bit of a dilemna because i 
can't, won't, do that ...



Ultimately the PR firm works for the NFP, not the other way round, get
your NFP to grow a spine. (OK I realise you might need a lot more tact
than that, but y'know, fire them up a bit!!!)


Yes, the woman with the PR firm is very, shall we say assertive  
I'm just the in-house volunteer (never mind that I know what I'm doing 
or am getting there or at least know where to go to get help!) and not 
particularly assertive, by inclination.  There was a contract signed and 
i'm sure that figures into all the equations.


well, done it again, wrote another book!

best wishes,
Donna

**
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] talking points for standards

[Peter J. Farrell]

Donna Jones wrote:

... I'm afraid the budget is eaten up by the PR firm and so the NP is 
feeling badly that I'm in the position, once again, of donating a 
lot of my time.  Ideally, in their view, i think, they'd like for me 
to say, yes, the PR's code is great and groovy and I'll continue 
maintenance, updating, no problem    I've created a bit of a 
dilemna because i can't, won't, do that ...


I've been put in similar position by non-profit.  I was their webmaster 
for many years and volunteered my every minute of my time.  When they 
received a large grant for technologies improvements, I asked if I could 
put in a bid.  After spending a some time developing a detailed bid, the 
process became stalled and I never got the opportunity to even place a 
bid.  I later found out that they contracted a firm in which someone on 
the board of directors knew or at least I believe so (the details are 
sketchy).


In the end, I felt very used as a volunteer.  I recommend that anybody 
who volunteers for a non-profit, discuss ownership of code/designs when 
you volunteer.  I was happy that I was able put a co-copyright on the 
website and in files.  If problems arise, things resolve more easily 
because of that.


Anyways, I wanted to say that you've not created a dilemma for 
yourself.  Maybe this is just life saying you need to move on to newer 
and better things -- even though this still might feel near and dear to 
you.  If you still want to volunteer your time, find a struggling 
non-profit that means someone to you and especially one that doesn't 
have website or has a poor one.  Best of luck during this process for 
you Donna...


Best,
.Peter

--
Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing
http://blog.maestropublishing.com

Rooibos Generator - Version 2.1
Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion for free!
http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/

- Member Team Mach-II
- Member Team Fusion!

**
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] talking points for standards

[Lea de Groot]

On 06/12/2005, at 4:48 PM, Peter J. Farrell wrote:
In the end, I felt very used as a volunteer.  I recommend that  
anybody who volunteers for a non-profit, discuss ownership of code/ 
designs when you volunteer.  I was happy that I was able put a co- 
copyright on the website and in files.  If problems arise, things  
resolve more easily because of that.


Its a little off topic, but one thing I have *always* done when I  
have worked for a non-profit is invoiced them with my normal rates  
anyway - then have the final line on the invoice discount it down to $0

It lets them know just what they are 'getting away with'.

Its important to make appropriate use of the time you donate to a  
charity etc so you increase your skills, but its also important not  
to be walked over.


HIH
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems
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] talking points for standards

[Donna Jones]

Peter J. Farrell wrote:


Donna Jones wrote:

... I'm afraid the budget is eaten up by the PR firm and so the NP is 
feeling badly that I'm in the position, once again, of donating a 
lot of my time.  Ideally, in their view, i think, they'd like for me 
to say, yes, the PR's code is great and groovy and I'll continue 
maintenance, updating, no problem    I've created a bit of a 
dilemna because i can't, won't, do that ...



I've been put in similar position by non-profit.  I was their webmaster 
for many years and volunteered my every minute of my time.  When they 
received a large grant for technologies improvements, I asked if I could 
put in a bid.  After spending a some time developing a detailed bid, the 
process became stalled and I never got the opportunity to even place a 
bid.  I later found out that they contracted a firm in which someone on 
the board of directors knew or at least I believe so (the details are 
sketchy).


In the end, I felt very used as a volunteer.  I recommend that anybody 
who volunteers for a non-profit, discuss ownership of code/designs when 
you volunteer.  I was happy that I was able put a co-copyright on the 
website and in files.  If problems arise, things resolve more easily 
because of that.


Anyways, I wanted to say that you've not created a dilemma for 
yourself.  Maybe this is just life saying you need to move on to newer 
and better things -- even though this still might feel near and dear to 
you.  If you still want to volunteer your time, find a struggling 
non-profit that means someone to you and especially one that doesn't 
have website or has a poor one.  Best of luck during this process for 
you Donna...


Thanks Peter, yes it sounds like a very similar situation.  Luckily I 
have one non-profit that does appreciate and pays me!  and I won big 
points with them because of accessibility.  I had made their web-site 
pretty much accessible (this was probably four/five years ago).  They 
had gone to a national conference and attended the website workshop. 
Lo and behold their website got pronounced as best because the font 
size could increase and they came back very happy.  Just a story of how 
accessibility can pay off, I didn't do it for that reason but was glad 
to have the points!


but, yes, back to my problem child non-profit.  It may be time to let 
it go, it is hard to see them get a poor website and pay a fair amount 
of money for it ... it is also hard to validate myself and get them to 
know that i do know what i'm doing, at least tons more than the PR firm.
But thanks for saying that I didn't create the dilemma ... I'll try to 
take that to heart.  I suspect its a pretty common situation; and, to be 
honest, when i first took it on, at no reimbursement, i was simply 
chomping at the bits to have something to do and probably felt like i 
should pay them for letting me do it.  I've changed a bit since then!


Thanks again for your kind note and understanding.

Donna




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**