RE: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[kvnmcwebn]

Once or twice I've ask a question here and got a wee sting along with my
awnser. Thats very rare though and doesnt bother me.
Anyway a cheeky experts advice works the same as a one with manners.
-best
-kvnmcwebn


**
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[matt andrews]

On 01/02/06, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a "far-from-guru-status" Web Standards supporter/coder (I try) I have
> > witnessed, on this list and on another css-specific list, quite a bit of
> > condescending and 'forced-opinion' type of replies. It doesn't make for a
> > nice atmosphere when looking to these lists for help.
>
> Completely agree. The most common off-list comments I receive are along the
> lines of "a great list, very helpful, but sometimes a bit of attitude".

That's interesting feedback.  I too dislike, and never engage in, the
disparaging of those who perhaps know less than others and are trying
to learn.

In my own defence, I think a bit of light-hearted teasing is justified
in this case:  clearly Clear Blue Sky had not bothered to keep in
touch with web development trends *at all* for the last several years.
 They are obviously not even trying to learn (so far) - and you have
to admit, their "reasons" were pretty comical.  If they'd invested 5
minutes in googling these "reasons", they would have realised that
things have moved on (and that, on one of these "reasons", they were
probably never right in the first place).

Having said that, I'll just leap on to my web standards shetland pony
and ride off into the sunset.
**
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: ADMIN Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Lea de Groot]

On 01/02/2006, at 4:54 PM, Ray Cauchi wrote:

Can someone pleeese just put this thread to its death?
There are much more important things going on in this list...this  
is a waste of space...


No, its important that we define what behaviour is correct and  
acceptable in the community we are building.
But, at the same time, I think we've wrung all the value out of this  
one - the thread's not closed, but 'me toos' won't add any value.
Be sure you are offering something new before you bother... default  
to 'I shouldn't bother'


warmly,
Lea
--
Lea de Groot, Admin hat tilted jauntily
Core Group Member
**
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Ray Cauchi]

Hi folks
Can someone pleeese just put this thread to its death?
There are much more important things going on in this list...this is a
waste of space...
I agree with Lisa, keep it positive folks...
ray
At 05:21 PM 1/02/2006, you wrote:
On 1/31/06, Lachlan Hardy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also appreciate that changing 6 or 8 or 10 years of coding
practice
> and philosophy of web development is incredibly difficult
Just wanted to come back to this...
Let's not defend the hermit. If your practice has not changed in 6
years, that's not good. Sure, it's hard to change something that
hasn't changed in 6 years, but nothing should be so solid in the
first
place.
And if your habits haven't changed in 10 years, then would you even
be
making any money? Isn't the web only 12 years old?
--
--
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
**


Best Regards
Ray Cauchi
Manager/Lead Developer

( T W E E K ! )
PO Box 15
Wentworth Falls
NSW Australia 2782
| p:+61 2 4757 1600
| f:    +61 2 4757 3808
| m:    0414 270 400
| e:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| w:
   

http://www.tweek.com.au 

Re: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Joshua Street]

On 2/1/06, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And if your habits haven't changed in 10 years, then would you even be
> making any money? Isn't the web only 12 years old?

Another thing to remember is that not everyone in web publishing has
any financial incentive whatsoever. We're also trying to change the
way non-"professional" web publishers think about the media they're
creating/the means by which they are creating it, so the "how are you
making money doing THAT?" argument for being generally dismissive of
non-web-standardites is something to be avoided.

--
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Christian Montoya]

On 1/31/06, Lachlan Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also appreciate that changing 6 or 8 or 10 years of coding practice
> and philosophy of web development is incredibly difficult

Just wanted to come back to this...

Let's not defend the hermit. If your practice has not changed in 6
years, that's not good. Sure, it's hard to change something that
hasn't changed in 6 years, but nothing should be so solid in the first
place.

And if your habits haven't changed in 10 years, then would you even be
making any money? Isn't the web only 12 years old?

--
--
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[heretic]

> It is easy to get on a moral high-horse just because we know about standards

It is an occupational hazard and one standardistas have to be careful
about. I happen to believe we do hold the moral highground; but that's
a bit different to jumping on the high horse about it.

...did that makes sense? A noisy air conditioner is slowly killing my
brain today...

> The members of this list are no better than any of the developers at
> Clear Blue Day. Some work we produce may (or may not) be better than
> work they produce. There are many measures of worth.

I think it's reasonable to observe that on this list, a large
weighting is given to the measure where they fail. This is not the "so
long as it looks pretty and we got paid group", after all ;)

CBD are clearly masters of self-promotion (not saying that's a bad
thing, BTW) and they have a pretty serious client base. Then of course
the site does look ok and although I personally don't like using it,
maybe they did user testing and the majority do like it.

> You have to be
> pretty damn good to top the scale across the board. This has no bearing
> of whether or not you treat them as politely and respectfully as any
> other person

True.

> I also appreciate that changing 6 or 8 or 10 years of coding practice
> and philosophy of web development is incredibly difficult

I've also never met a good IT professional who didn't acknowledge that
you have to constantly update your skills.

So anyway, it seems the overall feeling is that this list needs to
lighten up a little :)

I will now raid my desk looking for chocolate, and forget about bad
markup for a while ;)

cheers,

Ben

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Christian Montoya wrote:
Well if anyone did think my joke was offensive then I can refrain 
from making it again.


Maybe some desensitizing is called for - on all sides?
I think we can all handle a joke from time to time... :-)
...along with the standard stuff.

Tom Livingston wrote:
Also, I don't think 'moral high-horse' is the right term for it 
though...


russ - maxdesign wrote:

What about "web standards shetland pony"?


No! They are of a higher standard...

... ;-)

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Christian Montoya]

On 1/31/06, Al Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LOL. I've been guilty of editorializing (from differing perspectives)
> at times and I find that slowing the trigger on the send button along
> with a healthy does of mindfulness goes a long way :-). When you have
> too many chefs in the kitchen, things can start to get hot - or
> confusing, especially for those who came to learn.

Well if anyone did think my joke was offensive then I can refrain from
making it again.

--
--
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Al Sparber]

From: "russ - maxdesign" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Web Standards Group" 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the 
Media



As a "far-from-guru-status" Web Standards supporter/coder (I try) I 
have
witnessed, on this list and on another css-specific list, quite a 
bit of
condescending and 'forced-opinion' type of replies. It doesn't make 
for a

nice atmosphere when looking to these lists for help.


Completely agree. The most common off-list comments I receive are 
along the
lines of "a great list, very helpful, but sometimes a bit of 
attitude".


Also, I don't think 'moral high-horse' is the right term for it 
though...


What about "web standards shetland pony"?


LOL. I've been guilty of editorializing (from differing perspectives) 
at times and I find that slowing the trigger on the send button along 
with a healthy does of mindfulness goes a long way :-). When you have 
too many chefs in the kitchen, things can start to get hot - or 
confusing, especially for those who came to learn.


--
Al Sparber 



**
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Jay Gilmore]

russ - maxdesign wrote:

*snip

Completely agree. The most common off-list comments I receive are along the
lines of "a great list, very helpful, but sometimes a bit of attitude".

*snip


Part of the reason I stopped reading the list was that I was getting so many threads filled with near religious extremism regarding this recommendation or that method. It got to the point where I went to digest mode and then stopped reading it even though I feel that it was one of the most useful groups I have ever been involved in. I have come back because I am hungry for discussion on web standards.

Thanks to Russ,

Jay





Jay Gilmore
Developer/Consultant
Affordable Websites and Marketing Solutions for Real
Small Business.
SmashingRed Web & Marketing
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Tom Livingston]

On 1/31/06 2:59 AM, "Christian Montoya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As for if anyone on this list is getting on a moral high-horse because
> they know about standards, I have yet to see it. From my point of
> view,

As a "far-from-guru-status" Web Standards supporter/coder (I try) I have
witnessed, on this list and on another css-specific list, quite a bit of
condescending and 'forced-opinion' type of replies. It doesn't make for a
nice atmosphere when looking to these lists for help.

Also, I don't think 'moral high-horse' is the right term for it though...


-- 

Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[russ - maxdesign]

> As a "far-from-guru-status" Web Standards supporter/coder (I try) I have
> witnessed, on this list and on another css-specific list, quite a bit of
> condescending and 'forced-opinion' type of replies. It doesn't make for a
> nice atmosphere when looking to these lists for help.

Completely agree. The most common off-list comments I receive are along the
lines of "a great list, very helpful, but sometimes a bit of attitude".

> Also, I don't think 'moral high-horse' is the right term for it though...

What about "web standards shetland pony"?
Russ

**
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: Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Christian Montoya]

On 1/31/06, Lachlan Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Montoya wrote:
>  > Please send Clear Blue Day another e-mail and ask them if they have
>  > any dinosaurs in their office.
>
> This is not intended as an attack on Christian, nor anyone else. Not at
> all. I'm dead serious on that
>
> However, the comment above has reminded me of an attitude I see growing
> on this list and I want to put forward my point of view
>
> It is easy to get on a moral high-horse just because we know about standards

I would never make a comment like that off-list. Just trying to
lighten things up a little.

As for if anyone on this list is getting on a moral high-horse because
they know about standards, I have yet to see it. From my point of
view, the standards community has some of the most modest and
respectful people I've ever seen. I think a lot of the negative
tension is being injected from the detractors who don't like
standards-supporters, not from within.

--
--
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
**

Moral High-horse - was Re: [WSG] Failed Redesign and the Media

[Lachlan Hardy]

Christian Montoya wrote:
> Please send Clear Blue Day another e-mail and ask them if they have
> any dinosaurs in their office.

This is not intended as an attack on Christian, nor anyone else. Not at 
all. I'm dead serious on that


However, the comment above has reminded me of an attitude I see growing 
on this list and I want to put forward my point of view


It is easy to get on a moral high-horse just because we know about standards

The members of this list are no better than any of the developers at 
Clear Blue Day. Some work we produce may (or may not) be better than 
work they produce. There are many measures of worth. You have to be 
pretty damn good to top the scale across the board. This has no bearing 
of whether or not you treat them as politely and respectfully as any 
other person


One of the main tenets behind adoption of standards is equality, not 
just of technology but of people. They're for everyone. That includes 
developers or development companies who may not appreciate the benefits 
immediately


Standardista: "Hey, development company, you should use standards!"

Development company: "Nah, we don't get it. I don't want to."

Standardista: "Oh, well, then you're obviously scum. I'll not bother you 
further except to malign you"


This doesn't strike me as the way to advocate successfully

I appreciate standards because of the opportunities for access and 
growth they offer. I appreciate (oh boy, do I appreciate!) how hard they 
can be to learn


I also appreciate that changing 6 or 8 or 10 years of coding practice 
and philosophy of web development is incredibly difficult


These are the kinds of people we should be reaching out to. We shouldn't 
be dismissing them. We should be bringing them into the fold


Maybe you write some company an email asking if they know about 
standards and they tell you to get stuffed. Fair enough. We all know 
about flogging dead horses


Kat's response from Clear Blue Day doesn't seem to indicate that to me 
though. It just indicates to me that they don't get it


Surely, if someone doesn't get it, you try to establish a conversation? 
You try to help them?


That's the attitude that I would like to see prevalent on this list. One 
of helpful conversation, not scornful condemnation (even in jest)


Regards
Lachlan

PS If anyone feels the urge to flame me vehemently for this post, please 
do so off-list. Otherwise, I'd love to discuss my views with everyone

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

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