Re: [WSG] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
G'day heretic wrote: Actually, I think some of the benefits touted for large-scale sites are actually more urgently required and keenly noticed by small business. In particular... The problem is that many small/micro businesses don't see it (y)our way. They only see the shiny coat of paint, not the rust underneath it, or the engine under the bonnet. Bombarding them with technical jargon isn't going to help. They just see a web page in their browser. It either looks good or it doesn't. # maintenance In my experience, standards-compliant sites are far easier (hence faster and cheaper) to maintain Only if the person maintaining it understands standards in the first place. It's no use to a FontPlague jockey who wants to maintain his/her own site. small business really need to minimise costs. Every dollar counts. Yep, so they want to maintain the site themselves. See above. # lower bandwidth Many small businesses have a very small web budget and very very low bandwidth on their hosting. Nearly all my customers are on a very cheap plan with (virtually) unlimited bandwidth, so perhaps the rest are paying too much. Besides, if they are getting so much traffic that bandwidth becomes a problem, they are probably making enough money to pay for more. Of course, having 1MB of graphics or flash on the home page isn't going to help, but that's not a standards issue. # seo Small businesses need good search engine visibility, far more than bigger businesses in many ways. Sure, a flash-only or frames based site is not SEO friendly, but I have seen no clear evidence that a clean, Strict (x)html site gets any better treatment than a site with tag-soup. There are many other factors that influence SEO, but this is of course not the place to discuss those. # accessibility Many are either unaware, don't care or are willing to take the chance. Besides, a standard compliant website is not necessarily more accessible than a site with tag-soup, although it may help. # usability Standards compliant does not necessarily equal usable, nor does tagsoup necessarily equal unusable. Small businesses need more longevity in their website. If they have decent style/content separation they can redesign in future without redoing every single page. It'd be like having the ability to change their stock of letterhead without paying to have it printed again (ie. just pay for the design). True, but many of them don't plan that far ahead. Small businesses often have to prove that everything they do is better than the big businesses... so their website needs to reflect that. Define better, from the (non web design) small business owner's point of view. I think that's what this whole thread is about... The majority of their customers/visitors to their website will not know the difference, so why should the business owner care? Sorry, I'm out of 1 and 2 cent coins. -- 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
The problem is that many small/micro businesses don't see it (y)our way. They only see the shiny coat of paint, not the rust underneath it, or the engine under the bonnet. Bombarding them with technical jargon isn't going to help. They just see a web page in their browser. It either looks good or it doesn't. So you have to tell them - without using all the jargon - that you will build a site using the latest techniques, which will be simple to maintain, use less bandwidth and be easier to redesign in future than the site built by the next guy. Every prospect will have to be approached differently, and yes you're right basically none of them ask for standards/accessibility/etc. I'd also point out that I'd never say you should hire me because I do valid XHTML 1.0 Strict with separated style and content layers, using valid CSS and some unobtrusive DOM scripting to add a gracefully-degrading behaviour layer! (unless of course I was asked directly, which has happened). I am talking about the business case, not the exact way you go pitch that business case. # maintenance In my experience, standards-compliant sites are far easier (hence faster and cheaper) to maintain Only if the person maintaining it understands standards in the first place. It's no use to a FontPlague jockey who wants to maintain his/her own site. I don't think it's a given that a frontpage user gets no benefits. If they can add a new item using an h? and a p, rather than an entire nested table, then it's going to be easier no matter how you do it. small business really need to minimise costs. Every dollar counts. Yep, so they want to maintain the site themselves. See above. Ultimately if they're doing it themselves it's not your problem either way. If they are paying you to do it; then they can relax knowing that you're not wasting their money. # lower bandwidth Many small businesses have a very small web budget and very very low bandwidth on their hosting. Nearly all my customers are on a very cheap plan with (virtually) unlimited bandwidth, so perhaps the rest are paying too much. Depends what's cheap for the company in question, I guess. Of course, having 1MB of graphics or flash on the home page isn't going to help, but that's not a standards issue. I would say that optimising pages is actually part of a standards-based approach. I don't split hairs over which bit is technically a *standard* and which bit is just doing a good job. It's part of the package. If you do want to take a pure standards line, then yes ok it's outside scope. Sure, a flash-only or frames based site is not SEO friendly, but I have seen no clear evidence that a clean, Strict (x)html site gets any better treatment than a site with tag-soup. There are many other factors that influence SEO, but this is of course not the place to discuss those. I didn't say it has a massive advantage over tag soup, just that a benefit of standards is that it will have good search engine visibility. Besides, there is some anecdotal evidence (http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2006/01/the-roundabout-seo-test) that well formed documents have a slightly better time in search engines. So if we're being really technical, it's better. In any case, the client is hardly going to argue the toss between valid XHTML and tag soup. But you don't want them going for all-flash, all-graphics, etc. # accessibility Many are either unaware, don't care or are willing to take the chance. Besides, a standard compliant website is not necessarily more accessible than a site with tag-soup, although it may help. Didn't say it was a silver bullet, but again it's part of an overall approach. # usability Standards compliant does not necessarily equal usable, nor does tagsoup necessarily equal unusable. Which is what I meant when I said Not strictly a standard... :) True, but many of them don't plan that far ahead. They should; and if they don't and you've been hired then you should be helping them plan ahead. There are plenty of other businesses out there that take on the relevant forward planning aspects of a job since the client doesn't know they have to. If an electrician wires up your house without getting you to put in some extra loops to add more power points later on, they're not doing their job right. If a mechanic puts crap tyres on your car, knowing they'd wear out in two months, they're not doing their job right. Small businesses often have to prove that everything they do is better than the big businesses... so their website needs to reflect that. Define better, from the (non web design) small business owner's point of view. I think that's what this whole thread is about... Faster to update, cheaper to run, lasts longer, more flexible. On a more general level I was talking about that less tangible better job, better value vibe that you get when you're dealing with a real master of a trade. You know it when you see it.
Re: [WSG] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
I am coming to realize that there is little real business case for small business. Total cost of operation of a website for a small business might be marginal. My reasoning for this thread was to formulate a position statement that could be communicated to small business leaders to have them carry the message that web standards will mean x and y to all business owners and that we would then see demand follow. I was not hoping to find out ways to convince Joe or Jane business owner to buy my services based on standards in our sales cycle. I am looking longer view and want to find ways to show the business community that they have no choice but to have standards. Everyone in this thread seems to gravitate to the, but its better argument. Don't get me wrong I am a strong supporter of web standards and love learning more and more about how to become better at coding pages in such a fashion but we all seem to miss that a website is not and end in itself but a means to an end and that the risk for the small business owner if they buy a site with sloppy code and non-semantic markup is negligible. If they have bad copy or they don't communicate their message that is deadly. HTML and its ilk is merely a vehicle for communication and not communication and sometimes even when the transmission is messy the message is communicated. Websites for small business are an extension of their marketing strategy and a way to help achieve their goals. If we can't come up with a strong business case for the 80% of business that has less than 20 employees (Canadian Stats). We are failing them. They deserve to get great, well made websites they just need to know why and what it is worth. As I said at the outset of this thread, I want a way to create wide demand for the use of standards as opposed to converting individuals and creating apostles to the standards movement. I want to create such a compelling argument that business can't ignore it and that some thought leaders will take that message and start spreading it like a virus so that it can geometrically extends into the small towns and little neighborhood shops and then we no longer need even attempt to push it to clients (which we shouldn't do anyway ) and have them demand it, I want a standards based website -- can you deliver? This will do two things, one make all those developers who have been sitting on the fence about moving to standards pick a side and two all the larger firms that reject or ignore standards will either have to adapt or go home. Lets all put our thinking caps on, talk to our clients and talk to the community and find out how we can make small business want standards, and demand standards! All the best, Jay ** 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
I want a standards based website -- can you deliver? This premise is wrong. When I'm buying a house I also do not explicitly state that I want it to be built with standards, however I anticipate it's not going to fall on my head soon. It's the professional side of all the suppliers. If you want to target the educational influence, do it there. Clients shouldn't care - they have own businesses to look after. -- Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net ** 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
Jan Brasna wrote: I want a standards based website -- can you deliver? This premise is wrong. When I'm buying a house I also do not explicitly state that I want it to be built with standards, however I anticipate it's not going to fall on my head soon. I don't agree with this analogy. Standards that govern the construction of homes and buildings in most western nations are set by regulating arms of the government and are there for the mortal protection of person and property. It is not a business case it is a matter of safety and liability. So you don't die and so governments aren't allowing unsafe buildings to be built under their watch. And BTW if you assume all the work done in your home meets standards I would strongly advise getting a home inspector in. Standards change and people who don't know what they are doing can ruin anything that was built on standards -- just like on the web. Web standards are a set of principles based around the recommendations of various authorities and experts for the purpose of excellence and professionalism -- they have no real danger if ignored. Web standards are more like ISO9000 management certification, companies that have this certification adhere to guidelines based on management structure and coordination but if a company lets their ISO status slide because they stop filing management reports is doing harm only to themselves in that their operation may become disorganized or tatty. A few customers will choose to not work with them as a result of the status change but if the product is the same when it changes hands and the support is intact etc. the end user really doesn't care that certification exists or not. No one will die or be harmed as a result of tag soup or demi-infinite nested tables. The website may be built on a rubble foundation but there are no regulatory bodies to make sure that they won't collapse (pardon the CSS pun). It's the professional side of all the suppliers. If you want to target the educational influence, do it there. Clients shouldn't care - they have own businesses to look after. I do agree, and that is my main point, but those influencers, first movers and thought leaders are business people and there needs to be some compelling reason for them to adopt and then evangelize web standards. My ongoing struggle is that we (web standards oriented developers) have made, what I think is, a case for larger enterprise in cost, maintenance, bandwidth etc. I want to develop a consistent, concise, and compelling case for these leaders to grab onto web standards. What I have come to realise is that groups like WaSP and WSG need to get together and put forth a path to conversion for business to integrate web standards into their operations. We have not focus so much attention on criticizing those who won't move forward and make them obsolete by making web standards THE standard that business demands of developers. There will always be those who want to focus on publish-day price only and maybe they get what they pay for but not what they deserve. The WSG and WaSP should make an effort to be more in touch with business beyond trying to make IE a halfway decent browser but in creating respect, understanding and desire for a better, more functional, more agile web. As always, all the best, Jay ** 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
Jay wrote: So here is the question: What are the benefits of web standards for small business that can be sufficiently measured in results for the business both in the long and short term? Jay, been thinking about this for a few days. As youve pointed out, youre really interested in small business short term. the long term benefits are clear. The only tangible benefit to small businesses (in my experience) is that you should be able to knock out something for a small business quicker than an old skool developer. i did a site for a small company a while ago and i didnt even mention to the guy i was planning to use standards. all he needed to know was it would be fast to load, and it looked good. heres the site for the heck of it: (NOTE: do *not* click on this website if the odd swear/curse word offends you. its just a surfboard store website, theres no offensive imagery, but there is the odd swear word in the stores blog/commentary :) Feedback about this aspect is not required on this list. http://sixounceboardstore.com.au/ Only reason i link to this is that it was essentially a markup template i had used for a previous site and then knocked this out in 4 or so hours. it might have taken someone else using tables a lot longer to wysiwyg up all the tables fiddle with all the nav rollovers and stuff. the client was just happy it looked good and was done quickly. your 2nd question: How do we, as a group start to bring the message to the masses? its already being delivered well to big business. but for small business, I dont think we need to. I agree with Ben. Small business generally speaking do not need to know. unless of course they flat out ask. they're going to be a lot more interested in simple costs and looks. *We* know web standards are the best thing to apply. They are just another tool in our toolbelt. in the words of a multinational, Just do it. At the end of the day, web standards are just a small % of what goes into a good website. Ease of use, aesthetic appeal, compelling content an accurate portrayal of the brand all play just as big a part if not more than simply web standards. If theres competition out there that are doing a better job of all those latter qualities they are going to win the job even if they employ tables for layout. and quite rightly i think. dont take that the wrong way, i think theres a better option than tables for layout - but we need to keep web standards in perspective. they're not the be-all and end-all. small businesses only need a small story when hiring someone to do their site, and in my experience, web standards just arent a big enough story to make the cut. i just do it. now, spreading the word to developers and designers. thats where the action is :) pete ~~~ Peter Ottery ~ Creative Director Daemon Pty Ltd 17 Roslyn Gardens Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011 http://www.daemon.com.au/ COMING SOON webDU - the web technology conference http://webdu.com.au/ Sydney, March 2/3 2006 ~~~ ** 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
So here is the question: What are the benefits of web standards for small business that can be sufficiently measured in results for the business both in the long and short term? I've been thinking a bit about this one... Actually, I think some of the benefits touted for large-scale sites are actually more urgently required and keenly noticed by small business. In particular... # maintenance In my experience, standards-compliant sites are far easier (hence faster and cheaper) to maintain because the markup is clean. Again, small business really need to minimise costs. Every dollar counts. # lower bandwidth Many small businesses have a very small web budget and very very low bandwidth on their hosting. An image-frenzy site is likely to blow out their budget in terms of hosting (not to mention being harder to update). They don't have the luxury of slow, heavy pages - they need each page impression to cost as little as possible for the greatest gain. # seo Small businesses need good search engine visibility, far more than bigger businesses in many ways. I can think of one local business which had zero visibility due to their flash-only website. When I originally wanted to try them, I only found the website by guessing the URL - not something the average user will always try. They've since changed their site, thankfully. # accessibility Large companies can simply wear the costs of bad accessbility. In the (sadly unlikely) event that they get sued, they just pay up and move on. A small business would be ruined. What's more likely is that they'd simply lose a customer, which they'll notice more than a big company. # usability Not strictly a standard, but in any case... small business may get their one and only shot at someone's business by having an easy to use website. eg. An online grocer with an unusable site is going to struggle - using their site has to be easier than going to the shop. Small businesses need more longevity in their website. If they have decent style/content separation they can redesign in future without redoing every single page. It'd be like having the ability to change their stock of letterhead without paying to have it printed again (ie. just pay for the design). Small businesses often have to prove that everything they do is better than the big businesses... so their website needs to reflect that. In many ways, it should just be a matter of course that they do it once and do it properly. Sell the concept of craftsmanship - this is how the most professional web developers build sites right now. Big business couldn't care less, small businesses tend to run at least partly on the pride of the people within it. They want everything they do to reflect their work ethic, and that should include their website. That's my 2c anyway :) -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- 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: [WSG] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
what this email meant for me or what? im confused to why I am getting so many emails? On 2/3/06, Ben Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/3/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to go beyond the argument of separation of information and presentation markup. What sort of resistance are you facing here? I.e. why are you arguing in the first place? That portion is an easy sell. I am really talking about form and usage of semantics, logical content markup I don't understand what kind of clients you have that are pushing for non-semantic and illogical markup. Are you looking for ammunition to try to convince a business they really need a new website because their current one isn't standards based? Are you looking for an explanation of why you are different to all the other web developers out there? Ultimately, do you really need to sell web standards to the client? I'm all for educating businesses. I'm all for educating developers. If you really want to get out there and make a difference, organise Web Standards Group meetings in your home city. Give presentations to user groups. Give talks to interest groups. Show everyone your passion. -Ben ** 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
Ben Bishop wrote: On 2/3/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to go beyond the argument of separation of information and presentation markup. What sort of resistance are you facing here? I.e. why are you arguing in the first place? The definition of argument I am using is support of a position and not disagreement. That portion is an easy sell. I am really talking about form and usage of semantics, logical content markup I don't understand what kind of clients you have that are pushing for non-semantic and illogical markup. This is not the case at all. Are you looking for ammunition to try to convince a business they really need a new website because their current one isn't standards based? Are you looking for an explanation of why you are different to all the other web developers out there? No. and No Ultimately, do you really need to "sell" web standards to the client? I'm all for educating businesses. I'm all for educating developers. If you really want to get out there and make a difference, organise Web Standards Group meetings in your home city. Give presentations to user groups. Give talks to interest groups. Show everyone your passion. -Ben Ben you have missed my point entirely. My reason for this post is not for selling my business. My reason for posting was that in many threads on this NG from the time I started people have been talking about bringing web standards to a wider acceptance level in the developer community. My post at the top of this thread was to solicit comments and suggestions that could be the basis for communicating the compelling business case for small business to actually want web standards. My thought is to begin to develop such an awareness of this business case for web standards for small business that web standards becomes the standard based on demand and not a push from the developer community. I believe that there is only so much the web standards community can do to convert the rest of the development community until a critical mass of business make a requirement of it. They will never do this unless there is a real case for it. My reason for a small business case is the percentage of small business that comprise the economy is so great that to convince or make the case the though leaders in that community will have greater impact than us just adding one or two developers to the WSG. And as for starting a WSG in my community? I live in a rural community so this is my WSG. I am moving past "selling:" web standards to my client my goal is that web standards based development become a sweeping standard in the industry and the only way to achieve that is if business concludes it is a bad business decision to do anything other and demand it of all developers whom they engage. All the best, Jay
Re: [WSG] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
Jay Gilmore wrote et al.. I'm with you Jay. I live in a small rural community as well and my work comes by word of mouth. I can't start something up locally as most people in town don't even believe people use the internet!!! This is probably where a thread on a forum has more value than a list. People could add their ideas to the thread and build the compelling reasons you and all of us are probably seeking. I particularly loved one of them posted today, I think by Helen but forgive me if I'm wrong, about using the Web Developer extension in Firefox to remove all styling. I thought that was brilliant and really showed up some big flaws in some sites I tested. I had never used that before. To some extent, one of the things it will come down to, like solicitors (wash my mouth out) and accountants it is all to do with the trust of your clients or potential clients. Present a good case that you are a professional, build the trust and always work on the basis of do we really cost more or are the others worthlessI mean worth less. 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
In most instances, its not a case of trying to convince someone to change their ways, nor is it a case of trying to sell web standards. The real fact is that each and everyone of my clients knows that HTML exists, and that it has something to do with a webpage. My role when talking with them is to try and explain what I believe to be the best approach (utilizing standards), and coming up with visual examples that hit home at their level. Not that they're stupid, but we can't expect a business owner in a different industry to have knowledge equal to the depth of our own in our own field. Example: A local real estate agency wanted me to, in their words update the look of the site. Do they realize that the original design was made in design view in Dreamweaver, comeplete with a multitude of nested tables, the horrendous javascripts it produces for rollovers and popup windows? No. Does it mean anything to them? No. But, as I approach the redesign, I feel its necessary to educate them on what I plan to do, mainly dumping all the nested tables, MM scripts and performing a nice code cleanup. You can't SEE this as a non-web person. It takes a well thoughout pitch to make them understand the point of this. It's our responsibility to do it the best we can so they DON'T have to think about it. Most educated people never heard the word semantics! Joseph R. B. Taylor Sites by Joe, LLC http://sitesbyjoe.com (609)335-3076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] adam LEAPER wrote: what this email meant for me or what? im confused to why I am getting so many emails? On 2/3/06, Ben Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/3/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to go beyond the argument of separation of information and presentation markup. What sort of resistance are you facing here? I.e. why are you arguing in the first place? That portion is an easy sell. I am really talking about form and usage of semantics, logical content markup I don't understand what kind of clients you have that are pushing for non-semantic and illogical markup. Are you looking for ammunition to try to convince a business they really need a new website because their current one isn't standards based? Are you looking for an explanation of why you are different to all the other web developers out there? Ultimately, do you really need to sell web standards to the client? I'm all for educating businesses. I'm all for educating developers. If you really want to get out there and make a difference, organise Web Standards Group meetings in your home city. Give presentations to user groups. Give talks to interest groups. Show everyone your passion. -Ben ** 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
On 2/2/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a way to make small business owners see that they have now sane alternative but to use web standards, not tell them they will be ahead of the curve or save $100/year on hosting. I'll think of more arguments later, but I can definitely say: - CSS and seperation of presentation from content makes updating a site easier, whether it uses a CMS or not. Tag soup CMS solutions are usually expensive, whereas a typical CSS based site can be built on top of a free CMS. More importantly, when the site does not run on a CMS, it really helps to have clean, semantic code without presentational markup. I know it's a pain for small businesses to pay someone to update their website all the time (they usually can't afford to do it in-house), and even if they still pay someone to update their CSS based site, at least the updates take less time. - Also, CSS makes it easy to have the site redesigned in the future, should it ever be necessary, and if someone gives me a CSS site to redesign, they'll definitely save a lot of money, considering how few changes I would probably have to make to the markup. Pretty much any argument that emphasizes lower maintenance cost is key for small businesses. SEO is a plus. -- -- 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
Christian, I wholeheartedly agree with you points but I want to go beyond the argument of separation of information and presentation markup. I am talking about coding using the whole of standards based documents. That portion is an easy sell. I am really talking about form and usage of semantics, logical content markup (SEO is a good argument here). Maybe I am making too much of it and trying to over theorize the issue. Jay Jay Gilmore U)SmashingRed Web Marketing B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed Blog P) 902.529.0651 E) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Christian Montoya wrote: On 2/2/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a way to make small business owners see that they have now sane alternative but to use web standards, not tell them they will be ahead of the curve or save $100/year on hosting. I'll think of more arguments later, but I can definitely say: - CSS and seperation of presentation from content makes updating a site easier, whether it uses a CMS or not. Tag soup CMS solutions are usually expensive, whereas a typical CSS based site can be built on top of a free CMS. More importantly, when the site does not run on a CMS, it really helps to have clean, semantic code without presentational markup. I know it's a pain for small businesses to pay someone to update their website all the time (they usually can't afford to do it in-house), and even if they still pay someone to update their CSS based site, at least the updates take less time. - Also, CSS makes it easy to have the site redesigned in the future, should it ever be necessary, and if someone gives me a CSS site to redesign, they'll definitely save a lot of money, considering how few changes I would probably have to make to the markup. Pretty much any argument that emphasizes lower maintenance cost is key for small businesses. SEO is a plus. -- -- 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
A point I often bring up is that using standards ensures that anyone can jump in and work on the site (looking forward), the whole future-proofing issue, and my personal favorite thing to do is open up sites in Firefox and strip off all styles (in the web dev toolbar) to show them the squeaky clean informative document that is left behind once the presentation layer is removed. Then I show them the tag soup site that doesn't change much. That always creates an impression. Hopefully thats helpful. Joseph R. B. Taylor Sites by Joe, LLC http://sitesbyjoe.com (609)335-3076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jay Gilmore wrote: Christian, I wholeheartedly agree with you points but I want to go beyond the argument of separation of information and presentation markup. I am talking about coding using the whole of standards based documents. That portion is an easy sell. I am really talking about form and usage of semantics, logical content markup (SEO is a good argument here). Maybe I am making too much of it and trying to over theorize the issue. Jay Jay Gilmore U)SmashingRed Web Marketing http://www.smashingred.com B)Jay Gilmore's SmashingRed Blog http://www.smashingred.com/blog/ P) 902.529.0651 E) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Christian Montoya wrote: On 2/2/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a way to make small business owners see that they have now sane alternative but to use web standards, not tell them they will be ahead of the curve or save $100/year on hosting. I'll think of more arguments later, but I can definitely say: - CSS and seperation of presentation from content makes updating a site easier, whether it uses a CMS or not. Tag soup CMS solutions are usually expensive, whereas a typical CSS based site can be built on top of a free CMS. More importantly, when the site does not run on a CMS, it really helps to have clean, semantic code without presentational markup. I know it's a pain for small businesses to pay someone to update their website all the time (they usually can't afford to do it in-house), and even if they still pay someone to update their CSS based site, at least the updates take less time. - Also, CSS makes it easy to have the site redesigned in the future, should it ever be necessary, and if someone gives me a CSS site to redesign, they'll definitely save a lot of money, considering how few changes I would probably have to make to the markup. Pretty much any argument that emphasizes lower maintenance cost is key for small businesses. SEO is a plus. -- -- 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 ** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 2/1/2006 ** 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] Call for a new (scalable) business case for web standards.
On 2/3/06, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to go beyond the argument of separation of information and presentation markup. What sort of resistance are you facing here? I.e. why are you arguing in the first place? That portion is an easy sell. I am really talking about form and usage of semantics, logical content markupI don't understand what kind of clients you have that are pushing for non-semantic and illogical markup.Are you looking for ammunition to try to convince a business they really need a new website because their current one isn't standards based? Are you looking for an explanation of why you are different to all the other web developers out there? Ultimately, do you really need to sell web standards to the client?I'm all for educating businesses. I'm all for educating developers. If you really want to get out there and make a difference, organise Web Standards Group meetings in your home city. Give presentations to user groups. Give talks to interest groups. Show everyone your passion. -Ben
