John Allsopp wrote:
Andy,
Hi John,
I wasn't actually going too respond to your comments but considering your latest email, I thought it was probably a good idea.
I actually wrote about half a dozen different replies to the article and posted none of them, other than my snarky comment on your blog, for which I apologize.
No worries. I'm a big guy and can handle criticism.
I didn't publish them because they were all a little, well, heated.
I usually write, I hope, with a little levity, and wit, if on occasion it can be quite dry. I just couldn't in this case.
Again, no worries. Like I said in the preface to my article, one of the reasons for publishing it was to play devils advocate. In all honesty I was expecting a much bigger and more heated "backlash" than the article actually got. As such I was fully prepared for a certain amount of negative criticism.
I see where you are coming from, but really, I think it is up to those who honestly want to advocate for a non standards based approach to do so for themselves.
Funnily, they usually end up looking like David Emberton's article.
Another reason for publishing the article was to provide a more balanced view of the situation. My fear is that, without open and reasonable discussion about the realities of web standards development, people will start to believe the reactionary views of people like David Emberton.
I'd prefer somebody who's struggling with CSS to read my article and think that it's OK to use the odd table in a transitional layout, rather than read David's article and decide that CSS layout just doesn't work!
Judging by the comments to your post, you'll see that a lot of people want to use tables, largely because that is what they know and do now. They simply don't want to accept the arguments in favor of a standards based web. That's fine by me, they are quite entitled to do so. I don't think they are very wise, but while I evangelize web standards, I don't insist on people using them.
But unfortunately an article like yours is not read by them in the spirit in which you intended, it is read as a vindication of their position. "See, Andy Budd agrees with me".
Funny but I've just re-read the comments and I don't get that feeling at all. The general response seems to be that people are happy using CSS for most layout situations but will not discount simple, non nested tables if appropriate.
I think if people do drop CSS layout and say "See, Andy Budd agrees with me", then they have completely misunderstood the point of the article. I believe the concepts in the article are well written and logical, and that the purpose and conclusions are clear. It's true that I should have been a bit more specific by stating that I was only talking about CSS for positioning, but most people seem to have realise that.
So rather than seeing something like "at times, it may be necessary to use a non standards based approach to achieve an outcome within certain constraints, and that is ok" they see "all those standards zealots really don't know about the real world so everything they say can safely be ignored."
From my experience, people can be really intimidated by CSS and labour under the belief that it's all or nothing. This isn't helped by the attitudes of some standards practitioners who's strict views on coding can really put people off using CSS for layout. People respond much better to an even handed approach, than a prescriptive one.
Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards.
Well I wouldn't say that they weighed in as this give the impression that their comments were rather heavy handed. Their comments seemed reasonable and held weight because they came from experienced web developers who have experienced some of the things I was talking about.
And what was that context?
Bluntly, using the words of the article, that people who advocate standards are "zealots" "purists", live in "Ivory towers" (and so by implication, not the real world). They "demonize" tables, and so by implication the users of of tables, and they have a sense of "superiority" about their approach.
This is the bit that made me sigh. This isn't "objective", its only a slightly more subtle version of David Emberton's nonsense.
I think most people would agree that there are *some* individuals who have a very purist and prescriptive approach to standards. There is also a lot of "theoretical" discussion about web standards going on at the moment. For people within the community, I'm sure all this all feels reasonable. We know that we are partaking in a theoretical discussion and that in reality, things are less black and white. However, if you are outside the community, this kind of attitude can feel extremely intimidating.
I also think there are a number of web standards practitioners that do have a very superior approach. I'm constantly amazed by the number of critics on the WSA site who, rather than praise the developers, feel the need to publicly point out the smallest of problems. It's as if they are saying, this is good, but I could have done better! If some of the best CSS designers around get this level of criticism, I can see why lesser known developers could feel very intimidated.
It is unjustified, unsubstantiated, and frankly I took it a little personally. It reminds me (I am sure unintentionally) of the current right wing rhetorical trump card of referring to anyone who thinks (you know that say invading countries in contravention of international law is not like, totally ok) as an "elitist", usually with "latte sipping" thrown in for good measure :-) ( dunno if that is a trend in the
UK but it sure is in Australia and the US).
Not a trend that I'm aware of. More of a trend seems to be to stifle war critics by saying that they are going against the greater good. You shouldn't criticise because it puts the country, the soldiers and the ultimate goal in jeopardy. In the US at least, it seems to be considered unpatriotic to question the war.
In reality, the community of standards advocates, evangelists, whatever you want to call them is without question one of the most generous I have ever seen. If you want to get started there are any number of great free tutorials, guides, and other resources. There are mailing lists and newsgroups where people have been answering the same questions for nearly a decade, occasionally a little grumpily when the same question is asked for the 400th time, a question for which a good answer could be googled in a moment ("font-size + pixel + em" isn't that hard :-)
I couldn't agree with you more.
People you have never met will fix your problems for free, send you screenshots in bowsers on platforms you don't have.
Is there any evidence for the caricature of an elitist zealot here? Or anywhere for that matter? Not much that I have ever seen.
People are extremely passionate about web standards and are willing to bend over backwards to help. I consider myself a fairly active member of said community and often spend my free time helping out other web developers with problems. I've never ever suggested that the community was anything less than altruistic. However some individuals can come across as dogmatic and prescriptive. Nobody likes being preached at or being told that their hard work is in vein because they used a table to lay out a form, or have a few minor validation issues.
I feel you have done a bit of a disservice to that whole community of which you are a member.
I know it wasn't meant like that. I know it wasn't personal. But unfortunately you've just internalized and then reinforced this emerging stereotype of the web standards community.
Well you're right to your own opinion, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I think it does the community and the web standards cause a much greater disservice to stand dogmatically behind a set of beliefs, thus helping to reinforce the stereotypes even more. Don't stifle discussion or knock those who deviate from the party line. I'm all for pushing the standards boundaries, but we also need to accept and talk about the limitations involved. If we don't acknowledge and discuss the limitations as a community, you know that others will.
Andy Budd
http://www.message.uk.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
*****************************************************
