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
******************************************************
