molly.com
Thursday 31 January 2008
From Web Standards Diva to Web Standards Devo
This post emerges from a comment I wrote to the response thread in my “Web Standards Aren’t” post, which I hope will clarify my thoughts a bit as well as take a lighter look at what I’m working to articulate here.
I’ve decided to become a Devo rather than a Diva. I’m going to design my new site with frames, tables, spacer gifs, lots of flash embedded into framed pages via iframes. I’m going to use non-semantic, presentational HTML, table based layouts, and lots of inline CSS.
The frightening issue is that I can build such a site so it will validate, pass at least WCAG priority 1 accessibility and have effective SEO.
The mere fact that I can actually do all that and be in compliance with specs should help clarify my point, I hope. It’s not the specs that define Web Standards. We are talking about best practices. We use the term “standards” fast and loose, and for an industry that is so interested in semantics, I find it endlessly ironic that we have chosen such a piss poor description to define a certain level of professional practices.
We co-opted the term “standards” and applied it to something that wasn’t a standard, rather, a series of specifications that are RECOMMENDED practices.
Am I saying stop working to specs? No. Am I saying we’re on the wrong path as we try and build a better Web by increasing education and awareness around specs and best practices – well, if anyone here thinks I mean that you must not have met me or know me too well. Rest assured my heart is right there, I want a better Web, and that means better practices, more education, more resources, more outreach.
I’m challenging the status quo. I’m just asking that you take a look at the semantics of the situation and not be led into a sense of comfort that we actually have achieved any semblance of a standard. If that were true, all browsers would behave the same way, and my code would be just like your code, and every CMS and development software would be interoperable, use correct nomenclature, and follow the specs.
Is that the Web we have? Clearly not. And as we grow and expand both on the desktop and into mobile devices, these issues become more fragmented, not less.
Filed under: accessibility, browsers, community, professional, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development
Posted by: Molly | 18:49 | Comments (43)
So does this mean you’re going to whip it? Whip it good?
Yes! “Best Practices” That’s a perfect term and encompasses quite neatly what we usually call “web standards”. I move for this term to replace the other one.
I also move that if you’re going to whip it, whip it good, the video should be posted on youtube.
Meyer–
Sometimes you scare the hell out of me. –chuckling–
Anyone who uses validation as anything but a debugger and then slaps a badge on their site (badges…really…who uses badges anymore?) has missed the point. I’ve said it over and over.
Love the Diva->Divo meme. Sometimes you have to go back to go forward…or at least to show others that they aren’t going as far forward as they thing they are.
Yes. “When a good time turns around, you must whip it.” Gawd, read the lyrics. I think they’re what you’ve been trying to tell us all along!
Meh. Molly, I still think that industry boffins like you, Eric, Zeldman, et cetera have shown that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That your site, meyerweb, SimpleBits, mezzoblue and others demonstrate that there is an attainable bar formed by best practices that allows hard copy specifications to define an industry standard. Crikey, look at what css Zen Garden has brought us over the past few years. Sorry if it sounds bass-ackwards, but that’s my perception.
What is critical is that industry leaders like you aren’t satisfied with the current situation if best practices aren’t universally practiced. I think the swell is just starting to rise. It’s just a long way to the beach. So crack that whip!
Careful what you wish for Eric, I have it on good authority that Molly has a very nice Mexican bullwhip. ;_0
We had to break the ’standards’ in order to save them? Or at least highlight them…
Those who wrote the recommendations we refer to as “standards”, broke with too many de facto standards at the time, and there hasn’t really been much agreement on what to do and what route to take since that break.
I think I’ll stay on the sideline till those who want to have discussed and fought over names and terms and what its all about and what it was in the past and should become in the future.
Once it has become a bit more quiet and the dust has settled, I’ll use what I need of what works. What it’s called by anyone, now or in the future, doesn’t really matter as long as it’s implemented and serves my purpose.
Molly,
I understand waht you are saying, but let us not forget that every standard once emerged from a ’set of best practices’. Sometimes that process is fast, sometimes it is very slow. VHS versus Betamax versus Video2000, Blue Ray versus HD DVD, 110 Volts against 220 Volts etc.
The web is somewhere halfway that process. The only way to push forward is when browser makers push forward and say ‘Sod it.. I’m tired of pouring so much money into supporting every this and that.. let’s talk!’
So you’re through being cool?
We need a standard set of best practices.
@gavin: Hey, I’m setting a trend here! It’s called retro
@nick cowie: That’s funnier than it ought to be, because Eric is one of the few people who has actually SEEN that whip! Ouch I’m sunburnt from yesterday. But it was lovely.
@all – I’m glad folks can see my point a little more clearly now. I swear, I am going to build that site as a prototype though, just to drive that point home.
For those folks that might not get the pun, Devo is a fun, progressive band from the late 70’s. The name comes from the term “De-Evolution” – hence Devo. The song, “Whip It” came out in 1980 I believe, here are the lyrics for your enjoyment:
Whip It lyrics
crack that whip
give the past the slip
step on a crack
break your momma’s back
when a problem comes along
you must whip it
before the cream sits out too long
you must whip it
when something’s going wrong
you must whip it
now whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it’s not too late
to whip it
whip it good
when a good time turns around
you must whip it
you will never live it down
unless you whip it
no one gets away
until they whip it
i say whip it
whip it good
i say whip it
whip it good
crack that whip
give the past the slip
step on a crack
break your momma’s back
when a problem comes along
you must whip it
before the cream sits out too long
you must whip it
when something’s going wrong
you must whip it
now whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it’s not too late
to whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it’s not too late
to whip it
whip it good
Too bad “I can’t get no satisfaction” (best cover) from any abbreviation I can make from Best Practices Project, well not like ‘WaSP’ does anyway.
[...] From Web Standards Diva to Web Standards Devo [...]
“The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.”
— Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Is Utopia a mirage or a real reality. Is open person’s dream another person’s nightmare. Are we but many or are we just one. Paradoxes. “Web Standards” is just a mere definition and a paradox. Best Practices is not just about web devolution it human devolution. The song says it all.
Give the past the slip.
Step on a crack.
Shape it up, get straight go forward, move ahead.
Presentational HTML…. mmmmmm…. well we can all be different.
What’s all this fuss I hear about a CERAMIC Web?
Its just terrible!
@Roberto Baca
I do like the term “Best Practices”
IE8 should by default render correctly sny pages that are designed and/or coded by “best practices.” It should not default to render a page like ….. Molly retro piece which takes the web full cycle back to 1993. We are at the beginning again, yippy. Let’s all as one do it right this time around.
In order for everybody to follow the web standards they should turn into laws instead of suggested practices… Don’t think the majority would like it…
Welcome back to tableland! We’ve been waiting for you! Now if you’ll just step this way….
lol.
Helen–
You bring up an interesting point particularly when it is compared against or combined with Karl Dubost’s post within Molly’s previous thread.
Dubost points out the difference of time between Web development and oil production development and how it relates to creation, implementation and practical implementation of a standard. Dubost implies that standard’s evolution within the oil industry is more highly evolved as a result of the time the industry has been around. That point is valid when it comes to liability and governmental legislation. For example, in the United States, there have been inroads made via litigation concerning Web accessibility. The United States Congress has tried to address problems of spyware/malware via the House of Representative “Spyware Act.” The NAAG and various States have and continue to affect changes within social networking sites.
However, time is the primary thing that affects legislation and thus effective standards deployment. What has not been pointed out is the impact of the natural filter of cost. Within the oil industry, failure exacts a much higher cost whenever a standard fails or when an existing standard is not implemented that precipitates a failure, e.g. a faulty high pressure valve or an installed valve that does not meet specification of upstream wellhead pressure. Have been there and done that. The natural filter of cost is much lower in Web design when technical standards fail or are not met. Been there and done that, also.
In fact, the natural filter of cost in Web design is inordinately low than what it should have been. This applies to only technical standards. What few ever mention is the lack of any social standards within in Web design/development and Internet communication. The natural filter of cost in the failure of a creation, implementation and practical implementation of a social standard has been exceedingly high and beyond anyone’s expectation of eighteen years ago.
Perhaps the two need to be tied together. Perhaps, also, as you pointed out, the only way such may be accomplished is through legislation.
ok when i read the first paragraph i was like “oh dear gawd no!”. but as i read through (and was able to slow my heartrate) i have to say i feel you and i completely agree.
keep on keepin’ on,
me
here here Molly… ohh devo plastic hair and flowerpots are back so I get to be cool again
Obviously, its not every web standards advocate who misses the point on this naming issue. But at least most people in the beginning head off with the wrong mindframe at some juncture about standards being the specs themselves like they are the word and that word was Web. If you know what I mean…
And its that misconception on behalf of those people (which was probably me as well along the way) that have driven many a company into defensive denial as well. How we approach people about their practices shouldn’t be telling them they’re stupid or deficient (as in “You don’t work to standards”) but rather about being supportive and saying “here are best practices which can improve your business”.
Unfortunately I think the web standards naming die is cast as “best practices” don’t get the same google juice that “web standards” pull – we’ve actually gotta stop saying it to make it go away lol.
Yes I think making your site that way is a good idea. Go for it. And write a series of articles on how you achieved the result while pointing out the obvious benefits of not using spacer gifs, for example. Cool.
Its funny, I got offered a job last year on the spot in a gov’t IT department after I had a talk with the IT manager about web standards, tableless layouts and accessibility etc… he obviously went back to his web guys who maintain their table layouts and use CSS (mostly inline) for font colours etc and they must have said they already use “web standards” = CSS, invalid HTML etc… then the job offer was no more. Which was funny because I hadn’t actually applied for a job, this came from an impromptu conversation in passing.
Now if the issue was obviously “best practices” then the web team would have been far harder pushed to justify their current position. But so it goes… another gov’t department unwilling to change for an aging population, growing uptake of mobile technologies and yada yada…
My point is that “web standards” itself, as you say, seems to evoke the image of the whip and a line of passing grades…
Hey, the web manager says, I use a HTML 4 Transitional Doctype don’t I.
Yes, says the standardista, but with 364 errors on your home page and no separation of content from presentation or attention to accessibility. And what about that recurring 1px x 1px transparent spacer gif etc etc…
The web manager looks around and says Isn’t HTML 4 Transitional a web standard?
… and that’s where we’re being cooked in the trenches. Any joker rocking in saying they can code HTML or pumping out PHP with a DOCTYPE can claim they use web standards. Often the battle isn’t lost in the trench but in the preceding meeting or interview.
Sorry for the long babble comment everyone… couldn’t shut myself up this morning.
I was recently discussing doing a bunch of deprecated elements and using CSS to make them do things they weren’t intended to do. For example, use a center tag like a div (no centering at all) and use a font tag like a span. You should try it. Use all the “bad” practice stuff and make it validate. I think that would be hilarious. I’m just trying to figure out something different to do with my site.
[...] Her first post Web Standards Aren’t and the follow-up today From Web Standards Diva to Web Standards Devo are precisely about that issue. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) releases recommendations not standards. Its more complicated than pointing to a DOCTYPE at the top of a page or saying that a valid document is a web standards document. What we call web standards, and what we really mean to be contemporary best practice, include the recommended use of various technologies (including more current recommendations from the W3C) in ways which improve the business and technical outcomes of web development. These do include using Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), eXtensible Hypertext Markup Language (XHTML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS), JavaScript, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and other technologies. But web standards (or contemporary best practice) also promotes a methodology in using those technologies and recommendations. [...]
Hmmm…methinks ou have a point. I am definitely not a web standards genius by any means, but I think having heard the gospel of standards a few times that adherence to, at least the spirit, of web standards can be distilled into one question: “Who, if anyone, am I excluding from my audience by using this design?” If someone needs to visit your site and they can’t see it properly or can’t run your flash application or are running a browser you didn’t think to test you have failed your audience which is a bitch if you’re a corporation and an outright sin if you’re a government agency or a non-profit charity. Standards are there to make sure that doesn’t have to happen. If they are being misperceived as some sort of esoteric techie holy grail sort of thing, perhaps the message needs to be reiterated in simple terms. Standards are about accessibilty. Standards are about accessibility. Standards are about accessibility.
@corbid : Interesting perspective, but I would articulate it differently, again. You are talking about practices, not standards.
I’d go so far to say is that the WEB is about accessibility. The entire vision was any platform, any user, any browser/software, any language, anyone. That, in my mind, is accessibility.
I love Xavier’s comment “We need a standard set of best practices.”
Brilliant
As we are talking about (web) Best Practices, I’d like to link to http://en.opquast.com , a great list of practices for websites and web services. Each one makes sense so you’d better have a good reason not following them (dumb client and cost of fixing are two of them).
Molly, If I remember well you talked with the Opquast team (Temesis, Bordeaux) while in Limoges, France 2 years ago.
I’m a big fan of referring to web standards as “best practices,” and I’ve been doing it for years. I’ve been making distinction between web standards (specs that are written) and Web Standards (a movement and methodology that embraces coding to specs and with best practices).
While I like the term “best practices,” the trouble I’ve run into is that not everyone agrees upon what’s “best.” Somehow, codifying something into a standard makes people jump aboard that wouldn’t join the party if it’s simply a “best practice.” They respond with “Best practice? Says who? Just because YOU think it’s best doesn’t make it so.” When something is a standard, you have an answer to “Says who?” (the W3C!).
In the end, I think it’ a semantic debate that doesn’t really matter. People will either get on board, or they wont. If they don’t, they’ll be left behind. Good riddance. More work for the rest of us.
[...] * However, I don’t want to get sucked into a debate about how to define what ‘rules and standards’ means. Molly’s already doing a good job. [...]
[...] Are W3C working in a purist world in which everything needs to meet a Platonic idea of perfection? Others, including long standing Web standards evangelists, seem to be raising similar concerns. Molly (of Molly.com, a well-known author of dozens of books on Web standards) is the latest to raise her concerns. In a post on “From Web Standards Diva to Web Standards Devo“ she makes a startling suggestion: I’m going to design my new site with frames, tables, spacer gifs, lots of flash embedded into framed pages via iframes. I’m going to use non-semantic, presentational HTML, table based layouts, and lots of inline CSS. The frightening issue is that I can build such a site so it will validate, pass at least WCAG priority 1 accessibility and have effective SEO. [...]
Molly, you are absolutely right that the CSS proponents have twisted the term “standard” to imply that tables and font tags somehow haven’t been standardized. Both the bad way and the good way conform to standards. And the punchline about so many standards to choose from derives its humor from peoples’ commonly-held Standards Misconceptions.
nice, very nice
thansk
Are W3C working in a purist world in which everything needs to meet a Platonic idea of perfection? Others, including long standing Web standards evangelists, seem to be raising similar concerns. Molly (of Molly.com, a well-known author of dozens of books on Web standards) is the latest to raise her concerns. In a post on “From Web Standards Diva to Web Standards Devo“ she makes a startling suggestion: I’m going to design my new site with frames, tables, spacer gifs, lots of flash embedded into framed pages via iframes. I’m going to use non-semantic, presentational HTML, table based layouts, and lots of inline CSS. The frightening issue is that I can build such a site so it will validate, pass at least WCAG priority 1 accessibility and have effective SEO
You´re right, Seo will help to clean the web to get more safe.
Did you ever think about Web 2.0 and all the chance and risks?
We had to break the ’standards’ in order to save them? Or at least highlight them…
Brilliant
thanks
thanks you
thanks you
Thank’s
Nice article/blog
Good read
http://www.hagayret.net
http://www.okmeydan.com
http://www.vazgecmem.com
thanks