Tuesday 29 September 2009

Why Bottom Posting Sucks

Throughout the years, posting styles in email lists and in forums have been a point of contention. Essentially, there are three types of posting styles.

1. Inline posting. In this style, the responder answers queries or provides insight throughout the document.
2. Top posting. The responder writes his thoughts at the top of the previous discussion. This particular method has long been frowned upon because the dialog is out of order.
3. Bottom posting. The responder writes at the very bottom of the discussion, leaving the previous dialog intact and creates a sequential order for the discussion.

At first glance, both inline and bottom posting make sense. The logic of each is maintained. In the first case you have essentially an actual dialog. He writes, she responds, the conversation goes back and forth. In bottom-posting, you have all the sequential context of the dialog available.

There is also the issue of what gets clipped out, or doesn’t. But let’s save that rant for another day. The issues with these styles have only been based on preference within the group or organization, and it’s daunting to think how much people argue about something so seemingly simple.

Because I personally find inline posting to make sense, as I am a verbal person and think in dialog anyway, let’s set that one aside. It’s fairly neutral overall. Most people won’t freak out if you use inline posting. Although I’m sure there are some of you out there!

Top-posting puts the sequence out of order. So why am I advocating it over bottom-posting? There are several reasons, all of which have their own logic. First, we’re becoming extremely used to backward sequencing. Blogs do this automatically. Twitter does too. Think of any social network and the way your posts are ordered. They are essentially top-posted.

Not only are we becoming accustomed to this behavior and perhaps prefer it in certain situations, but a second point also reigns true. We have many tools now so as to retrieve and save threads. IMAP, for one. Gmail provides archives. All current, popular mail clients allow some sort of filtering and thread views.

A third and important reason bottom-posting needs to die a fast death is the increasing access of email on small devices. It becomes absolutely senseless to have an entire novel sent when the message is simply “yup, I’m on the task” or what have you.

The final reason that bottom-posting sucks is that long emails that require a user to scroll through what is sometimes pages and pages of information is physically damaging and actually very difficult to do for those of us whose wrists and fingers tire easily. If someone with mobility impairments has to scroll through so much data just to get to “yup, I’m on the task” it just becomes an insult to that user, who suffers through the inconvenience to get to the message.

Two words: Not Accessible.

If there is any reason for everyone to abandon bottom-posting at this point in our evolution, I have to say it’s that alone. And if you’re young and strong and able-bodied and think I’m nuts, that’s okay. I’m probably older than your mother and sticking around to hear you grow up and say “Mom, you were right” will be my goal!

Bottom posting sucks. Let’s abolish it now and get on with the day.

Filed under:   accessibility, policies, pop culture, professional, revolution, society, software
Posted by:   Molly | 17:24 | Comments (61)

Wednesday 27 May 2009

DailyShow HTML for Video

Dear Jon Stewart,

I am an adoring fan who has followed your career since you first started doing talk shows on the Comedy Channel some 15 or more years ago.

You are a funny, well-educated, articulate man whom I consider to be a true American Hero.

All the fangirl worship aside, can you use your political influence to improve The DailyShow Web site? While HTML might not be your forte’, oh holy moly this code is so filled with bad bad things that it requires immediate diplomatic assistance.

Love always,
Molly

And now, the code

Now, dear readers, what do you think of this lovely embed video code? I mean, really.

<table style=’font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5′ cellpadding=’0′ cellspacing=’0′ width=’360′ height=’353′><tbody><tr style=’background-color:#e5e5e5′ valign=’middle’><td style=’padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;’><a target=’_blank’ style=’color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;’ href=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/’>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style=’padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;’>M – Th 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style=’height:14px;’ valign=’middle’><td style=’padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;’ colspan=’2′><a target=’_blank’ style=’color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;’ href=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndrome’>The Stockholm Syndrome</a></td></tr><tr style=’height:14px; background-color:#353535′ valign=’middle’><td colspan=’2′ style=’padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right’><a target=’_blank’ style=’color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;’ href=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/’>thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign=’middle’><td style=’padding:0px;’ colspan=’2′><embed style=’display:block’ src=’http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:225113′ width=’360′ height=’301′ type=’application/x-shockwave-flash’ wmode=’window’ allowFullscreen=’true’ flashvars=’autoPlay=false’ allowscriptaccess=’always’ allownetworking=’all’ bgcolor=’#000000′></embed></td></tr><tr style=’height:18px;’ valign=’middle’><td style=’padding:0px;’ colspan=’2′><table style=’margin:0px; text-align:center’ cellpadding=’0′ cellspacing=’0′ width=’100%’ height=’100%’><tr valign=’middle’><td style=’padding:3px; width:33%;’><a target=’_blank’ style=’font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;’ href=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml’>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style=’padding:3px; width:33%;’><a target=’_blank’ style=’font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;’ href=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the+Poor+House’>Economic Crisis</a></td><td style=’padding:3px; width:33%;’><a target=’_blank’ style=’font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;’ href=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Republicans’>Political Humor</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Did you enjoy that as much as I did? Knew you would.

Filed under:   HTML, WaSP, accessibility, css, javascript, standards, w3c, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 20:15 | Comments (12)

Tuesday 9 December 2008

Registration for January HTML Course Open

The HTML 4.01 Foundations course is available in a new format for January!

Read all about it and get signed up at WebWithMolly. If you have any questions or concerns you can ask them here or at the email provided on the sign-up page.

New year, new fun

Filed under:   accessibility, announcement, browsers, microsoft, professional, software, standards, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 14:03 | Comments (30)

Tuesday 23 September 2008

Web Standards 2008: Three Circles of Hell

Over on A List Apart there’s a recent article of my musings of the current state of Web affairs. Check out the Three Circles of Hell and take some time to share your thoughts and opinions!

Filed under:   WaSP, accessibility, ajax, announcement, browsers, how we will be, javascript, microsoft, molly asks you, professional, standards, w3c, web design and development, whatwg
Posted by:   Molly | 08:29 | Comments Off

Sunday 14 September 2008

Announcing The World Wide Web Foundation

Only a mere few hours ago Tim Berners-Lee at an event in Washington, D.C. announced The World Wide Web Foundation.

The mission of the foundation is:

• to advance One Web that is free and open,
• to expand the Web’s capability and robustness,
• and to extend the Web’s benefits to all people on the planet.

All well and good, of course, but wasn’t that supposed to be part of the W3C’s mission, too? The difference here is that the foundation is essentially about funding (which is something the W3C dearly needs).

“The Foundation will raise funds through a multi-faceted strategy, beginning with a $5 million seed grant over five years from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.”

There’s a fairly good overview of the program on the site, give it a look-see. I would love to feel optimistic about this, but at this point I’ve really decided that creating more groups is just adding layers of problems on top of what we’re already doing.

On the other hand, if this empowers greater outreach, education and fosters real influence in returning to the core ideals of an interoperable Web for all, then I’m all for it.

Filed under:   accessibility, announcement, browsers, how we will be, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 18:09 | Comments (27)

Friday 12 September 2008

Accessibility Storm Hits Texas: Millions Jeopardized

While Hurricane Ike’s eye hovers over Galveston, and the country has basically come to a standstill as planes are grounded and people (myself included) can’t get home to loved ones until the storms pass, there is an equally disturbing issue that’s surfaced in recent weeks regarding the acclaimed University of Texas.

This year, the world lost a great leader in John Slatin, who along with colleagues was able to create the Accessibility Institute at the University of Texas and make real inroads in training people about accessibility and universal design.

It appears that the University of Texas would like to honor his memory by dismantling one of the highlights of John’s life works. To lose such an institute at this time demeans whatever progress has been made in the light of accessibility.

Universal access is something we cannot afford to stop worrying about. Our communications systems rely on our ability, no matter our ability, to communicate need.

During a time so frightening and confusing as a massive hurricane like Ike, nothing seems to shine a brighter light on this important facet of our daily lives. With universal access, many people will be empowered to get help more efficiently. Without it, certain individuals will be locked out of some of those resources.

That the University of Texas could even consider dropping such a core and critical program is tragic. The act removes educational resources that in turn create the resources that can help us all during difficult times as well as those more pleasant.

Please raise your voice and request that the Accessibility Institute be reopened! Sign the petition at Save The Institute.

Stay safe, Texas. And do the right thing.

Filed under:   accessibility, announcement, community, how we will be, policies, professional, society, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 23:21 | Comments (16)

Thursday 10 July 2008

Of Rich Web Experiences

If you want best practices, best information, best people and you care about code the place for you is the Rich Web Experience this September.

Early bird discounts apply right now – go check it out! If that sounds like marketing speak, say so! I’m working on my diversity skills. Last year I was honored with the same spot but health issues prevailed so I could not participate. This year, I’m raring to go and excited to be talking to as many Web developers and professionals as I can. Particularly application developers.

Interestingly, today is the day my relationship with Microsoft really, really ends (last check deposited to my account). Today, I stumble toward a “rich web experience” despite concerns about standards, agendas and linear thinking.

You can read about my Keynote and other sessions at the RWE web site. There’s an early-bird registration discount too! The richest Web experience I know is ironically off the Web. Face to Face, that’s the magic place.

I hope to see you at RWE!

Filed under:   accessibility, ajax, announcement, browsers, community, conferences, how we will be, ie8, innovation, javascript, microsoft, policies, rails, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development, whatwg
Posted by:   Molly | 11:12 | Comments (9)

Saturday 24 May 2008

Working Group by Numbers

Do the numbers tell a story?

Here is a breakdown of a W3C Working Group by number of representatives and their origin. The question I’m thinking about is whether the number of reps per given organization relates to influence, and if so, to what measurable degree?

Sample working group representatives by origin

# of Reps	Organization
1	Adobe
2	Antenna House, Inc.
3	Apple, Inc.
3	AOL LLC
3	HP
2	IWA/HWG
7	Microsoft Corporation
3	Mozilla Foundation
3	Opera Software
5	Other – Individual, independent company reps
1	Sun Microsystems, Inc
1	University member
6	W3C Invited Experts/Staff

There are several variables, one very important one is that just because there’s a currently listed representative in a group doesn’t mean that representative participates as much or at all. A related variable would be that certain long-term participants who do a lot of work will naturally have earned merit-based influence within a group.

Tell me what you think.

Filed under:   Blogroll, accessibility, browsers, community, innovation, molly asks you, policies, professional, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 15:36 | Comments (179)

Monday 7 April 2008

The John Slatin Fund Accessibility Project

For the many people who knew and worked with John Slatin, his passing comes as a deep sorrow. His humor, kindness and always energetic work for Web accessibility are an inspirational cornerstone for all of us working to create a better Web, and ultimately, a better world.

After a long illness, John’s passing has left his family with medical debt. I can’t express the amount of personal rage I have against my wealthy and powerful nation’s inability to provide quality healthcare to its citizens. It is one of my gravest fears that I will leave the same legacy of debt on my loved ones who should be left able to care and comfort one another rather than see their life savings and resources lost during such a difficult time.

This in mind, I was extremely encouraged and moved to hear that a fund to assist with the Slatin family’s needs at this time has been set up. It works like this: Any company or individual who wants an accessibility site review is asked to donate $500.00 to the fund. In return, that company or individual will receive a review performed by top accessibility experts including such impressive names as Wendy Chisholm, James Craig, Marla Erwin, Derek Featherstone, Bruce Lawson, Gez Lemon, Ian Lloyd, Ann McMeekin – the list is literally a who’s who of the finest accessibility practitioners in the world. These experts donate their time to review your site, and in turn, the fund receives the money, which goes directly to the Slatin family to offset their medical debt.

Personally, I will miss John for so many reasons. It’s hard to imagine that he’s even gone, he was one of the most supportive mentors in the last few years of my own professional life. It brings comfort to know that the community has come together in such a positive and productive way to honor him, and his family, for the richness he brought to all he did and everyone he knew.

For more information on the project, please visit The John Slatin Fund Accessibility Project Home Page. There is also a Facebook Page where you can find more information as well as community support.

Filed under:   accessibility, announcement, community, professional, society, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 13:13 | Comments Off

Sunday 3 February 2008

Call for Web Standards Quips and Clips

I’m preparing my keynote for Webstock in Wellington, New Zealand, coming up next week. I would very much like a sampling of video shots of a wide range of individual opinions and thoughts answering the question: “What is the definition of Web Standards?” You can be as funny, mean, or weird as you like so long as you have some clear point to make. If you’re an enthusiast, be enthusiastic. If you’re a hater, be a hater. Just have a point, and think of the children

If you’d like to help out, drop a me! please in the comments. Shyness definitely does not apply here. I’ll contact you by email privately with details as to where to send and format, etc.

I’ll be using these clips within the presentation to gain a widespread look at how people define, and feel, about Web standards. Mostly, the point is to demonstrate how it can mean such a variety of things to people from all over the world. The more variety, the better. I will then publish them in the public domain for all to enjoy.

Up for it? Let’s hear from you!

Filed under:   WaSP, accessibility, announcement, browsers, conferences, javascript, microsoft, professional, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 18:55 | Comments (16)

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)

Web Standards Aren’t

After a fantastic day in Perth I ended up talking to a group of oil workers. Men of all classes and walks of life. Scottish, English, Aussie. Tattoos, guys with attitude, heart, and an amazing decency of soul.

An engineer on an oil rig finds a fitting that’s defective. He tells his mates to fix or replace the fitting.

Following manufacturing specs, the person given the task consults the specs, and he builds it just so.

It fits, and will function. If it does not fit, it is not allowed to be used. Those are standards. The products developed meet manufacturing specs world over, and that’s that.

What we have today, on the Web, are not standards in the truest sense. We are at a time in the evolution of the Web where the idea of “standards” is more of a profound misnomer than ever.

Please Define Web Standards

Bet an Aussie dollar you can’t!

Most folks reading this post will say Web standards are markup and CSS, and maybe, just maybe, accessibility.

So what about JavaScript?

If you’re really smart, you raised your hand like Arnold Horschack and shouted out: JavaScript.

Surprise you markup and CSS pedantics, you know, that’s a “standard” too.

Democracy Killed My Grandma

The democratic Web fosters anarchy. That’s not a bad thing per se. I like the idea of anyone having a soap box. It makes for intrigue if not logic.

But professional sites must set some practice that is equivalent to all counterparts. And also supports my Mum when she wants to post a photo.

Don’t you agree?

Context, He Said, Is Everything

There’s a reason that we don’t have standards on the Web, or clearly understand what “standards” really are. The bottom line is it’s not that important.

Web standards aren’t, because democracy demands it.

The grand paradox is that our professional world demands a standard that can be measured and judged. And yet, we need to be free to not be conformists.

Web Standards Really Aren’t

Go ahead, tell me what they are. I know you can’t, because they aren’t. We have specifications, recommendations, implementations and a lot of best practice chatter.

What we do not have is the ace that will fit perfectly in the hole. Web standards aren’t.

It’s time to move on to whatever is next.

Filed under:   WaSP, accessibility, ajax, browsers, innovation, javascript, microsoft, professional, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development, whatwg
Posted by:   Molly | 08:28 | Comments (75)

Thursday 24 January 2008

Me, IE8 and Microsoft Versioning

If you work in Web design and development and haven’t read any of the articles and discussions taking place regarding IE8 and its use of meta versioning for standards compliance, it’s time to read up on it ASAP. Begin with Aaron Gustafson’s “Beyond DOCTYPE: Web Standards, Forward Compatibility, and IE8” on A List Apart. You can follow the threads from there. Russ Weakley at maxdesign is keeping a good list of the conversations too, so you can drop by and fill up on all
the mud-slinging and drama as it unfolds.

Burning truths

I began to write a response to Shelley Powers’ formidable “Bobbing Heads and the IE8 Meta Tag.” In this article, I’m cited as being in compliance with the Microsoft meta option. At first I resisted that I was being “compliant,” thinking that despite my discomfort with the option, I thought (and still do think) that it was the best solution that came up during the year-long versioning discussion we had.

The year long, very private, NDA’d versioning discussion. Which is where I have to agree with those who cite me as being “compliant.”

Because this was not a public discussion, and because I and others both internally and externally failed to convince Microsoft to make it a public discussion (although to their credit they did bring in industry advocates), I am in fact in compliance with the meta choice.

However, this doesn’t mean I agree it’s the right thing to do. I can say that I think it was the best of a list of much more problematic options that were presented. Just think about what naturally came up at first, attaching to the DOCTYPE switch or encouraging the use of conditional comments are both easily identified (but also very problematic) possibilities. And just because I did in the end agree that this was the better choice has nothing to do with silence. We all had legal and ethical responsibilities in that process.

I wish, oh how I wish, we could have all worked on this openly and together. That would have been my dream, but alas, it wasn’t to be.

Holding back the tears

When I began to talk to Microsoft and IE via the WaSP Microsoft Task Force, the conversation was far more open, or at least it appeared that way. When I left WaSP to work with Microsoft in a liaison capacity, that was still true. Over the past few years changes within the company infrastructure led to changes for the IE management hierarchy, and suddenly things got very quiet.

Silence can equal consent, indeed. Which is why I personally focused on breaking that silence. It took enormous pressure internally (and frankly, I believe that’s continuing) as well as my blatantly asking Bill Gates about it this past December to push the doors open again. Finally, this allowed Aaron, who was part of that long versioning discussion, to publicly talk about the switching work being done.

If those hands had not been forced, no one would have heard about this until IE8 landed on our doorsteps.

Out the issues

Now it’s out in the open, prior to a beta. We now know a hell of a lot about IE8 because of this. We can take a damned good guess at what’s actually in IE8 standards-wise because in IE8 standards mode, we have Acid2 compliance. Break down Acid2, and you’ll see what those implementations are or will be.

I believe we are in a much better situation knowing all of this in advance of the product. Was it wrong for Microsoft to shut up? I say yes and I call foul on those folks within the organization who allowed the very positive and productive conversations be shut down so dramatically. Clearly, they made a drastic mistake, which they were warned about by internal folks as well as advisors over and over and over again. So, the more yelling that comes from the Web community and the public press, well, that’s a message Microsoft will listen to so let’s remember that and hope some good comes of it.

Honestly, would it have been better to hide all this information until IE8 landed on our doorsteps? I don’t think so. At least now we have a window into what Microsoft is doing and the conversation, as is evidenced by the activity of the last week, is outed.

Transparency is bullshit, let’s get naked

Open standards must emerge from public, open, bare discussion. Microsoft clearly does not agree with this. It goes against its capitalist cover-up mentality, even when Bill Gates himself has quite adamantly stated that there should be no secrecy around IE8. In fact, he was the one who let the name slip. The fucking name, people! This shows you how ludicrous the lack of communication had become: Gates himself didn’t even know we weren’t allowed to say “IE8.”

This covert behavior is a profound conflict for me as I’m sure readers will at least agree that I’m pretty darned overt by default. But I knew it going in, I just kept and am still keeping my hopes high because that is also my default.

Sometimes the solution is to step back and re-evaluate. Sometimes the solution is to walk away. I haven’t firmed up my personal decisions on that just yet. Maybe it’s time to go back to Old School WaSP-style stinging of MS, but that definitely is not my default.

Can’t we all just get along? No, really. During my time at WaSP, the door was open to a kinder, gentler way. More fool me? So be it. I’m not giving up the greater goal, which is keeping the Web open, free, naked, bare-assed to the world.

Of, by and for

I think about all of us, whether we are “for” or “against” a given approach in the context of Web technologies in general, and I realize how necessary our arguments are. We are some of the world’s smartest, most innovative, committed and passionate people. How we’ll start figuring out better ways to collaborate, change old-school thinking, and encourage positive innovation and growth for the Web, well fuck if I know. Been down several roads (WaSP, for example) to try and see just how to do that.

What I do know is that the Web is still of the people, by the people, and for the people, no matter what Microsoft or anyone else does. And we’re the people to keep it that way. It’s not the what, but the how, and the when, that we have to focus on.

Filed under:   WaSP, accessibility, browsers, community, javascript, microsoft, policies, professional, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development, whatwg
Posted by:   Molly | 22:22 | Comments (58)

Tuesday 22 January 2008

TravelBlog 2008: Australia and New Zealand

I’m in Houston and in a few hours will board a plane that will take me to Guam, then on to Cairns and points in Australia and New Zealand.

There are two concise reasons this trip is important to me:

1). 2008 marks the 20th (yes, that’s TWENTIETH) year online (bbs’s anyone?)
2). I turn 45 on the 25. It’s a rite of passage, I think.

For one month I’m going to explore Australia and New Zealand. I will post photos and ideas and inspiration.

I am also working hard, my current project: massive HTML and CSS testing for MS.

I’m very excited.

Filed under:   The Daily Molly, accessibility, ajax, browsers, community, food and drink, javascript, microsoft, professional, rails, society, software, standards, travel, w3c, web design and development, whatwg
Posted by:   Molly | 00:01 | Comments (30)

Thursday 1 November 2007

W3C TPAC Upcoming

The “all hands” meeting of the W3C, combining the Technical Plenary and Advisory Committee meetings commences next week in what is certain to be an historic event.

This is the first time we’ll see the HTML 5 Working Group Members and its many Invited Experts meet en masse and face to face. The CSS Working Group, the QA working group and the WAI working group meetings are all on my personal lists for participation, along with the most important aspect of any conference of this nature: Talking to and meeting as many folks as I can.

On Wednesday, November 7, I am beyond honored to host the opening panel presentation for the Technical Plenary itself. Joining me in “From the Outside, In” will be Aaron Gustafson, Patrick Haney, Matthew Oliphant and Stephanie Troeth whose individual experiences span many aspects of real-world issues as influenced by W3C policies and practices.

I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the many people at the W3C and in the industry in general to have honored this group a unique opportunity to build bridges between the working communities of the Web and its most revered academic and scientific body, the World Wide Web Consortium.

From the Outside, In: Real World Perspectives on the W3C

Whether you’re a Web designer, developer, usability specialist or work in any one of the myriad jobs that go into making great Web sites, it’s clear that the W3C has significant influence on how you work. Whether it’s via the specifications that go into the software and agents that you use daily, or as the cornerstone of educational material, the W3C is involved somewhere in the process.

But it’s also clear that there’s been a gap between the real-world and the internal workings of the W3C. As Working Groups such as HTML 5 and CSS become more open, so must our conversations open. In this session, the W3C will have the opportunity to listen to real-world perspectives, respond to criticisms and praise and keep alive the ongoing commitment to authentic conversation and active community participation.

The panel:

• Molly E. Holzschlag (Web Standards and Practices Education and Outreach, Molly.Com, Inc.)
• Patrick Haney (Harvard)
• Matthew Oliphant (MathWorks)
• Stephanie Troeth (CloudRaker)
• Aaron Gustafson (Easy! Designs, Inc.)

We will also have a post-session q&a in the hallway near the presentation room, as well as dedicated Birds of a Feather tables set aside for ongoing discussion at lunch that day.

Am I excited? You bet. Idealistic, well always. Optimistic? Verdict is still out. In the meantime, this feels like forward movement and I, for one, want to be part of that momentum.

Filed under:   accessibility, announcement, browsers, community, conferences, innovation, policies, professional, society, software, standards, w3c, web design and development
Posted by:   Molly | 17:49 | Comments (44)