Forum Moderators: open
<long rant>I have had websites on the internet for more than a decade. But - and this is an important piece of background information - at heart I'm a writer, or at most a designer of useful facilities, not a programmer. The internet, servers, technology, PHP, html etc. are all means to an end. The 'end' is to share - whether it be information, experiences, opinions, conflicts, etc.. The technology enables us to do sharing, of many, many types of information, from plain text to video to experiences to workspace to whatever.
During the last 6 months we embarked on a project to update our old (html) websites and drag them (literally) into the 21st century. We have been bringing them into line with the standards that operate now, rather than those in place when we started out. It seemed a noble thing to do, for the benefit of people who are kind enough to visit and read our websites.
It has turned out to be one of the most frustrating projects I have ever worked on. And I've worked on a lot over the last three decades.
We don't have complicated websites. Most of our content is text. We are 'web 1.0' through and through, using html with the occasional bit of functionality thrown in (smatterings of javascript and php). But making simple, plain text appear nicely on our website, using W3C standards, has proved infuriatingly difficult.
The problems are many.
One example is that when we developed a page that 'validates' using the W3C validator, we couldn't see anything on the page. For more than 10 years it has shown us text - we bring it up to date and all the text disappears.
So, we tweak it to try and make the text appear and, after a lot of experimentation, we finally get our text back. But, for some unknown reason, in IE7 it jumps off to the right of the screen, but displays correctly in Firefox. So, we tweak it some more so it displays correctly in Firefox - hooray, but then it jumps off the right of the screen in IE7. All these combinations are "valid" according to W3C.
In the end, we manage to find out how to fix it. If you are a Hancock or Mr Bean fan, it is reminiscent of their sketches trying to position the TV arial to get a good picture: to get it working, you end up doing something that is very inconvenient and looks stupid.
But, we do eventually get IE7, Firefox, Netscape and a pda browser all showing us the text. But then we get a complaint from a site visitor that in IE6 the text has jumped off the bottom of the page.
To help in our migration to the 'new age', we have upgraded our computers to IE7, and Microsoft in their wisdom didn't let us have IE6 running alongside IE7. So we had to get an old computer to view the reported problem in IE6.
This turned out to be another journey into things like quirks mode, whether padding is added to the width of an element, and many other differences between the way browsers work. For some problems we encountered, web searches revealed lots of forum pages asking how the problem can be solved, and no pages (that we could find) saying how to solve it.
And it's not just IE. For example, insert a "<br>" between divs and we expect some whitespace to appear. But Firefox will do something different to Netscape, depending on the css settings for the divs above and below.
Looking at the W3 pages, I guess the people involved would claim that the aim of their standards is to remove problems like this, and we are just in a transitional phase. By having clear, agreed rules, then if one follows the rules then you'll always get the same result.
But the direction they are taking is, imho, not going to "lead the Web to its full potential" (as is claimed on the W3 home page). It is going to restrict the web's potential, making development accessible only to an elite who think in a particular way.
If I may use an analogy, it is a bit like saying that, in real life, everyone in future has to communicate using semaphore. There might be some benefits in doing this, having one set of clear rules, but there are plenty more drawbacks. Such a restriction on language would obviously be a massive inhibition to creativity and artistic expression, and it would be unworkable for most of us, apart from the few ('elite') members of society who understand semaphore.
The aim of W3C seems to be to agree common standards. Whilst this may seem laudable, it has become so logic- and rule-driven that it is becoming exclusive. It may end up being the internet-Esperanto.
Please pardon my excursion into soapbox territory, but it is very often the case that people who design do not think logically, and people who think logically do not make good designers. Design is about the aesthetic appearance and appeal, the subjective experience of the user, the visual impact, the overall experience, providing an outlet for artistic talent.
But, with W3C, the designer is frustratingly not allowed to concentrate on those things. One ends up wasting a great deal of time, and getting frustrated, because basic tasks such as centring text on a page can't be done. Or, at least, not easily. One can't just say "<center>" any more. Even "text-align:center;" in the css doesn't always work. To center text on a page, one has to understand a whole new complicated set of rules, about inline or block display, about the different effects of text-align:center and margin:auto.
If you want to tell your wife you love her, you can't buy her flowers any more. You have to lie on the floor facing north, with your right hand pointing south-west and your left arm bent, and pointing within 30 degrees of the moon. Other enthusiasts will know exactly what you mean, but your wife will think you've gone crackers.
Why am I writing this? Well, it is largely a rant and a rave. I have a piece of text around which I want to have some white space, but I've got another fight on my hands. The browsers seem determined not to let me have my white space, and it's the straw that broke the camel's back.
If anyone in this list is involved with developing W3C standards, please remember that semaphore users make up a tiny proportion of the population. To enable the web realise its full potential, the standards have to be intuitive and easy to use - "ease of use" is a phrase used aplenty on the w3 website, but not what I experience in practice.
I'm not saying the rules shouldn't be logical and provide consistency. But I am saying that they should also support the thinking of the person who has a design mentality, and not provide a constant source of frustration.
Bring back the quill pen. Long live html!</long rant>
Who gets to choose the rules and boundaries of the game called "life"?
You've skipped straight past my point of how such boundaries CAN lead to tryanny, and you're ignoring much of history if you think they won't.
OK, here's a simple test - do you think websites or their authors should have a license, a form of accredition to some organisation or other such professional status?
Yes or No?
P.
Who gets to choose the rules and boundaries of the game called "life"?
The forces which seek to establish a monopoly on violence in each given territory.
You've skipped straight past my point of how such boundaries CAN lead to tryanny, and you're ignoring much of history if you think they won't.
Linguistic tyranny is usually imposed by reduction of expression. From where I'm looking at it separating style from content increases rather than reduces expression on the web.
OK, here's a simple test - do you think websites or their authors should have a license, a form of accredition to some organisation or other such professional status?Yes or No?
No. Because all the information is already publicly available regarding the professionalism of a web-designer's output. But I do think that information should be more widely distributed among those who want to hire web-designers that a designer who can write platform-independent, semantic code is almost certainly giving them more value than one who cannot.
Do you not see the irony in this, PIBS?
You seem to be the centralist planner of all centralist planners: your stuff is published only to meet Microsoft's needs. Anyone not like that? On your horse, buddy.
So anyone wants to use your website will have to consider buying hardware that runs MS software, and then installing MS code too.
You may find those diktats are too onerous for the free market crowd who prefer that websites simply work in any environment.
OK, here's a simple test - do you think websites or their authors should have a license, a form of accredition to some organisation or other such professional status?Yes or No?
No
Robert Fulford's column about Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web
(The National Post, August 1, 2000) [robertfulford.com]
........
In fact, the Internet was there long before Berners-Lee, and so was e-mail. So, for that matter, was the hypertext link, a way of connecting one document to another. But these were specialized tools of academics, governments and some businesses. When you used them to get information, you paid money.
........
...the Web: It has no central control. You do not apply for a licence ... you do not bother to resign. You remove your document from the Web without necessarily telling anyone ... But Berners-Lee realized early on that this was a price we would all have to pay in order to have the Web operate freely across the world.
........
the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an agency representing Web companies, hardware providers, etc. It keeps the Web on an even keel by refining the rules in ways that are acceptable to just about everybody. This means, he says, "as close as possible to no rules at all."
........
[edited by: lavazza at 8:37 am (utc) on June 26, 2007]
I don't demand that you must visit my site.
But don't tell me or others how their site "should be".
P.
(awaits for some form of violence monopoly (government) funding for websites/internet and then a demand for licensing, you know, to "protect the public"..)
"Unlike the ISOC and other international standards bodies, the W3C does not have a certification program. A certification program is a process which has benefits and drawbacks; the W3C has decided, for now, that it is not suitable to start such a program owing to the risk of creating more drawbacks for the community than benefits."
Wiki
For now.
"The consortium was created to ensure compatibility and agreement among industry members in the adoption of new standards. Prior to its creation, incompatible versions of HTML were offered by different vendors, increasing the potential for inconsistency between web pages."
So right from the start it was used to crush smaller members of the industry and competition.
Pah!
P.
21_blue: In some ways you appear to be arguing for more CSS, not less of it.
I seem to be having difficulty in getting my message across. Look at what I've written in earlier parts of this thread (each quote from a different message), I hope you can see a theme:
"there is a need to develop standards for interoperability and advanced functioning""I agree we need a respected standard."
"I agree that CSS is useful. I repeat my earlier point that I'm not saying we shouldn't have a standard, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have CSS."
"As I've already said, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have CSS. There are many things I want to control centrally, which CSS allows me to do."
"User needs are the raison d'etre for standards."
"we dynamically create css on-the-fly using Php"
"this could still be a useful complement to css,"
"I already use CSS extensively. I'm not advocating we drop it, but make it easier to use. "
"CSS... we are using it badly. "
"If you avoid the CSS, how do you ensure interoperability "
"We do already use z-index and positioning"
"For example, in my ideal world...<snip examples>... can be defined in the CSS. "
I am concerned about the direction of CSS. I am not advocating no standards, I am not advocating more CSS. I am advocating better, easier to use, more flexible standards that fit with the way people are creative, and not force them to be creative in a way that is convenient to computers.
Imagine a scenario where musicians weren't allowed to 'perform' any more. They had to enter their intended finger movements with an expression syntax into a musical notation package that was then used to translate their performance into a form suitable for everyone (including deaf people).
Actually, this does happen, but it is and always will be a small part of the industry. When someone wants to learn an instrument, they just pick it up and start playing.
Web technology seems to be going the other way - putting the focus on the advanced applications, ignoring the bigger need for easier entry level and not taking account of how users think and work.
You want to use something other than FF or IE? Go for it.
Why, that's mighty generous of you sir!
Actually, yes, I would like to use - or rather publish - on something other than FF or IE... like mobile phones, braille readers, cinema screens, televisions and... what's that old-fashioned medium called? paper!
Now... I wonder if there are any guidelines on just how I might acheive such a multi-media delivery without spending an eternity on it?
When someone wants to learn an instrument, they just pick it up and start playing.
And then they can upload their work to youtube or their very own blog... for the whole world to see...
Just how feasible do think that would be without standards?
Tyranny
So right from the start it was used to crush smaller members of the industry and competition.
Wow, did this topic blow off course or what?
We're talking about web standards. We're talking about a set of guidelines that many have followed for years. The web (as we know it today) was built around those standards, guidelines, protocols, etc.
Its your choice if you wish to follow them or not. There is nothing tyrannical about them. Nor is it something that is going to crush small members of the industry. Geez, let's come back to earth here. You are not being forced to adhere to those standards. It is your choice.
Elitist Attitudes?
Not at all. I'd say those of us who follow the guidelines have an attitude of confidence and competence. We know that the product we produce has passed all the basic checks and balances. It will perform as requested and without fail, until someone else breaks it. ;)
[edited by: pageoneresults at 8:53 am (utc) on June 26, 2007]
- allow both readers and authors to influence the presentation 5/10
It does 'allow' it, the author more than the reader.
Just a quick point about this, this is one thing that CSS excels at and would not be possible without the seperation. You can have multiple stylesheets, then store the users preferences in a cookie or if they login store them in a database.
For now.
P.
You can have multiple stylesheets, then store the users preferences in a cookie or if they login store them in a database.
Nice idea, it hadn't occurred to me, thanks.
You perhaps missed the formative years of the Web, and thus missed out on the guiding principle outlined by Tim Berners Lee: The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.
You may want to work closely with convicted monopolist Microsoft to undermine that vision.
But please do so more openly and clearly, rather than insisting that you are working for greater freedom.
You appear to be exactly the sort of central planner ["use MS code or ride away"] that the rest of us have been working hard to get away from.
The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.
This is an important issue. However, the above statement is not equivalent, imho, to making everything fit into a single generic format that can then be rolled out to any type of media. For example:
The DDA does not require, and these notes do not suggest, that Web pages be restricted only to plain black and white text. Forms and formats that give increased functionality for some users, or increased scope for creativity by developers, are not prohibited or discouraged. It is essential, however, that where a feature does not itself provide equal accessibility, an effective accessible alternative should be provided, unless this is not reasonably possible.
Of particular relevance to the previous discussion is this:
some content, such as graphs and maps, cannot be made accessible online to people who are blind or vision-impaired. Organisations who need to make such pictorial content available need to consider strategies for making it accessible, for example, by using qualified contractors to produce tactual maps and diagrams on request.
If visual diagrams could be constructed by authors using straightforward coding of the type I've previously suggested, then it would be possible for the diagrams to be interpreted or described with some form of page or screen-reading software. And if 3d printers become a reality, tactual versions of the screen could be printed locally. This would making more types of information more accessible to the visually impaired, rather than limiting everyone to text.
When someone wants to learn an instrument, they just pick it up and start playing.
That is a seriously misleading oversimplification.
Nice idea, it hadn't occurred to me, thanks.
You'll deserve to be taken more seriously as a critic if you master your tools first.
You'll deserve to be taken more seriously as a critic if you master your tools first.
Usually, the best critic of any product/service is the client/customer/naive user, not a technical or product expert.
Usually, the best critic of any product/service is the client/customer/naive user, not a technical or product expert.
Doesn't it have to go through the technical or product expert before it reaches the client/customer/naive user? Let's follow the Chain of Command here.
[edited by: pageoneresults at 3:16 pm (utc) on June 26, 2007]
Let's follow the Chain of Command here.
As a 'new user' of CSS in the last few months, I had thought that providing feedback to you (experts?) on the difficulties and frustrations of using it would be a valuable exercise. I realise now, given moderators' comments, that it has simply occupied bandwidth.
Rest assured I shall offer no further views. I'll just go back to doing what I was doing before.
As a 'new user' of CSS in the last few months, I had thought that providing feedback to you (experts?) on the difficulties and frustrations of using it would be a valuable exercise.
Oh, it is very valuable. We feel your pain.
Are you learning on your own? Do you have someone mentoring/tutoring you?
Learning CSS can be very daunting, even for those of us that have been using it for years. There are some things I've not been able to grasp yet and I stay away from those methods. As I've said before, I like to keep things simple.
The more difficult you make the layout, the more stress/frustration you will bring upon yourself. Start out simple, learn the basics, then go from there.
Either that, or hire someone to do the groundwork and then provide some hands on training in the process. I've done that before and it worked very well. Many of the questions I had were answered in one session.
The "experts" in this forum are not the people who can do anything about how the tool called CSS is designed. They can do a great deal to help you learn how to use it, though.
Or to make it clear, we are discussing the pertinence of a set of recommendations and guidelines. There are no laws involved apart from the potential accessibility issues. Standards are merely tools, and "deprecation" of older HTML elements and attributes is a slow process.
As it is, HTML 4.01 will be with us (including the transitional form with all the presentational stuff) for at least another ten to fifteen years, and will probably be the latest recommended standard from the W3C for a significant majority of that time. HTML 5, when released, won't see widespread adoption until at least 2015. There is a lot of stability in the HTML world, as HTML 4 was released ten years ago.
So there's no sword of Damocles hanging over your head if choosing to use presentational HTML. That's not to say you should choose to use it, as accessibility is a strong driving force to producing better markup. The advantages are tangible, the threat is not.
So, is it really so strange that <center> was deprecated? There is no benefit to such a tag. It has no inherent meaning to what type of content it contains.
The markup serves one purpose, and one purpose only -- to describe what type of content each element contains. Oh, this is an image? Oh, that is a paragraph? Oh, this is a script? The markup has nothing to do with how content is laid out, rendered as speech, described as braille, etc.
<sidenote>Side Note: You can certainly define your own elements. That's the whole purpose of XHTML, XML etc.</sidenote>
Side Note #2: Non-closing tags are bad. How is a useragent supposed to know if
<foo>text<foo>text<foo>text</foo><foo>text</foo><foo>text<foo>text</foo></foo>[edited by: DrDoc at 7:59 pm (utc) on June 26, 2007]
I have to say I'm lost.. is this a discussion about the W3C going in the wrong direction or a dig at CSS vs HTML presentational elements?
one half of me wants to agree that the W3C is going in the wrong direction, BUT I'm pretty sure we're not talking about the same thing, <center> should be deprecated, gone, left, sacked, not required whatever, let's face it when it comes to the W3C or any other "standard" deciding whether to break sites or not what is the worst that that element can do (and yes you can 'fix it' via your CSS anyway)?
let's think about <font>, <i>, <b>, they are much the same, but with different consequences if you haven't already grasped at least some CSS. I believe (but can't find the mailing list reference) that all of these are destined to be left in HTML5, or at least the W3C are arguing the point, hence my disagreement.
As far as I'm concerned we wouldn't even be having this discussion if the W3C hadn't have taken some stance in the first place, someone earlier mentioned that the specs (they're actually recommendations, not "standards") were too difficult, yes they may be, but without them, and peoples/browser manufacturers attempts to abide by/interpret them, we would not even be here, HTML has stood still while CSS and the x part of (XHTML) took the flak, HTML can only go forward if the past arguments can be learnt from..
Or alternatively we can do what has always been done and just get on with our lots ;)
