Forum Moderators: open
In answering that question there are a number of other questions that must be taken into consideration:
• What would happen if there were no standards? (Bear in mind that all browsers today are based on the earliest standards for the Web. They just offer different levels of support.)
• Is the W3C really the ones that should set the standards, or would that be done better somewhere else? If yes, who/where?
• If you agree that W3C standards are good for the Web community, and that W3C should continue to develop them, why is there an argument about one standard vs the other (such as CSS vs. HTML)? Isn't there just one standard, and those who advocate it should be willing to comply with it on all levels?
• Are the standards too strict, or perhaps too forgiving?
• Having standards is one thing, but validation and conformance is another?
• Which role should software companies play in setting the standards?
• Which role should the Web community play?
Personally I think that the W3C standards are crucial to the Web's existebce. Unfortunately they are just neglected by most, or even unknown. I also believe that there's only one standard.
If the W3C recommends accessibility awareness, then that's the route we should take. If the W3C recommends CSS for styling Web pages, then that's the route we should take. There are no grey zones - either you are for W3C standards, or you are against.
I also believe that the argument about backward browser compatibility is lame. All you have to worry about is supporting current and future browsers, not old ones. As an example, Netscape 4 is not a current browser. It only survives because we keep it alive. Stop developing half-baked Web pages, and those hardcore NN4 users will find themselves upgrading to Mozilla Firebird.
It concerns me that many Web developers are holding the overall progress back, when we should promote it instead. Lingering in the mindset of 1998 is not going to help you establish a successful presence on the Internet. You need to be up-to-date. And the only way of doing that is by observing the W3C standards.
Anybody here ever been contacted by a blind person because a site they designed doesn't work well with their braille terminal?
Yeah... Since it's free, how can you not "afford" to upgrade?
You and I can upgrade by a simple download, and we can probably also fix things if they go wrong. But upgrading is a significant expense to major companies which depend on standard applications running problem free across all their locations.
It requires dedicated time from one or more experienced professionals to prepare and test the upgrade, fix all the problems with the company's standard applications, and create a standard system CD which will be rolled out throughout the company, which in the case of a multi-national can be spread worldwide. Management has to weigh the costs versus the benefits, and take into account the potential impact if things go wrong.
It doesn't make sense to go through all this for a mere browser upgrade; it would be better to put it on hold until a major OS update. And that tends to tie the company into their current OS supplier. There would be MS support, documentation, and training available for an upgrade (say) from Win2000 with IE5 to XP with IE6, but if the company wanted to got to XP with Mozilla - or even Linux - they would be moving in uncharted waters.
The bottom line is upgrading costs money and can bring unexpected problems. If it 'aint broke, why fix it?
<added later>
I'm sure 'retro-oriented' companies such as these exist (and perhaps on bankruptcy will be tranformed directy into antique shops) but what percentage of users could they possibly make?
I think you would be surprised at the number of large companies - even in the telecoms field - who are still running old systems for their in-house staff. One problem is that there are some on NT4 who never made the move to Win2000. The jump now from NT4 to XP is much more difficult. Just think of all those in-house built applications that may fall over.
</added later>
Harry
Anybody here ever been contacted by a blind person because a site they designed doesn't work well with their braille terminal?
Yes. It was a long time ago, when I ran a BBS, not the commercial site I maintain today.
But I did pull in an order yesterday from a fellow who is basically unable to move around much. This was deduced from the Comments he placed on the order. While maybe outside the topic of 'standards', I believe that ease of navigation and readibility of my pages *might* have made a difference for this sale.
Standards don't necessarily apply to design - and that's a good thing, IMO. But any successful web designer will know that some standards are necessary, accessability chief among them.
