Standards-senses tingling?
Lately, I've been sensing a fair amount of apathy in our corner of the web industry, concerning the fight for web standards. It is as if a lot of people have started wondering, "is it all really worth the effort?" Or maybe some of us feel that, after all, it's just a part of our job and not a life goal? Maybe it really is - but then, what fight, exactly, are we fighting right now?
For years now have many of us worked hard to promote web standards, to send out the message that clean, elegant and proper implementations of semantic and well-structured markup, the separation of structure and presentation offered by CSS-based design and unobtrusive, JavaScript-powered progressive enhancements are the key to creating the most efficient, scalable and accessible websites. Some have been doing it for as long as ten years, being the early adopters of technologies still so much in their infancy that it was really hard for them to get their message out in the open at all.
But today, things are certainly different. Most of us have long been taking web standards for granted: it's just the way we work, because it's the best way to build websites. Empirically best, even, though the details of each aspect and process are always subjective and always up for debate. The point is, even when we disagree with each other, amongst our own ranks, we will still agree on the core principle that the proper use of web standards is the way to go about our business. It's a no-brainer!
When you've been living and working with web standards for so long, the novelty of the message fades. Not for everyone, of course, but for enough people for it to become apparent. The last few years have given us many rapid developments that had dramatic impact on our way of work: CSS-based design became a lot more feasible, new browsers emerged in the market, Internet Explorer's market share started dropping heavily, AJAX and other JavaScript things emerged to give us wholly impressive web applications, and so forth and so forth. But what's next?
Because I want to end this post in a positive note, I am going to do a reversed version of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
The Ugly
Ironic to its title, it was the very photogenic David Thompson who reminded me last night of this train of thought that's been going through my mind for a while now.
When certain people and events in an industry (or just a fairly isolated part thereof) can get tiring enough to make other people consider leaving the industry altogether, the question is raised: what exactly is it all for? The people or the message?
I was recently given the perspective of someone, or possibly several people for which the one was speaking on behalf of, which essentially meant that the recently held @media conference was about the social networking. That's right: not the contents of the panels and keynote presentations, but the social events around it.
Now, I am all in favor of social events and networking - I'm quite sure people have thought of me as a networking-fanatic, the way I tend to try and talk to absolutely every person whose name I know at such events. However, I also strongly value the content and the message. I expect to always learn something of great value at a conference, so if that were to not happen, then no matter how great the parties might be, I will feel sad and dismayed about it.
So it took me by quite a bit of surprise to learn of this perspective. If more people adopt this point of view, what happens to the message? The real content? It gets lost, that's what happens.
All things said, it's a rather ugly direction for this industry as a whole, so I certainly hope that this will remain an isolated incident.
The Bad
When the people fighting for the cause of web standards stop fighting, does that mean they won or that they have given up? Considering the fact that most websites out there still use table-based design, inaccessible markup and obtrusive JavaScript, your answer would lean towards the latter. Fortunately, we are not quite at such a sad state of affairs at all. A few isolated incidents may, at worst, signify a trend, but there is no indication at all that "most" people are losing interest in the fight for standards. Even "many" would be a grossly incorrect view on things, as it is rather "some" or even just "a few."
Still, there is reason to analyze the cause of this trend - or hint of a trend, if you will. One of the many principles in Kaizen is as follows: when an abnormality occurs, or a pattern is discovered, there is a problem somewhere, and so to fix the problem one must backtrack each step in the process and analyze the results to discover what causes the problem. Only when the true cause is identified can the problem really be fixed.
So what is the problem here? One reason could be that some people just didn't find enough appeal in the pro-active fight for web standards. Another reason could be that they just don't feel like they personally contribute to the fight that much, thus leaving it to others who they consider to do a better job. Yet another reason could be the simple fact that the web standards movement has grown thusly large that it has become saturated: too many people fighting for a cause is no good. A different way of thinking about that: you can't be the underdog if the majority is rooting for you and you've already proven to be the stronger side.
Is the web standards movement the stronger side, though? In many ways, I say yes, yes indeed. Are (the proper uses and implementations of) web standards not gaining ground rapidly? Are colleges and universities not slowly adopting new teaching methods to include CSS-based design, semantic markup and accessibility? Are our numbers not increasing on a daily basis? Are new browsers not actively trying to offer the best standards-support currently available? Even the biggest corporations on this planet are starting to get the message and make their move to web standards. By all means, you can say the web standards movement is shaping up to be an unstoppable giant of good things.
But all that may just be a theory. Truth be told, I don't think anyone can really tell what the reason and cause for the problem is. In fact, many people I know will even flat-out deny the problem is there to begin with! And they have a good reason to do so, because if you just look at some of the organizations and groups emerging to fight for web standards, it would almost be an insult to the lot of them to speak of this problem.
The Good
Ahh, finally some time for optimism!
Suppose the market for web standards enthusiasts is getting saturated - should that be a concern to us? A worry? Absolutely not!
It is fairly reasonable to believe that the web standards movement has gotten enough momentum by now to kind of "snowball" its way to ongoing success from here on. If such were the case, it is only logical that some people will fail to see a dire need to add their efforts to the fight, and instead will opt to focus on their own work, their job, life, you name it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that: it's a good thing by all accounts. It means that all the people that are still very actively fighting the fight are doing a good job, a fantastic job. Their efforts are working, they are winning the fight. It is, after all, an indication that we may yet see a time where we no longer have to convince people to use semantic and accessible markup - they will be doing it on their own already.
In the end, web standards are just that: web standards. You can love them all you want, but only a very select few can make a living just by loving them, promoting them and fighting for them. Pretty much all of us still have our daily jobs which don't (necessarily) involve speaking at conferences and doing workshops and presentations day in day out. Those very select few who do get to do all that should consider themselves lucky, for it does make for a very interesting and insightful life. The rest of us, well, we most certainly are lucky as well, just in different ways. The important thing is, though: luck or not, what matters is what we deliver. So let's just deliver a good job, whether it's fighting for standards or simply using them in our daily work. What say ye?
I say Aye!
Bookmark:
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Digg
Comments
Subscribe: atom, rss, ..what are feeds?
Archives
- Popular Posts
- Starting with CSS: revisited
- IE7 beta 1 release
- Starting with CSS-based design
- Debunking the price myth: Apple vs. Dell
- Typography: serif vs. sans-serif
- Accessibility Rules & Tips #1: simple steps to make your website more accessible
- Review: System of a Down - Hypnotize
- Announcing: Happy Clog!
- AJAX and Accessibility
- Introducing V8
- Recent Posts
- Times are changing
- A change in direction
- CSS hacks: useful, evil or …laziness?
- Updates on the web
- Pink for October
- Flickrlicious Screensavers with iPhoto 6
- On FACE updates and getting published
- Great speakers I admire
- A new passion
- Standards-senses tingling?
FlickrFire
All times are in CET. It is now 19:44.

The ugly part touches on the core of the issue. Where the social networking is a symptom rather than the problem. Conferences are aimed at web-standards advocating web-developers. And thus lectures are given by web-standards advocating web-developers.
Blogs by designers from the same group are being read by designers from the same group.
So rather than an army which is getting out there we have created a self-admiration society.
I see no or very little arguments for web-standards being aimed at the business world. And there are plenty. Less code = less datatraffic = less serverspace = less cost = more profitibility.
Accessibility? Who cares? Unless we can explain what it means in terms of increased marketshare. (of which we sadly lack any numbers btw)
And so on and so forth. More of my thoughts on this here .
Fighting a fight means picking a target, choosing strategy and weaponry and going after it. Fighting is not done by running around in circles while shouting; "We're fighting, hey, look at us, we're fighting. Ain't we cool?"
Nor does that mean collectively booing sites that are not up to web-standards.
Arguments are our arrows. Our target is the business-world. A strategy needs to be determined.
And profitibility is the name of the game.
Excellent article. Though, complex in resoltuion.
Web Standards and The New Professionalism by Molly from November 2005 caused my standards-senses tingling.
I believe it is fatigue rather than apathy.
"...the novelty of the message fades." I agree with that phrase; however, I would offer "the passionate excitement of educating others fades".
How long could one expect Zeldman to wear his knitcap?
Aye.
I've got to agree with Ron on this. We should direct our efforts more on the businessworld itself. A higher client awareness of the advantages is much more likely to force the die-hard, old-school designers into putting in the effort of changing their methods. An often heard argument is "why should I put in the time and effort to learn all this new stuff, the client can't tell the difference anyway...".
I've had the pleasure recently of having done a redesign for a client and being able to show the client that when entering the company's name in google the site had gone from page 5 to a number 1-position. (hadn't even expected that good a result myself) Its one argument for web-standards that stuck with the client...
Thanks for the article, Faruk.
I think I understand what Ron is saying: Decisions are made by the Managers based on what profit they can grab, so we should try to push them to adopt web standards. But Managers aren't writing the code. Hasn't the target always been, and shouldn't it continue to be the developer community?
We're seeing an organic 'changing of the guard' as web standards are increasingly being taught in schools. These students are diving into the workforce and joining the developer community. It's the developer community, and the organizations born from that community, that are shaping the web. That's the target.
As for the old school designers that are happy not to upgrade their skill set - They may make themselves extinct sooner than you think. Not only are we seeing greater device support for web standards, but there's lots more competition to the old school set.
Remember, you said as much in your article on your site - Desigining with web standards is ultimately less expensive for the site owner. In the business world, numbers speak much louder than your article ever can. Those numbers are in the estimate you provide to design the site.
Jody, you ,got me exactly right: we should go after the managers. However we are also a developers community. You are right on that point. So of course we should continue on the track we have pursued so far.
And changes are indeed organic. But there are a lot of big sites out there by major corporations who could do a lot better.
There is no conflict in the above said. My point of going after the managers is anexpansion on what we do, rather than a change of direction.
The numbers in an estimate do help but it is not enough. Numbers of an increased -ROI- Return On Investment do speak much louder.
Just so you know, I agree completely that we should go after the managers - which is why I've long started on that already. :)
*ahem* Web Kaizen targets management, primarily.
I don't think I've become apathetic, but I've definitely chilled out a bit. And frankly, large portions of the web community that I used to follow heavily now annoy or bore me, because they're still going on about the same crap they were two and three years ago.
But I think that's not a bad thing so much as where I've gone. I'm not perfect of course, but I think I've graduated from a college of sorts, and now have less need of listening to lectures. I'm not out there trying to turn myself into the next pundit for XYZML.
It's also a general shift toward being optimistic that I am trying to make. And trying to accept unfavorable realities and work with them. For instance, I'm currently doing a contract gig for a big, fat corporation. You know, the place where people go to get married, reproduce, and stop caring about their work. Oops, wrong rant..
Anyway, I'm doing "design support" which consists of taking PSDs from the designers, cutting up and coding templates, and passing that along to somebody else. I've found this to be startlingly stressful for one simple reason(amongst others): they do not use a valid, strict DOCTYPE in their standard template code. This of course makes layout issues in IE unecessarily bothersome. Yet, when I've asked why that is, or why it isn't changed, what is the response? "I dunno" or "I think we talked about it, and this was just what we ended up with" or "ALERT! ALERT! ONE OF THE COGS IS THINKING AGAIN!"
All I can do is the best I can do without giving myself a goddamn heart attack. I'm not gonna change the face of that company, at least not in a way that will leave me sane and whole. I made a strong first impression, and they recognize my knowledge and expertise, but the reality is that the priorities are just misplaced. Ron hit the nail on the head: it's places like this, where quotas are more important than quality, that web standards suffer because changing processes requires time and effort that a lot of people are just too damn lazy to give.
So, what am I saying? I wouldn't be worried about "the fight." I see progress in general, but perhaps less people that are flammable on the issue, which is probably good. I think we all just keep on keepin' on and trying to spread the love, and, yeknow, we'll see what happens.. ;)
Meh.