Web Standards Otaku
Web Standards Otaku What is it about the Web Standards Fanatics? Has there ever been anything else similar? Why is it so many random people are so into pushing web standards and validation etc.

First, TRY to remember this as you read. I'm not against standards! Of course we need standards so please remember I'm not arguing against standards

What I'm trying to discuss it the fanatics out there that push these standards for no appearent rational reason. What the F does it matter to them whether or not some one else's site uses all the current standards or not? I can't think of a single other fanatical thing that similar to this *let's all follow web standards* fanatic movement.

It's not like people stand around in super markets saying "Let's all make sure all cans are 50% tin, 50% steal" or "lets's all make sure no one comes in a housecoat". The amount of standards chanting is out of proportion with the supposed benefits. You want something to chant about, go chant about smokers throwing cigarette butts on the ground. Go chant for world peace. Go chant for your favorite politian. But, stop the standards chanting.

People that want to follow standards will. They will lookup the pluses and minues and choose whether or not HTML 1.0 is good enough for them or whether they need HTML 4.01 and CSS or XHTML or whatever. They don't need standards otaku pushing them into it. Spend your time on something actually useful.

In fact, I'll take it one step further. If any of you have read books about how to do well in life or business many of them mention finding a successful example and copying it. Well, taking that advice, as Google, Yahoo, MSN, CNN, Slashdot, and every other big name site IS NOT FOLLOWING THE STANDARDS, if you want to be successful, following the advice of so many of those books, neither should you. Or, more to the point, don't worry about it. Concentrate on something more important like content.
Comments:

YES! [ e ]

Amen Brother!!!

 

SRL

posted by StickyriceloverOctober 30, 2003 at 12:26

A funny article [ e ]

Just in the last few days this aritcle, "Why tables for layout is stupid:" was posted and the funny thing is it was written by 2 people:

1) Bill Merikallio: Who's own site and all the sites in his portfolio use tables for layout

2) Adam Pratt: From Adobe which is also another site that uses tables for layout

and on top of that the article is presented as being from Seybold Seminars and their site is also laid out using tables.

Another thing that pushes my button is not only are standards people fanatics but they may shit up.  Examples:

This (tables) makes redesigns of existing sites and content extremely labor intensive (and expensive).

For most sites that's not true as most sites now-a-days use a content management system.  That means somewhere they have a database and the content is generated by applying a template.  All anyone has to do is change that template to change the design of the site.

Using Web standards makes our pages much more accessible to users with disabilities and to viewers using mobile phones and PDAs to access the Web.

Again only 1/2 true.  PDAs and Mobile phones are so picky that CSS is not going to help you. You'll pretty much have to have a content management system to output different pages all custom configured to deal with the quirks of the various cell phones and PDAs.

Reducing the ratio of code to content, using keywords in your header tags, and replacing header GIFs with actual text will all help your sites get better search engine results.

Who makes this shit up?  Where's the proof?  Clearly all the major sites on the net use table layout and they are having no problems getting high Google rankings.

posted by greggmanOctober 31, 2003 at 17:45

shrug [ e ]

*shrug*My site works perfectly well, and is readable in any device that understands basic html... and I don't have to serve up alternate content or anything. My site looks fine in text only browsers, even.

Besides, Slashdot is popular even though it uses that horrendous teal... I guess everyone else should just fire all their designers, and just let the programmers do everything. It works for Slashdot, right?

Do what the hell you want with your site, but realize that the "do what everyone popular does" mentality is stupid and doesn't lead anywhere, and doesn't cause innovation. I, personally, will do what Wired does (amongst a growing list of others).

BTW, just worth noting:

> Concentrate on something more important like content.

That's useless if I can't even see the content with MY browser of choice.

posted by nowakOctober 31, 2003 at 23:52

Wired [ e ]

Wired copped out by desiging around CSS's limitations .  There are thousands of designs that would not work in 100% CSS.  In fact most of the sites I mentioned, Google, Yahoo, MSNBC, CNN, Adobe, etc...

As for your BTW: I guess those other sites managed to get popular despite you not personally being able to read them on your browser of choice.  Possibly because they spent time on content instead of endlessly checking if their site validated or playing with CSS.

Wired didn't catch all the limits.  Increase your font size or make your window thin to see it fail.  OR, download the page and in the "Quote Marks" or "Hot of the Wire" sections and something with a long site name like "Howard Dean starts up www.howarddean4president.org
" and watch it fail.

posted by greggmanNovember 1, 2003 at 21:57