Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- Subject: Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:59:51 -0800
I see this as a business, not technical, decision. If your boss/client is
satisfied with (for example) support for IE, Netscape, Opera, and Safari
who are we to decide that more resources need to be spent tweaking the HTML
to some perfect standard that probably no browser implements 100% properly
anyway? Developers often hijack the requirements process and spend far, far
too much time implementing unrequested functionality "just in case". Most
of the time it never gets used as we are no better at predicting the future
than anyone else.
Sure, maybe a new popular browser or whatever will emerge. But like Opera
and Safari and all the others, it won't happen over night. You'll have time
to assess how important support for that browser is, what changes are
needed, and then to implement them. In the mean time you've saved some
development time that can be used on things that are important *now*.
Its all ROI.
Chuck
At 11:47 PM 25/02/2004 -0700, steve stout wrote:
>I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I was talking about making
>the html comply with the doctype perfectly, not about using proprietary
>technology or proprietary html. I just know that personally I have too
>much work to do to sit around worrying if every single line of html is
>absolutely perfect.
>
>
>
>On Feb 25, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Dev WO wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>> No you're not a bad person because your website aren't 100% standard
>> compliant. You are just someone that may not have the time to fully
>> understand the consequence of your act (I'm saying anything bad, but
>> maybe my english make it more "sharp" than it is;)) and maybe you
>> should try to educate your boss about what he wants for the future:
>> -When your doing a website that conforms to web standards, you can be
>> sure that it will still work when browsers are updated, and it is
>> definitely not the case with non standard website.
>> -It is just not productive to test your website on every browser,but
>> you're right we have to do it untill IE is dead, or maybe it will go
>> standard one day
>> -We must make a website that is accessible by everyone that use a
>> standard browser, whatever browser it is. We don't have the right to
>> kick someone out because of a specific browser as we must garantee the
>> freedom of choice of the user
>> -If you don't make your website 100% standard compliant, you reduce
>> the "power" of the standardization organism, that way you encourage
>> licence fees on technologies, and so Internet which was created for
>> interoperability won't be free anymore for your company, and for you
>> as a user. This is really bad, and when you're doing a website than
>> isn't compliant, you must realize that you (I mean webmaster that
>> don't want to know, no you specifically) are leading us that way.
>> Do you really think that Macromedia will leave Flash free if all
>> website use it?? they never asked to become a standard, because it
>> would have ruined the opportunity to ask people to pay for the
>> technology, so they're just waiting for "webmaster" to work the
>> easiest way possible without understanding where all this lead us.
>> Same for IE.
>> SVG is far more powerful and accessible than Flash, and free... but
>> there's no real authoring tools, so it's harder to work with it.
>>
>> So basically, when must do website that are 100% standard compliant
>> (and even accessible if possible) to protect our work, our company,
>> and our users. When we do a website that doesn't conform, we just hurt
>> everyone.
>>
>> I hope I made myself clear, and not too "I'm the best your a sh***",
>> this is really a constructive point.
>>
>> Xavier
>>
>> Le 25 fivr. 04, ` 19:12, steve stout a icrit :
>>
>>>
>>> So am I a bad person if I don't really care that my websites aren't
>>> totally compliant with the specs? The pages work in every modern
>>> browser that I've tried them in and to me that's all that matters. I
>>> don't have the time to nit pick about things that 99.9% of the users
>>> will never see when my boss just wants things done.
>>>
>>> ./steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Concerning Dreamweaver and GoLive, they're just amatory tools, you
>>>> can't produce a real compliant website with these "tools", if you
>>>> don't believe me, just try to validate a page (real one, not a basic
>>>> thing) done with these "tools" (the Adobe website is done with
>>>> GoLive 6, and not standard compliant at all)
>>>> BBedit is a great tool though.
>>>> But to make a real website, you must know the language (HTML/XHTML,
>>>> CSS), here's what I'm saying when someone doesn't understand why
>>>> Dreamweaver isn't a real tool:
>>>> "When you want to speak to let say a spanish, don't you think an
>>>> electronic assistant isn't enough?, so how can you believe talking
>>>> "Web" with Dreamweaver..."
>>>> There are other consideration behind having a non standard compliant
>>>> website (so the use of these "tools"), like licence fees, political
>>>> and ethical view, but it's not the point here.
>> _______________________________________________
>> webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
>> http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>_______________________________________________
>webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
>Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
>Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>
>
--
Chuck Hill email@hidden
Global Village Consulting Inc. http://www.global-village.net
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.