Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- Subject: Re: Is WebObjects Dead?
- From: Dev WO <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:40:13 +0100
Steve and Chuck,
I do understand what your are saying, and I don't intend to make you
change your mind.
I'm just saying that Internet has been created for something very
important: interoperability, and freedom of choice.
If you don't make your website 100% compliant, you are slowly but
surely ruining Internet, so ROI is just one point in a global equation,
and if you want to give this parameter the entire weight of your
decision, you must understand that you're not helping your profession,
your company, or your user, but you really "hurt" everyone.
There are not that much choice we can make that don't have a political
or ethical point...
My only goal in this is to make you realize that this "small" choice
(don't make a website 100% standard compliant or just focus on
immediate ROI) will hurt your own business, your users, and everyone
else.
I have created my own company, so believe me, business is something
important, but I'm fully responsible for what I'm created:
interoperability and freedom of choice for the users, some of my
website are even accessible by people that can't see, because I just
believe that we have to take care of equity, and we also have to take
care of this tool (Internet) and the reasons why it was created. I
don't want Internet to become a "private" network, and I don't want to
prevent people for choosing their browser, the only way to do it is by
making website 100% compliant.
ROI is second after the respect of the person to me.
Xavier
Thank you... someone finally understands what I'm saying.
On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:59 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
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.