“Blame is the cure, cure anything”—Mike Doughty
Readers and conference participants know that the more I write and talk about web standards, the more I point out that they really don’t exist. Step back with me for a moment: we wouldn’t need a web standards movement if there were standards! We continue to do the very best work we can to arrive at a standard of quality and professionalism. Sadly, however, despite a decade or more of web standards evangelism, we face the prospect of losing whatever influence we’ve gained these past years.
I’m going to share some of my thoughts on the problematic and constructive influences on most folks working in web standards today. I challenge you to counter these pros and cons as you see them, and to discuss without blame how to drive the web forward while maintaining the ideals and best practices we hold so dear.
The usual suspects#section2
Frustration can easily lead to finger pointing. But blame, despite singer and poet Mike Doughty telling us it’s the “cure, cure anything,” well, we all know blame only takes us so far.
But that doesn’t mean it’s unfair to take a realistic look at the forces on front-end development and design, particularly in relation to HTML and CSS. This is especially true for those of us who believe that the web belongs to all of us, and not to any company, government, or other organization.
As an invited expert to the W3C, a frequent colleague and friend of many of the WHATWG folks, and after an 18-month-long dip in the deep end of the Internet Explorer pool, I began to think a little finger-pointing was in order. There are flaws and wrongdoings in all aspects of what we do, such as the software developed on our behalf and the technologies we’re supposed to take from the theoretical to the practical. So much upset generates from these issues that it makes our job one of the most misunderstood on the planet.
Circle 1: academic and scientific—the W3C#section3
The W3C often gets the blunt end of our middle fingers when we run into problems with specifications. I believe this is due to unclear specifications written for academics and scientists. Accused of being the “ivory tower” despite its attempts in recent years to be more community-oriented, the W3C is a group of industry scientists and academics working for member companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Opera Software, and so on. Finger pointing occurs because we as a community feel left out.
You’re invited. Can you afford it?#section4
Yes, there are invited experts who mitigate bias, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to bring them on board. As an invited expert, I’m responsible for all expenses related to the work, including long distance telephone charges, or travel expenses to the south of France for a week of intensive meetings. These expenses can be an economic barrier that prevent independents from participating.
As a result, many working groups end up focused on the interests of member companies. To be fair, it’s true that the W3C only allows a set number of votes per member company per issue, but the agendas of member companies are nevertheless promoted—often successfully.
Taking their ball and going home#section5
I recently witnessed a member company representative shut down an entire line of discussion simply by saying, “This compromises several of our patents. We will remove ourselves from the W3C if you proceed.” With a history of no viable long-term economic model, the W3C cannot afford to lose members, particularly when they are mission critical to many evolving specifications.
I became very despondent witnessing this, knowing how difficult it is for the W3C to create an environment where these issues are easily dealt with. The fact is, however, that the world—because of the web—is changing. This means that the way we deal with intellectual property is going to have to change too. But until that time, I’m not sure we can really say the W3C is open, nor do I believe they are deserving of blame, per se.
W3C pros and cons#section6
Pros:
- Global
- Academic and scientific body
- Multiple interests represented, but mostly from paid member companies
- Attempting to be more open via certain teams such as the HTML5 and CSS Working Groups
- Attempting to appeal more to work-a-day world via redesigns, blogs, and more human-friendly language throughout the site
Cons:
- Creates “open standards” by ideal, not necessarily fact
- Incredibly slow moving in a highly evolutionary environment
- Poor economic model that relies on membership monies
- Discourages independents and open process
- Passive: only creates specs and recommends, does not do real outreach
- “Ivory tower” perception
Some have suggested that the W3C is obsolete, and that the real solution is to disband it. I believe that without a very strong alternative in place, that would be disastrous: currently, the W3C is the only place where these member companies discuss and work through issues.
A new, authentic infrastructure, along with new economic models, and some way to bring in independents, could be very helpful. In fact, on Sunday, September 14th, 2008, a new foundation was announced to do just that. The World Wide Web Foundation has received seed money to help the W3C and expects to have a full plan in place by 2009. While this is a hopeful plan, how it will play out beyond the W3C and influence the community at large won’t be realized for some time to come.
Circle two: revolutionary and disruptive—independent working groups#section7
A number of organizations have emerged outside the W3C due to the frustrations people feel within W3C working groups. Two excellent examples of this are the WCAG Samurai, a closed group with undisclosed membership, and the WHATWG, an open group that works transparently. Both groups offer an interesting response to the issues raised in the first-circle discussion: they are both revolutionary and disruptive.
Other grassroots groups, such as The Web Standards Project (WaSP) and the Web Standards Group (WSG) focus on advocacy rather than actually writing specifications. The need for these groups is unquestionable in today’s environment, as they perform the outreach that the W3C and the other independent groups do not.
Say WHATWG?#section8
Because of the open rather than anonymous nature of WHATWG, I’ll use them in our discussion since their work has already been adopted in part by the W3C and portions of HTML5 are being implemented by browser vendors.
WHATWG formed out of frustration with the W3C for refusing to evolve HTML, and because XHTML, meant to be the next generation lingua franca, has never been implemented by Internet Explorer.
A number of clever lads including Ian Hickson, Lachlan Hunt, Henri Sivonen, Anne van Kesteren, Dean Edwards, and other thought leaders, believed this was unacceptable. They believe HTML needs to evolve semantically as well as functionally (forms, for example). WHATWG worked quickly, proving that independent organizations without funding could get things done quickly and well.
The WHATWG’s work is now the basis for the W3C’s new and “open” HTML5 Working Group, which, to quote Dorothy Parker, is a “fresh hell.” However, the WHATWG and the HTML5 Working Group continue to work separately despite sharing many resources.
Independent working group pros and cons#section9
Pros:
- Revolutionary
- Disruptive: demands change
- No economic bias
- Many views represented (in the ideal)
- Incredibly agile
- Easier to create and publish independent open source specifications
- Meritocracy: actions are based in passion and vision rather than profit-oriented
Cons:
- Lack of clear leadership—too many cooks can spoil the proverbial soup
- No economic support—volunteer-based
- Too agile also can mean not enough time for research, collegial discussion with other groups (for example, WHATWG and the Accessibility community)
- Very high risk of being overly aggressive
- Very high risk of becoming mono-cultural, led by a single person or small group with the majority of people going along with the idea because it’s the “right” thing to do
Circle 3: self interest and profiteering—proprietary technologies#section10
Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and Google are among the most powerful businesses involved with proprietary intellectual property. They share a less-than-cooperative information sharing philosophy as they seek to create rich platforms that will, to quote Steve Ballmer “win” the web. Flex, Silverlight, and even WebKit’s evolution often take place outside the community, with self-interest and profit as goals—not an open and flexible web.
Pros and cons of proprietary technologies#section11
Pros:
- Global
- Strong economic initiative
- One view represented
- More agile
- Easier to be first to market
- Easier to be innovative
Cons:
- Closed
- Non-communicative
- Aggressive
- Profit-oriented—not necessarily quality oriented
- A major cog in the interoperability process
Broad latitudes#section12
So, what do we do as working designers, developers, content managers, and evangelists who seek to truly better the web in an open, interoperable way?
We’ve tried stuff. WaSP, WSG, and so on. These groups have assisted with education and outreach, and are the glue of our community. But these groups also risk becoming irrelevant (some already think of them that way) since they appear to be doing nothing to solve the web’s fundamental problems.
Should we create yet another group? That was my first thought, but that just adds another layer of confusion to the problem. If we meditate instead on the pros and cons of these three circles, we may actually find the right people, identify key problems, and possibly find the way to unite rather than divide our community even further.
Tipping points#section13
The moment proprietary technologies gain a stranglehold, we slip that much farther away from web standards. Nothing demonstrates this more than Internet Explorer. Nothing demonstrates this more than Apple’s bid to implement aspects of CSS3, that have not yet been passed as recommendations, in WebKit (potentially compromising the way the W3C can work in the future). Nothing demonstrates this more than Mozilla’s and Opera’s inability to grow a user base beyond a certain point.
Can we solve the problem? I’ve never been a fortune teller, but I am an optimist. I believe we have amazing people in each of these circles who can come together and make things happen. The trick is to hone in on the pros, find ways of dealing with the cons, find the people who really get stuff done, and keep the talk as open as possible.
If we overlap the circles, we find that each share commonalities to build on. It is that center we need to strengthen—and not burden the problem with more committees at this point. Over-bureaucratization will be the death knell for any good we’ve caused thus far.
How do we fix the web? Discuss.#section14
Can we figure out how to form these three circles into some working mechanism? Who knows. It will take mobilization, and it will take compromise. Beyond that, it will take a few hours out of everyone’s copious spare time to pay attention and participate in some way. Write blog posts. Comment thoughtfully on blog posts. Gain WaSP’s attention and get involved. Ask to come to W3C meetings. If we don’t do something soon, I fear the web will become more of a commodity than a gift.
We do not have an interoperable web. What we have is a glut of proprietary, closed, and protected stuff. While it’s sophisticated and interesting sometimes, it goes against the heart of what we came here to build in the first place: an accessible, interoperable web for all.
_”the key obstacle to standards adoption: the colossal, entrenched population of the near-permanent IE6 base.”_
Hit the nail right on the head. Until the day when we no longer need “iehacks.css” and other kludges, we’re all stuck accommodating the AOL/IE bunch if we want any real traffic.
_We are stuck with coding around this most-truculent user base for at least the next decade, and there is no obvious path to pry loose this browser from the significant population that will never click an “update”? button._
As a former tech-support / hardware-technician, I can offer up some insight into the mentality of the “typical user”.
IMHO, it’s not that they don’t _want_ to – in most cases, the problem is that they’re simply _not aware_ of the alternatives.
How many browsers can _you_ name, off the top of your head – 4-5 or more?
Now, ask the typical AOL/IE user the same question. Most likely response: “There ARE other browsers? I always thought the big blue ‘E’ was the Internet!” {shocked face, eyes the size of saucers, etc.}
We’re dealing with a userbase that’s been fed TV commercials stating “American OnLine is… The Internet”, and told repeatedly that “to get online, all you need to do is click the big blue ‘E’ on the desktop, ok?”.
Until they’re at least _aware_ of the alternatives, nothing will change.
How do we make them aware? Person-to-person evangelizing does work, but it’s time-consuming. Installing alternative browsers on new computers requires participation from vendors (good luck there). The only other approach I’ve seen that has a snowball’s chance in hell is designers getting sick of working around IE’s multiple screwups and posting notices along the lines of:
_”This website will not display properly on Internet Explorer. Why? Because it’s a crappy browser, and we will not break our site to accommodate it. Want a better Web experience? Get a REAL BROWSER here: {link}.”_
Or, for those who have a core audience and don’t really rely on traffic turnover:
_”This website will NOT work on Internet Explorer. Why? Because it sucks, and Microsoft is the Devil’s child. Want to see our content? Get {browser1}, or {browser2}, or {browser3}. Otherwise, we will not let you in.”_
——————————
When your userbase is “doing it wrong”, until someone points out that they’re “doing it wrong”, they will _continue_ to “do it wrong”. I’m not saying everyone should _force_ users to switch from IE, but a little reminder here & there might get people to realize that there _are_ alternatives out there.
Good article Molly. You’re clearly very knowledgeable on the subject. You mentioned that ‘we’ shouldn’t blame. However, in every paragraph you list your cons for the subjects you discuss. This IS blame. You’re pointing fingers at the reasons why the web is in this state right now. I don’t have a problem with blame. In fact i think it’s very necessary in this context. It’s only through blame that we can identify the culprits and take steps to fix the situation.
Be more bold. it’s only through people like you that change can happen and the web can be a better place.
Well done. keep it up.
I think what the web community needs to do is fix these browser issues before anyone can really get together and figure out these issues. The manufacturers need to step up and create a common layout engine that all browsers can use.
Think about it. If you open an avi file, that file will look the same on different machines, whether you use Windows Media Player, VLC Player, or any other player that can play AVI files.
Why can’t opening an HTML file have the same expectation?
Companies could still differentiate their browsers, like any other product, by the features. Some use Firefox mostly because of the add-ons. Others could use IE for its own uses, Opera for its own, so on and so forth.
The groundwork is there; each browser has already differentiated itself based on its features. The question is when can these companies all sit down and realize that by being too invested in having their layout engine be the best, that they are actually causing the web standards community to disperse and become schizophrenic.
I think another fact that people have to consider is the problem of how “forgiving” browser rendering can be sometimes – if we want to make sure stuff written in archaic editors like Front Page and Apple’s products isn’t force into prominence they have to fail to render in standards browsers. The problem with this method is that it compromises the free essence of the web as we know it.
The reason ICANN succeed where the W3C don’t is that they have a hardware business that can be more easily charged for, and that anyone setting up a server has to comply with a standard DNS model or no one can access their system. Its designers coding for IE6 in preference of newer browsers, WYSIWYG editors that produce un-semantic code and a glut of clueless people populating the web that we have to worry about.
What surprises me in all this, and this has been bugging me for a while now, is how they keep talking about “standards” and “standard bodies” but fail to acknowledge there is a “standard” way of dealing with making sure an industry follows a certain standard: Certification.
You really think organizations like ISO waste copious amounts of time begging industry participants if they would please be so kind to follow their suggestions? Somehow I don’t think they would, they have strict rules which should be followed would one carry their seal of approval and become an ISO-certified organization.
Every time I see a webpage carry the W3C seal of valid htmlxmlcsswhatever I die a little: it’s the browsers which should carry those seals first before any web-page. What use is it to carry a such seal and then have the browser mangle your well-formed and valid html beyond recognition? Redicilous.
Problem is: there should be clear benefits to be certified. There should be a way to ‘force’ browser vendors into being certified. Something like “Your browser isn’t CSS2 certified, fix that then you can join the debate on CSS3”. ie; if you want to push your ideas, first show us you can follow those of others.
This could then eventually extend to pages just not showing up in a certain browser since the developer has decided only to cater for browsers that carry a full certification, this to reduce development and bug-tracking time and costs. This last bit could be an incentive to our clients to actually cooperate with this: less bugtracking and development time means lower prices and less maintenance for them too.
IMO only then can we create a real incentive for those vendors to implement the right features in the right way. As long as this is a free-to-follow process, which they can even influence in less than morally sound ways, I don’t see the current status quo change beyond mere empty promises.
Seems to me that it used to be our calling card. Standardistas unite. But Molly’s 100% right about this issue. The movement seems to have hit a resounding stale-mate and I don’t like it. During the day, I find myself tied at the feet, hands and mouth with what our creative department would like to do. Tied by the very hands that hired us. So often politics smash our momentum, and seemingly bum-rush us into last year.
Maybe what we need is a stronger grass-roots movement. Not all of us are “designers” or “front-enders” only. I’d be willing to bet that there are some out there with grant-writing skills, sales skills, etc. Let’s band together and utilize everyone’s resources … gain some momentum … and seek out grant money to push forward with an organization dedicated to open-discussion about web standards and the future.
WHATWG is not revolutionary. It is very very evolutionary. It evolves “dead” HTML4 rather than pushing incompatible new XHTML2.
WHATWG has very strong leadership – Ian Hickson.
Long distance phone charges? Traveling to France for face-to-face meetings?
What rock have you been living under for the past 10 years? Skype, Gizmo5, and various other nearly free VoIP options exist, as does video and online conferencing.
Good God…I’d never expect something so whiny and cave-person-like from AListApart.
Dear Ms. Bizcuit,
Your post screams for a response. Please blog or Twitter or Skype or use whatever current technology you’d like to let the W3C know about their business practices. You think it’s MY idea to have to deal with long distance telephone charges, IRC and so on? It amazes me that the W3C hasn’t embraced more current technology, despite so many contemporary technologists. So, if you think this is whiny and cavelike, I’d like to encourage a call to action from you to help bring about change.
And good luck with that. 🙂
I love the information mentioned in the article about web design and website development in web design industry,……..can you please email me more articles….
Molly :
THANK YOU. I have been waiting to read something like this for a long time. (And ALA, I encourage you to publish more along these lines, if you’ve got the authorship available.)
I learned XHTML + CSS in the early 2000s, and I remember feeling at the time was that the W3C was slow, but good.
I’ve learned a lot since then. (A bit of programming, semantics, design process, and so on.) And although I know it happened gradually, I nevertheless woke up one day and realized that the W3C have been compromised under the weight of their own bureaucratic inefficiency”¦and under pressure from corporate interests who, after failing to push their proprietary technology from without the W3C, decided to push it from within instead.
I’m irritated that XHTML’s failure to gain traction has resulted in HTML5. Although there are many things I like about HTML5, there are several others that seem to undo years of grueling effort to separate content from presentation. I wish I could take the good from HTML5, migrate it to XHTML, and perform some kind of Heimlich maneuver to get momentum going for XHTML again.
I feel this frustration very strongly, yet I feel like completely powerless to change the course of things. It’s as though I’m stuck on a train heading for a cliff with no way to stop it.
Three Circles of Hell, indeed.
And you know what? It would almost be Four Circles of Hell, but for your challenge to solve this problem without resorting to blame-mongering. I have shouted more than my fair share of blame at Microsoft, but I think you are right to examine pros and cons will maintaining a positive, pragmatic attitude at the same time. I found it sobering, and helpful in putting the focus back where it belongs: “what’s the nature of the problem, and what can we do about it?”?, rather than “whose fault is it?”?. Thank you for that.
All I can say is, please, please, PLEASE keep up your good work on this front! I don’t want to see a corporate war for dominance bring about a digital apocalypse that will take the Web back to the 1990s. Corporations are strong, but they are not the Web. The Web is Us!
Stay strong, Molly! You’re a good soldier! 🙂
Mz.Biscuit seems to be unaware of the standards maverick (forgive me for that, Molly) she seems to be denouncing as unaware of our modern technologies. I don’t particularly care to engage in a slamming of you, but seriously, you obviously don’t know what Molly has helped achieve for us … take it back! Hehehehe …
Haha, I loved Ted Lee’s comment about the 3 circles of hell being IE5.5, IE6 and IE7. He predicted that IE 8 was going to be a nice, clean step forward, but that has clearly not been the case. Microsoft’s strategy has always been to go against the grain to retain a dominant position. In the case of IE, their resistance to W3C has been the cause of their downfall. It’s interesting how far we’ve come since this article was written, but the author uncannily predicted a number of developments and I am glad, as I am sure is she, that the W3C standards have stuck around.