Support your Independent Thinkers
Recently there’s become a trendy line both in accessibility and general best practice web design that runs along these lines - people are now educated about the web, people now understand the concepts of computers and therefore the web, people have been on the web now for over a decade, and ultimately people aren’t our responsibility (such as text resizing) when it comes to features either available in the web browser or which should be available in the web browser.
Why is this the trendy line? Personality. Or rather the cult of personality. If someone famous says something there tends to be a standardista line of acceptance that asserts it must be true or guru so-and-so wouldn’t have said it. The line between fact and opinion is a mighty blurry world. Matt Robin recently had some issues with other standardistas on a recent WaSP (Web Standards Project) post for being an independent thinker in the flock. I’m not sure where exactly I stand in that conversation but its because Matt stood to question the issue in detail that made me think about it at all. Independent thinkers should be encouraged not rebuked.
Not supporting independent thinkers who continually question is one of the problems I have seen for a long time with the standardista movement. Don’t get me wrong as I consider myself one of them. But you have to admit there is something familiarly incorrect about following one’s leaders blindly. Independent thinkers may not always be right but its still important to support their investigation rather than quoting some author as if their words were proposed on the mount.
Now go back and reread the first paragraph. Reconcile those first statements with the overall goal of universal accessiblity. Or even just accessibility for blind people. Even accessibility just for me. Think about it. Independently ask yourself if all people are really aware of their browser features or even care. Should they have to? Should I, as the recent line of thought suggests, refuse to provide text resizing options simply because its a browser feature and people should be educated nowdays? Hey the web is over a decade old now.
Taken further that line could suggest that I should use pixel values for font sizing now and people should know how to install the Flash plugin - after all this new average user is awesomely sophisticated (yes sarcasm is in there).
What about accessibility for the cognitively disabled who might benefit from a visual cue or ambient signifier? What about the millions of people every day using the web for the first time ever? What about all the people who only use the web as a casual way to receive email or check out a cake recipe?
Or is it accessibility for the web developer nowdays? That’s a serious question. Maybe a lot of people need to leave their computers and meet some average people. Even some poor people or illiterate people or anyone not one of us. Does that make any sense?
Seriously. The average web user is not you. Stop attributing your skills in Information Technology to the average user. Matt Robin had a good example in an email on the weekend where he mentioned his work involves providing technical support on these kinds of things to users. They’re architects - CAD users - and other technical people and they still don’t know basic functions of the browser or even technical terms of our field. How the hell can you expect the average user to know?
So my point. Just because its the party line that some things are right does not make it so. As standardistas your job is also to investigate, question and come up with your own ideas and solutions. Put them forward and if they are right be prepared to stand your ground. If they are wrong then discuss and accept compromise where its warranted. Just don’t tell me someone famous told you on their blog because that’s personal opinion not fact.
I haven’t named or linked to high profile standardistas in this article because I simply don’t need the flames in emails that accompany such assertions. Take from it what you will. And be prepared to think outside the square when someone tells you to rename your Accessibility Statement to Site Help. What could be the problem with measuring the click-through of those two links to the same resource as an equal product of effectiveness? For example, if ten times as many people clicked Site Help then ask yourself what’s wrong and don’t just assert Site Help is a better name for an Accessibility Statement. Just because someone famous tells you.
Say after me - Support your Independent Thinkers!
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
I’m humbled mate, cheers for the kind words.
As you know, I’m strongly in favour of Web Standards, but I had to speak-up and make my points heard about the E-mail Standards Project because I could just see that no one else was going to. Like you say: a bit of a ’sheep’ mentality was going on. I’ll accept that the manner of my comments in that post were a ‘bit’ direct (’terse’ even, as someone rightly commented) - which may have raised tempers - and I’m sure many people would disagree with what I had to say…but I wasn’t going to sit on my hands, nod my head, and just go along with it because the words ‘Standards’ and ‘Project’ were being thrown about! I had to stop posting replies to that article in the end because it was all getting a bit flame-like and people weren’t really reading my replies all that carefully (needing me to repeat myself once too often).
I appreciate you acknowledging my effort Steven.
Side note: Those users that I support, that you refer to - the ones that have trouble with some of the browser functions are usually the exception, and they are all very patient people who I’m always happy to help out.
I have to state that quite quickly! hehehe
(The example is still a good one because it highlights how not everyone is as familiar with web-browser usage despite their skills with other computer applications).
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Cheers matt. I mentioned the users you support simply because they are a good example of what one would meet even in a professional technical environment. On the other hand would architects expect you to understand CAD software - its been around a while, you do use a computer etc.
A client, for example, who is an environmental consultant (only representative example) might have little use for the web. He would do a lot of soil analysis and field work and report writing and scientific assessment procedures. Why would I expect them to therefore use the web? People don’t surf anymore they go online to fulfill functions. That’s my point I think. Computer proliferation and web use do not for everyone go hand in hand. Just as I don’t know every advanced Office 2007 feature simply because I work in IT and go to uni.
So in short the assumption is flawed in my opinion… I wouldn’t suggest there is anything less capable about someone not being familiar with web technologies (unless of course they run a web firm and produce table layouts with a specialty in spacer gifs lol)…
Mmm flames are interesting because although you felt you were a little terse you might go back and look at what was said and in the manner it was said which led to your terseness. I think you responded quite fairly and humanly under the circumstances.
Anyway that’s all a bit of a side issue. Mainly I just want to highlight the value of independent thought to web standards. Best practice is a moving bar entirely because of independent analysis and someone asking why is that so.
Maybe it deserves a micro site. The problem is there is a stage where people take on board web standards then get caught up in the black and white of it all - like expecting that Mrs Dobbs sewing blog not use unsightly green text on a red background. Let mrs dobbs go I say, how much traffic would be going there? Nope some would email mrs dobbs and call her an idiot and she’d be scratching her head. I’ve done similar things myself, don’t get me wrong, but hopefully I’m getting a little bigger as a person than that.
Yes I think the example is brilliant. I even know web developers who don’t know windows shortcut keys (that would be me) and many more who don’t know simple things like where to find meta tags and even that you can use ems to size your text.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I also think within your comments there were some valid points… what I took away were the following:
Should HTML email even be a web standard? Not the question should it render consistently if its possible, that’s a given, but should it be a ‘web standard’? That might be open for debate. You see HTML happens to ‘be’ a standard already and its not about making a new HTML like for example XHTML-MP. Its about getting some independent software developers to conform consistently. So the naming of the Email Standards Group might be misaligned in the hope to capture the attention of the Web Standards Group, which they did.
Next, I took away from the conversation the suggestion of alternatives. That’s actually an interesting discussion which I’m probably not qualified even to offer a reasonable opinion on. But its valid. If there are already valid ways that this can be achieved - within reason - then should the web standards community be putting their back behind something simply to appease marketers? Valid point. Any time we use the defence that ‘most people do it’ we have to admit most people use font tags and misuse DOCTYPES and so forth. Therefore the validity of the web standards movement must avoid at all costs following the crowd of ‘most people do it that way’.
Also, and I had never thought of this before, should everything be open to standardisation? I mean this isn’t a W3C initiative but another independent group (re: HTML 5) looking at a pseudo standard which they hope will then be incorporated into the W3C at a later date. Maybe. And don’t get me wrong I condone the effort of these guys but it does not negate from Matt’s comments.
The important thing is to actually take in things like this and then independently think. Just like many brains can be smarter than one brain you’ll find history shows that nothing is as dumb as a crowd. So that’s my tale. Be cautious. Be courteous. Be mindful. And dare to be one who irreverantly questions.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hi Steven,
Glad to see this post here. I just want to point out something - nobody is upset at Matt for ‘being an independent thinker’. I don’t happen to agree with his points, but he is totally entitled to disagree with mine too.
It’s good that there should be this discussion, but on all sides people need to pay attention to what is actually being said, and I think Matt was not quite grasping our main point.
You say:
this isn’t a W3C initiative but another independent group (re: HTML 5) looking at a pseudo standard which they hope will then be incorporated into the W3C at a later date. Maybe.
I think you might be misinterpreting the project a bit. This is not at all about creating a new standard, it’s about recognising that HTML is not only delivered through the web to browsers, but also being delivered via email to inboxes.
You can have your own opinions about whether that is a good thing or not, but there is no denying that it is happening. Given that, doesn’t it just make sense that browsers and email clients should render the core HTML and CSS in the same way?
That’s all we are trying to achieve, not to create anything new or be a part of W3C. We’re not even encouraging more people to use HTML in email! Just to improve the situation for those who are sending it and receiving it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hi Mathew, I don’t mean at all to pull away from the fact that there is a business case for having across the board rendering of HTML emails… more that the naming of the Email Standards Project does kind of push the ‘web standards’ barrow. There is no denying the choice of name was meant to closely ally the project with W3C and WaSP to some degree. Which is a good thing from a marketing perspective, don’t get me wrong. But it also opens a can of worms about the relationship between those goals and responsibilities of WaSP etc in relation to email. Therefore its logical that there are underlying issues with whether or not its a ‘web standardisation’ or something else. Neither is a bad thing and to be honest I can see a little of both sides in the conversation.
I think to a great extent the Email Standards Group are independent thinkers too. And we need more people looking for new ways to approach old problems. You have seen a problem and been proactive knowing that not everyone will agree with your views. I think those who I would regard as sheepish, and there are a lot out there, are the ones who read something on Molly or WaSP and its a given law. We need that devils advocate to be out there to keep us on the right track. What we thought for example about accesskeys say 3 years ago might have changed somewhat because a few independent thinkers investigated and asked is that correct?
I really wouldn’t take any criticism too much to heart Mathew. I don’t think its criticism of you or your abilities or intentions. But I have gotten a lot out of the conversation from both sides.
For example, say if your group had have been called the Email Consistent Delivery Group. I’m not sure there would be much of an issue. Same intention and same audience. But then the link between standardistas hardcore ideals (via W3C and WaSP etc) would not be that relevant to the conversation. By titling as the Email Standards Project then naturally the standardista hardcore ideals do have a place. That was my point.
Look keep on doing what you’re doing, its fine. It would be good to get some consistency if that is at all possible among players with mostly far smaller budgets than browser manufacturers I’d expect. I just think in all things the people with something to say need to be accepted and I’m really referring to those standardista sheep who will send flaming emails off comment calling people a dumb ass etc… oh I’ve had my share too lol…
I’m like a lot of people who will be eager to see how your project fares Mathew. Good luck with it. Its always better to be talked about than not talked about.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I should point out that the article itself wasn’t actually about Matt - although he was an example - or the Email Standards Project.
It was very much about the statements in the very first paragraph related to accessibility and best practice web design. I can see I’ll have to rewrite and post a more succinct version sometime soon.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
[...] « Support your Independent Thinkers [...]