Evolutionary Standardistas
Do you remember when you discovered the awesomeness of creating web pages? For me it was about six years ago and my first foray with the web was The Idiots Guide to Creating Web Pages – ewww, too right. It was about the time I enrolled in a Bachelor of Computing at university, and I’d also enrolled in a Certificate 4 in Website Design at TAFE College. The teacher of that course, Mike Marinos, was a Web Standardista.
So my discovery of Web Standards was spoon fed from Mike through exposure to a huge number of resources that espoused a radical and unpopular theory – web pages should be quality products. While the web is a robust medium it doesn’t mean we should just create any old crap that works; we were all talking scientifically and justifying the business case (yes, I got caught up in it quite fast).
With revolution comes a certain passion. Web Standardistas seem to start out with a devout dogmatic passion of the inquisition to drag down and burn all the non-conforming everybody they can get there hands on. Right answers and wrong answers are black and white in that stage of the (R)evolution. I think we can all see a cringe-worthy moment from our past in that picture. At some point we commented on someone’s website telling them they were crap at their job. In fact, I’ve had a smattering of faymus web standards names tell me over the years, here and on other incarnations of this blog, that I’m a dumb anti-christ fucker upper of HTML and other sundry technologies… for example, John Oxton of the Rissington Podcast simply commented that the site was fucked. Brilliant. Take a lollypop and fuck off home, I guess… oh those were joyous times…
The next step of the evolution of a Standardista comes with a realisation of the true depth of the issues. There isn’t one way to do something in every situation. At this point it’s apparent that while we’re trying so hard to be perfect, and we actually know how to write POSH (Plain Old Semantic HTML) markup, there’s always something in our work that falls short of the ideal. Compromise exists. In our criticisms we move from the words must not ever to the words should not if possible.
The next step again in the evolution of a Standardista is maturation, the pragmatic stage. It’s a little less passionate. It’s a whole lot more effective. In the maturation stage the objective is to create working solutions within the constraints of real world problems (as opposed to idealic theories) and the medium for this embraces compromise. You simply cannot be all things to all people, and neither can your web application / page / widget / thingey. At this stage you might better appreciate the business case and the goals and objectives in the world of your client.
Another way of looking at these three phases are to replace them with the words ‘intolerance’, ‘intelligence’, and ‘creative compromise’. At stage two you’re aware of compromise; but at stage three it’s a part of your determination to be a better web professional. Web Standards aren’t about any one thing in isolation at the cost of everything else. But they’re about building web products in the best way possible – cutting edge professional products.
However, don’t mistake that third phase for the lack of an ability to provide valid critique and input into the conversation. That’s another story entirely.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Well said, well said. I went through the same stages myself. Being critical of whoever didn’t follow standards rigorously (ideals shall prevail!) to a more pragmatic approach (ok, we need to deliver something on time).
Our world imposes certain limitations on us and we have learned a thing or two about compromise and the all-important revelation that being a kind, patient negotiator achieves better results than being an rude, obnoxious zealot.
I guess this is what youngsters call “selling out,” hmmm… I’d say something about them knowing when they are our age, but I like young people being non-conformist, feisty and rebellious. After all, that’s the only way they’ll be able to walk what we walked and then go further. Plus it gives me a good excuse to shake my cane at them
Not that we need to stop walking now, no way! Just that we have learned enough to be more strategic about the fights we fight. And letting those snotty kids fight the other fights
April 25th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
One of the most influential people in my reassessment of design (with a Big D) was actually Microsoft’s Bill Buxton. Design is the art of compromise… and while I try my best to make all things perfect there just isn’t a perfect to be had. If there was a perfect solution to be had it would come in a box and we’d be out of a job. There’s a business bottom line, and trade-off’s between functionality and technical perfection. CMS’s are a prime example – do we just write our own because something we are forced to use trashes ampersands?
But we get better at understanding, and the more we understand the better we get at providing better solutions. The more different situations we get exposed to then the more options we realise are available “within the spirit of Web Standards”. Zeldman has a lot to say along those lines, too.
Of course, I do know somewhere out there is a fourth and fifth stage but who knows if I’ll get out there Roberto… it’s like Star Trek lol…
A cane will do me no good this afternoon. It’s ANZAC Day so off to the RSL Club for some beers, part of which will be donated to Legacy.I’m not sure I’ve exactly sold out though… but yeh maybe. Too old and tired now, picking my fights a little better. Although it frustrates the hell out of me working with anyone who can’t write decent HTML.
I got a lecture from a young guy last year about the way I was treating image links. Actually, yes he was right. And I’ve altered my approach.
April 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Never did get out that door for those beers… such is the nature of work