i·me·michael

The ongoing MeFi discussion regarding the WaSP’s decision to take a leave of absence.

My feeling is that the argument put forth by designers who are against the WaSP’s work regarding standards, seems to be about some percieved pontificating. They outright reject the ideas recommended by the WaSP for what seems to be no other reason than to say, “You don’t speak for me and my audience.”

Well true, the WaSP doesn’t speak for all designers. They have never claimed to. They have never come down from the mount with any sort of commandment and said that their recommendations should be implemented at all levels, by every designer working today. In an effort to help the web move forward, all that they have esentially asked is that designers step back and take a broader view. That they look at, understand, and implement where applicable, the current set of recommended standards. In some cases, this broader view might alienate some users. But it is up to the designer to decide if, or where and when, it is appropriate to alienate users.

Now by alienating users, this does not necessarily mean prohibiting users from accessing a site. Far from it. The only thing the WaSP recommendations could cause (unless you were to take it to extremes) by way of alienation is a less visually appealing design for users of older browsers. Properly structured, marked up and laid out, access to information remains unhindered, and the page will actually be available to a broader audience. Since certain presentational elements, that could prevent access to a site by some user agents, can be prevented from being served, the page becomes more inclusive by allowing the information to be accessed by a broader range of user than was previously possible. The argument that information becomes inaccessible falls apart at this point. The only thing that becomes inaccessible is the graphic presentation, and as I stated, if properly marked up and laid out, the page remains quite useable.

The next argument heard from the WaSP’s opposition is about forcing users to upgrade their bowsers. The WaSP has never advocated a forced upgrade of users. They have recommended user education by way of messages explaining that the user’s browser has proved to be unable to display the complete design. I see no reason to discredit this recommendation, since the web is an interactive medium, and user education is always a good thing. There really isn’t a good reason to start explaining about standards to the typical user, but explaining that his browser isn’t suited to a more refined experience on the web isn’t out of bounds in my opinion. Granted, they may not care, but if they don’t care (and your site is still useable, and information is not being held hostage), then that only leaves ego to care whether the graphic presentation gets seen or not. Wanting nearly everyone to gain the same experience from your work is ego. While user experience contributes to the usability of a site, designing useable sites should be the fundamental point. Yes, designers get paid for their expertise in wielding the tools of the web and doing it well. So that’s exactly the point. Use your expertise to design sites that ultimately are useable by everyone. They will still be experienced by the majority of users. It’s no less work than trying to get a layout to render the same in all browsers on all platforms. In fact it’s less work. Which brings me to my final point.

The last argument always seems to be that there is more coding, and hence more work involved in creating websites which adhere to standards. Flat out untrue. Sites that adhere to current W3C recommended standards, and which separate content from presentation, are cleaner, and are more easily parsed and rendered across a variety of user agents, and ultimately lighter in terms of bytes, which makes downloading the page easier on users with slow connections or modems. The usual work still applies. Preproduction and forethought about your audience and how best to present your information to your potential users. Designing with standards in mind presents no extra work except to the designer who has no experience working with the current standards.