More than Standards

Posted on January 23, 2003

in Commentary & Society

by Stephen Taylor (shifter)

Rated 2.62 (Ratings: 20) (Add your rating)

Want more?

More articles in Commentary & Society
More articles by shifter

Stephen Taylor

Member info | Full bio

User since: January 23, 2003

Last login: October 31, 2005

Articles written: 4

Most of us today can agree with standards and the topic of standards always draws up conversation. Some of us are still learning and growing accustomed to what is known as the standards.

However, it is not just standards that make today's web. The Internet is user-specific, not in the sense of browser types and screen resolutions; it is different for each of us. We view 'this site' everyday and we have a discussion at 'that site' every week. We do research 'here' and we search 'there'. And that is what makes the web what it is. It is the way the whole world can become connected instantly and it addresses everyone personally.

The CMS Battle

Great, that's all fine and dandy, right? So, what? Well, as developers we are all still getting used to the Internet. And as familiar as we all think we are, it seems that we are all lost.

Every day a new Content Management System (CMS or blog software) comes out because someone wants their's to be the best. If you surf over to sourceforge.net you'll find a sizeable list. It's great that we can all develop such interesting tools, but wouldn't it be even better if we all put our heads together to develop one CMS that has all the features we need? So many of these projects never get anywhere because it turns into yesterday's news. If we worked together as developers to a common goal, we could attain higher heights.

Better Yet

Such is an example over at Tangent.

Tangent is a centralized web service designed to link your journal site or weblog to other sites in random and exciting ways, based on your interests and preferences. It's like sex for Web sites.

It began in October of 2002. It mimics the idea of Smart Tags by Microsoft using technology like PHP. It's a nifty little add on that is popping up all over. It integrates with pMachine and Moveable Type, but is open-source and will soon be able to interact with other CMS utilities. How was it made? By a group of developers who got together for a common goal.

More Importantly

I feel we are all getting too concerned with our basics. The web is a free world we can all use and interact how we want. Too much time is spent worrying about the issues of development. Do we use CSS lists as our menus? Why isn't XHTML 2 going to be backward compatible? Should the web be accessible to all? Is open-source the only way?

All of these issues are important, but for those of us who code, we have bigger fish to fry. We need to think about pioneering new ideas, something like Tangent. And building the web in a better way, while not losing our standards, validation, and accessibility. Gone is that day that our new little splash page is the coolest thing around. However, we need to bring back that mentality of unique and emerging technology.

I know I am guilty of being too obsessed with my 'table-less' website with valid XHTML and CSS. Once again, that is important but it certainly doesn't make a website any better or cutting-edge than anyone else's. We need to push technology to be 'cutting-edge'.

When standards first became an issue, it was webstandards.org that got things rolling in the browser market. Now, we are looking towards XHTML 2.0, which is still in early in development. There is a lot of debate about how backward compatible it will be. And the Level 2 of the DOM has become a recommendation, which soon will mean better interaction with the browser.

New and exiting things are always coming and we should all try to keep intertwined with these things. The web is not owned by anyone, it is created by us for us. And if we want better things, we need to make them happen.

On With It

In review, I believe in standards (XHTML and CSS), validation of code, accessibility, and backward-compatibility. I think that these should be the backbone of anything in our work. However, I think we all need to take a chance and push technology. If we are all united in this approach, we can accomplish a great deal.

We are the future of the web and if we move it, it will go.

Stephen Taylor has studied at the International Academy of Design and Technology in Chicago. He also studied for a year at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. He is an intermediate developer who stays on top of emerging technology.

He is interested in web development and learning new things everyday. You'll find him working hard at Visual Echo Designs. Recent work includes American Home Mortgage and The Kuhn Agency. Find out a little more about this complex and exciting young man at his website.

11 comments on this article. Log in to add your comment | Rate this article:

About Tangent

Submitted by androse on January 25, 2003 - 15:49.

Interesting article, I agree with the fact that we all need to get over standards and continue to be creative with the web as a medum.

I didn't know about Tangent, so I went to see, and what they are doing scares me. Maybe I just don't understand, so please correct me if you think so. The richness of the web is the semantic links between documents. That is what Google works on, and that's why Google is so accurate and usefull. If everyone starts using auto-generated links in there content, then the semantic value is greatly reduced. I understand the links are generated against filters based on keywords and other criteria, but that is about as relevant as an Altavista search result in the 90's (remember those "12293483928 pages found" ?).

I understand that the point is to encourage "wandering" and random surfing. I prefer http://stumbleupon.com in that regard. So everyone can do as he likes, but what the blog movement gave in relevency to google, Tangent could take back.

Tangent

Submitted by shifter on January 25, 2003 - 16:54.

I agree, I only included Tangent in the article to show the power of develpers getting together to develop unique things.

Scary?

Submitted by endquote on January 27, 2003 - 23:27.

If Tangent ever became a force to be reckoned with, search engines and the like could easily filter out Tangent-created links. They all point back to tangent.cx, and they all have a "tl" css class applied to them, so they'd be easy to ignore.

I (the creator of Tangent - the "group" description above made me chuckle) would love it to facilitate a more semantic linking of sites, but until someone comes up with some text-processing that will reliably tell me what a page is about (or until Google wants to take over the project or donate some tech), there isn't really a good way to link things together both meaningfully and automatically.

Scary

Submitted by linaeri on January 28, 2003 - 11:38.

What exactly is it about Tangent that scares you? You are speaking as if Tangent is screwing up the balance of the universe.

Are you missing it?

Submitted by slholmes on January 28, 2003 - 12:35.

This is exactly what the W3C and other standards are all about. Lots and lots of people that are more into the development of the technology than you and I could ever hope to be are providing us all with the back bone to be more creative than your wildest imagination. I feel really bad that I started learning this stuff so many years after it had been invented (XHTML CSS XML, etc.) This stuff is AWESOME and I don't think you're looking at it the way the W3C intended. Take a look at some of the Accessability documents at their site. Read a couple of docs on interoperability there. You'll change your outlook completely and stop looking for the magic bullet secret sauce - it doesn't exist friend. What does exist is the consolidated wisdom of 100s of years worth of experience. There's much to learn! Hop to it.

Not to sound offensive but...

Submitted by notabene on January 29, 2003 - 09:10.

I don't understand the aim of this article.

I mean, in our field you can either use the technologies, or decide to belong in a project oriented towards this-or-that aspect of either developing or web-design or such-and-such. It's everybody's choice and it has been so for quite a time now.

But what I don't get is what point your article is trying to make, sorry if I sound offensive or stupid, which I am not (offensive, I mean, stupid being another thing entirely, eh eh). Can you explain?

The Point

Submitted by shifter on January 29, 2003 - 11:21.

The point of the articles is to stir a little dust among us. To cause us to take the tools we have (XHTML, CSS, standards) and do things that we used to. Design nifty gadgets, 'cross-browser' menus, etc. Pushing these new technologies to see what we can make. I feel that we are too content with just implementing our 'valid XHTML' and 'table-less' sites. Once we accomplish that we should press on to do something unique.

Now I see

Submitted by notabene on January 29, 2003 - 13:52.

You know what? You're right to stir, although some people still dig so much (see Peter-Paul Koch, Eric Meyer, etc). Good point then ;-)

Bigger fish to fry....

Submitted by dkr on February 5, 2003 - 16:24.

Oh man, while I enjoy the spirit of the article and I think the message comes from a good place I think there is a few wee bitty points here that are being missed.

When you say 'I feel we are all getting too concerned with our basics' - I think you need to step back a bit and think about that - especially the 'we' part.

Yes, you might have mastered XHTML and tableless CSS designs, but I assure you there are very many working Web developers out there who are still in 'the dark ages' as it were. There an also be a case made for when a developer, for various political or business reasons, needs to break from standards let alone try to innovate. Believe me over-engineering is rampant out there as it is.

You also forget to mention that many of us do this for a living. Many times the bottom-line trumps innovation (and sometimes it should) -- Tangent is pretty cool, I've been following it for awhile, but when it comes to professional Web development, I don't see much of a use for it. Do you?

Anyway - I enjoyed the piece and I admire your enthusiasm. Maybe I'm just cynical today, but I think for most of us, the bigger fish to fry are more like a pan full of minnows.

Would a client pay you to do that?

Submitted by MartinB on February 6, 2003 - 05:02.

Keith's entirely right. When you're developing professionally, you only get paid to do something if it addresses a client's business need. For some clients, perhaps Tangent does answer a business need, particularly on an intranet.

Remember that many clients think the same way as the advert: Cool is why my son needs new sneakers each month... Cool costs me money! Cool!

It's the same with a CMS. Unless you can develop a CMS to a level where you can sell it to clients above the many other fine CMSs out there - either paid or free - there's little point in developing a new one, except to be Cool. Which is great when you're doing it for fun and experience. But not professionally.

REAL standards for the rest of the world

Submitted by Satyendra_Durja... on July 31, 2003 - 14:51.

The truth is that Microsoft Internet Explorer is the only browser that supports non-Latin characters, and as with java, nobody is going to waste their time == rupees + ¥ downloading a beta == broken + bloated browsers like mozilla.

As more and more software companies know, the best software programmers/engineers are from India and other Asian countries, so all the hype & hoopla over the W3C’s Euro-racist minutiæ and so-called web “standards” is quite hilarious.

Start of page header

Other Fine Evolt.org Sites

Navigation Starts

Submit

Article Categories

Highest rated articles

Recent comments

Main Page Content