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

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

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?

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

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
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

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?

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
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

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
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

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

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.

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.

Published in: State of the Web

by Molly E. Holzschlag

Better Writing Through Design

Good web design has a signature style: It’s approachable, it,s easy to understand, and it packs enough punch to catch the roving eye of even the most mercurial user. Web designers know this doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of a finely honed process that asks—and answers—important questions about a site’s intended audience. You might call it “visual language” or “design vernacular.” Either way, what you find in a truly good design is a unique perspective. A point of view. A voice.

It’s no accident that we use such language-based terms to describe effective design on the web. The web is all about communication—from the position of a navigation element to the size and shape of a button, every detail furthers the conversation. So how is it that the very foundation of the web, written text, has taken a strategic back seat to design?

You do research. You devise tack-sharp strategy. You sweat the details. All to create a design that truly speaks to your user. Does your copy do the same? Apply a design process to your words as well as your images and you just may find your voice.
Say it, don’t display it

It’s one thing to write copy that fits on a website. It’s quite another to write copy that fits in with a website. You wouldn’t try to force an incongruous visual element into a carefully considered design. Same goes for written content. Even if you’ve wisely designed a site around the content it delivers, written copy may fit neatly physically but still ring false to the intended audience.

Ideally, you should work with a writer from day one to design the voice of the copy in conjunction with the visual language of the site. And getting a writer involved early can help you solve lots of other problems—from content strategy issues to information architecture snags. Remember that writers are creatives too, and they are, in many cases, the keepers of the content your design ultimately serves.

If you simply don’t have the resources to hire a writer, you’ll have to keep an ear on the language yourself. This is where the user experience research you did way back in the design concept phase comes back into play. It helps you design your words.
Make personas more grata

You remember those burning questions. The ones you ask yourself every time you kick off a new project. They probably go a little something like this:

* Who’s visiting this site?
* What does she want to know?
* What does he want to do?

If you’ve ever worked with them before, you know how invaluable user personas can be to answering these questions. Maybe they’re not of the fake-name-and-glossy-headshot variety, but even the most rudimentary personas (i.e., “my mom” or “the skeptic”) transform your audience into real human beings. Human beings with day jobs, complicated espresso beverage orders, and no time to waste looking for things instead of finding them.

In a sense, you create characters from these personas. Establish what your characters will respond well to, build in contingencies for second- and third-tier players, and you move closer to an effective design. Not coincidentally, effective storytelling works much the same way. It demonstrates how different characters respond in different ways to the same situation. The only thing missing from this analogy is a narrator. Time to write yourself into the story.
Call me Ishmael

Ask people why they love the stories they do, and you often hear the same response: “I really identify with the characters.” Create a persuasive voice for your website by giving your users someone to identify with: A first-person “narrator” with a distinct yet welcoming personality. Developing this personality shouldn’t be too difficult. You did the heavy lifting when you created your original user personas. Now you just need to create one more.

First, try adding these to your list of questions:

* How do I want to make this user feel?
* How would I carry on a face-to-face conversation with him?

Then imagine your target persona’s peer. Someone who shares her interests and speaks with her, not at her. A professional video editor. A fellow foodie. A sports car enthusiast. That’s who you’ll channel to find your voice during the next step in the design process: Brainstorming.
Sing in the rain

Ah, that magical moment when Moleskines reach capacity, people pass out from dry-erase fumes, and there are no bad ideas (except for that one…). The time-honored brainstorming session (even confined to one brain), helps you build design concepts around strategy. No reason your copy can’t come along for the ride.

While you’re sketching designs, jot down a quote or two. Collect tear sheets of words as well as images. Shoot rough video of someone you think would make the perfect spokesperson. Remember that by introducing your narrator persona, you’re creating an expert peer your users will come back to for advice, information, and inspiration. That’s worth spending some time on. It also makes the actual business of copywriting much easier. Learn the language, then tell your story—not the other way around.
Work on your dialogue

Design a voice for your site and you do more than make words and images play nice. You engage your users in a discussion you both want to carry on. So if you find yourself laboring to craft the perfect written sentence, improvise. Speak what you want to say, then write it. Email it to a colleague. Chat it. Text it.

Great web design reflects the way we interact, and the primary vehicle for that interaction remains text. We share, we chat, we comment, we tag, and we do it all via the written word. The web is One Big Conversation. Let’s talk.

by Bronwyn Jones
* Published in: Writing *

Understanding Web Design

We get better design when we understand our medium. Yet even at this late cultural hour, many people don’t understand web design. Among them can be found some of our most distinguished business and cultural leaders, including a few who possess a profound grasp of design—except as it relates to the web.

Some who don’t understand web design nevertheless have the job of creating websites or supervising web designers and developers. Others who don’t understand web design are nevertheless professionally charged with evaluating it on behalf of the rest of us. Those who understand the least make the most noise. They are the ones leading charges, slamming doors, and throwing money—at all the wrong people and things.

If we want better sites, better work, and better-informed clients, the need to educate begins with us.

Preferring real estate to architecture

It’s hard to understand web design when you don’t understand the web. And it’s hard to understand the web when those who are paid to explain it either don’t get it themselves, or are obliged for commercial reasons to suppress some of what they know, emphasizing the Barnumesque over the brilliant.

The news media too often gets it wrong. Too much internet journalism follows the money; too little covers art and ideas. Driven by editors pressured by publishers worried about vanishing advertisers, even journalists who understand the web spend most of their time writing about deals and quoting dealmakers. Many do this even when the statement they’re quoting is patently self-serving and ludicrous—like Zuckerberg’s Law.

It’s not that Zuckerberg’s not news; and it’s not that business isn’t some journalists’ beat. But focusing on business to the exclusion of all else is like reporting on real estate deals while ignoring architecture.

And one tires of the news narrative’s one-dimensionalism. In 1994, the web was weird and wild, they told us. In ‘99 it was a kingmaker; in ‘01, a bust. In ‘02, news folk discovered blogs; in ‘04, perspiring guest bloggers on CNN explained how citizen journalists were reinventing news and democracy and would determine who won that year’s presidential election. I forget how that one turned out.

When absurd predictions die ridiculous deaths, nobody resigns from the newsroom, they just throw a new line into the water—like marketers replacing a slogan that tanked. After decades of news commoditization, what’s amazing is how many good reporters there still are, and how hard many try to lay accurate information before the public. Sometimes you can almost hear it beneath the roar of the grotesque and the exceptional.

The sustainable circle of self-regard

News media are not the only ones getting it wrong. Professional associations get it wrong every day, and commemorate their wrongness with an annual festival. Each year, advertising and design magazines and professional organizations hold contests for “new media design” judged by the winners of last year’s competitions. That they call it “new media design” tells them nothing and you and me everything.

Although there are exceptions, for the most part the creators of winning entries see the web as a vehicle for advertising and marketing campaigns in which the user passively experiences Flash and video content. For the active user, there is gaming—but what you and I think of as active web use is limited to clicking a “Digg this page” button.

The winning sites look fabulous as screen shots in glossy design annuals. When the winners become judges, they reward work like their own. Thus sites that behave like TV and look good between covers continue to be created, and a generation of clients and art directors thinks that stuff is the cream of web design.

Design critics get it wrong, too

People who are smart about print can be less bright about the web. Their critical faculties, honed to perfection during the Kerning Wars, smash to bits against the barricades of our profession.

The less sophisticated lament on our behalf that we are stuck with ugly fonts. They wonder aloud how we can enjoy working in a medium that offers us less than absolute control over every atom of the visual experience. What they are secretly asking is whether or not we are real designers. (They suspect that we are not.) But these are the juniors, the design students and future critics. Their opinions are chiefly of interest to their professors, and one prays they have good ones.

More sophisticated critics understand that the web is not print and that limitations are part of every design discipline. Yet even these eggheads will sometimes succumb to fallacious comparatives. (I’ve done it myself, although long ago and strictly for giggles.) Where are the masterpieces of web design, these critics cry. That Google Maps might be as representative of our age as the Mona Lisa was of Leonardo’s—and as brilliant, in its way—satisfies many of us as an answer, but might not satisfy the design critic in search of a direct parallel to, oh, I don’t know, let’s say Milton Glaser’s iconic Bob Dylan poster.

Typography, architecture, and web design

The trouble is, web design, although it employs elements of graphic design and illustration, does not map to them. If one must compare the web to other media, typography would be a better choice. For a web design, like a typeface, is an environment for someone else’s expression. Stick around and I’ll tell you which site design is like Helvetica.

Architecture (the kind that uses steel and glass and stone) is also an apt comparison—or at least, more apt than poster design. The architect creates planes and grids that facilitate the dynamic behavior of people. Having designed, the architect relinquishes control. Over time, the people who use the building bring out and add to the meaning of the architect’s design.

Of course, all comparisons are gnarly by nature. What is the “London Calling” of television? Who is the Jane Austen of automotive design? Madame Butterfly is not less beautiful for having no car chase sequence, peanut butter no less tasty because it cannot dance.

So what is web design?

Web design is not book design, it is not poster design, it is not illustration, and the highest achievements of those disciplines are not what web design aims for. Although websites can be delivery systems for games and videos, and although those delivery systems can be lovely to look at, such sites are exemplars of game design and video storytelling, not of web design. So what is web design?

Web design is the creation of digital environments that facilitate and encourage human activity; reflect or adapt to individual voices and content; and change gracefully over time while always retaining their identity.

Let’s repeat that, with emphasis:

Web design is the creation of digital environments that facilitate and encourage human activity; reflect or adapt to individual voices and content; and change gracefully over time while always retaining their identity.
She walks in beauty

Great web designs are like great typefaces: some, like Rosewood, impose a personality on whatever content is applied to them. Others, like Helvetica, fade into the background (or try to), magically supporting whatever tone the content provides. (We can argue tomorrow whether Helvetica is really as neutral as water.)

Which web design is like that? For one, Douglas Bowman’s white “Minima” layout for Blogger, used by literally millions of writers—and it feels like it was designed for each of them individually. That is great design.

Great web designs are like great buildings. All office buildings, however distinctive, have lobbies and bathrooms and staircases. Websites, too, share commonalities.

Although a great site design is completely individual, it is also a great deal like other site designs that perform similar functions. The same is true of great magazine and newspaper layouts, which differ from banal magazine and newspaper layouts in a hundred subtle details. Few celebrate great magazine layouts, yet millions consciously or unconsciously appreciate them, and nobody laments that they are not posters.

The inexperienced or insufficiently thoughtful designer complains that too many websites use grids, too many sites use columns, too many sites are “boxy.” Efforts to avoid boxiness have been around since 1995; while occasionally successful, they have most often produced aesthetically wretched and needlessly unusable designs.

The experienced web designer, like the talented newspaper art director, accepts that many projects she works on will have headers and columns and footers. Her job is not to whine about emerging commonalities but to use them to create pages that are distinctive, natural, brand-appropriate, subtly memorable, and quietly but unmistakably engaging.

If she achieves all that and sweats the details, her work will be beautiful. If not everyone appreciates this beauty—if not everyone understands web design—then let us not cry for web design, but for those who cannot see.

by Jeffrey Zeldman

* Published in: Creativity, Graphic Design, Industry, Layout, Politics and Money, State of the Web, Typography, User Interface Design