Yes, it’s as you say: we need nice, stable, open standards for any work we do. We are beholden to our taxpayers to ensure that our output is available to all, regardless of what browser they use and whether or not they also use screen readers or magnifiers or speech synthesis. We also need to do our work so that it doesn’t have to be redone all the time to use the Stupid Web Trick du jour, or to recover from having done so before. We have about 350,000 pieces of content (not including navigation pages!) on Mass.gov – whimsy is not very attractive.

But there’s more. We don’t use HTML just for “websites”. HTML is becoming the standard interface for our mission critical applications. Despite efforts to keep the presentation separate from the business logic, there is always some markup that gets muddled in with the business logic, where it is risky to make changes.

From an overall IT perspective, web pages are just another source of data, so we are interested in metadata standards that will work with them as well as with more structured applications.

Indeed, the impression that I get is that HTML5 is being crafted with the bespoke, stand-alone website in mind, and perhaps won’t speak to the other, more utilitarian uses of HTML.

If it doesn’t meet legal and practical needs, it’s unlikely to be adopted as a government standard, and what good is a specification that governments and large corporations can’t use?

I have a specific case, a painter’s portfolio. There’s a point at which the accessibility is impacted by the subject matter of the site. That’s what I referred to. Titles and alt tags and tabindices, etc, aside… nothing would deliver the paintings to absolutely everyone.

I’ve also worked both sides of the street (being an independant consultant for approximately 7 years before landing at Stanford 3.5 years ago), and I’m not suggesting that one side is better than the other. I loved being my own boss, and was doing some significant work consulting to the Canadian Federal Government before moving to California, but I also expeienced the roller-coaster reality of the ‘financial’ part of being self-employed. I’d do it again, but am happy where I am now too.

I say ‘bigger dream’ in the context that Andy has achieved a level of success that many others aspire to; he’s earned it, I do not begrudge him of it. But by the same token, there *is* a difference between my fictional civil servant and “…a small web site design studio, …[that has] built an enviable worldwide reputation” (that BTW is a dream worth working towards)

I do take umbridge with your comment (colored as it were by my specialty and focus) that “There are cases where it (accessibility) is less applicable”. Never! Accessibility must be foundational, and it should be every users right to access your (or your client’s) content equitably – not identically, but certainly equitably! In that I will never back down .

The ‘beef’ (and I am still working on a larger reponse to you outside of this thread) is that there is currently a split that is growing wider every day between the vision and implementation of HTML5, and who, actually, decides what is the Standard, and what is being proposed as part of the Standard. There are currently 2 versions of the HTML5 specification – versions that differ in many ways (and both, it should be noted, not yet codified as being ’stable’, although aspects of both are supported in the majority of the browsers). Which one should you (will you) use?

And herein is my overall complaint with Andy’s blog post. While designers and developers today should keep abreast of emergent technologies, they should also be focused on the Standards process, not dismiss it as “…generals play(ing) with toy soldiers…” and advocating “…using HTML5, CSS3 or indeed any other tool that makes ours, our clients and lives of people who use the web sites and applications that we make better.” Which version of HTML5? W3C’s or WHAT WG’s? If you use <video> how will you provide captions? If you use <canvas> how will non-sighted users interact with your content? Rushing headlong into HTML5 because industry thought leaders are suggesting that it’s OK, and to ignore the Standards process in favor of immeadiate results and solutions is short-sighted, fool-hardy and ultimately damaging – not to mention it might also make your work of this month completely obsolete by December. Are you really willing to take that risk?

If you are prepared to see your work as temporal as a Sand Mandala, then by all means explore the richness that HTML5 is offering. However if what you want is content “…that will also stand the test of time and be useful for a decade or so” then tread lightly and with a serious ‘heads-up’ approach. And if you want both worlds, be concerned and involved in the Standards creation process – believe it or not it’s more than just generals and toy soldiers. It’s people like you and me too.

Corp workers mistakenly view non-corp workers as having achieved the “bigger” dream. It’s not like that, in fact. The difficulties of a non-corp career are multifold. It’s not what you may imagine. Boy, oh, boy, it isn’t… (ouch! from me from my recent experiences).

Accessibility should be a part of specs and always a thought in design processes. There are cases where it it is less applicable, though. Creativity is what may allow us to best provide for it, though.

Specifically, in HTML5, what are the beefs?

But those that are inspired by you, and strive to follow in your footsteps must understand that our industry is not always glamorous, exciting and creative; sometimes you have to use the tool-set for more mundane but equally important work. They should care about standards building, not dismiss them as impediments to progress and creativity – collectively we are the guardians of this open source wonder that is the web. And I believe that this message should be heard as well. As the title of this blog entry notes, Standards are not just Stuff and Nonsense.

You so you know, My earning potential is linked only to the hours I can stay awake, with no guarantee of a salary, sick pay, holiday pay or other benefits. I have a mortgage, bills to pay, an eighteen-year old to pay through university for the next four years and no pension, or retirement plan at all, and no savings.

Every project has different parameters, and sometimes we can adopt certain techniques, and sometimes we can’t. I don’t see why there can’t be a variety of offerings in the specs and I definitely do not believe that corporations should have an impact on what is offered, a say, certainly, but not remove things that may provide advancements. I am naive, and I think I will always be. A bit too Pollyanna optimistic, if I do say so myself. We need the best possible tools in our arsenal in order to deliver the best possible deliverables, within schedule and on-budget, that will also stand the test of time and be useful for a decade or so.

I’ve spent 15 years contracting in so many environments — design agencies, corporate publishing and financial institutions, etc. I understand the corporate environment with the proprietary software, but I also don’t think we should keep quiet and allow that incompetency to persist. Many employees have equity in the place they are employed. They are tied to the success of the business, whether it is the retirement funds, the daily job, or the resume attribution. If we don’t speak up and share info, we are not good at our work.

Andy’s role in the web design community is multi-fold. He’s one of us, running his own shop and working with his own clients. He is also an inspirational educator, holding the lantern on possible ways forward — no one needs to use all of his suggestions, but he explores them, shares them, (adds to his income), and inspires others to explore. There’s always a possibility that the techniques can be available for those with the modern browser, but elegantly degrade for other browsers. Certainly it would impact a brand if the degraded version was crap — but that’s our job as designers/developers to know what to do and when.

I’m disappointed to find that corporations are controlling the reins of the W3C and the standards projects. It’s frustrating enough trying to manage all the different proprietary issues out there, for example – video, without having to declare things a multitude of times for each of the different proprietary browser (CSS3 declarations x3 is annoying the piss out of me). And that’s just one thing.

Web standards should be about setting quality as the goal, without all this pandering to “the man.” “The man” should realize it is in his best interest for the code to be clean, and that the value in their product should be in the talent inherent in it, something that cannot be copied. Accessibility, scalability, and the ability to update quickly/easily/cheaply — those should be the benchmarks.

I hope I made some sense. I’m tired and my brain didn’t stop thinking about this last night, so I’m not certain that I’m clear. It’s a bit disappointing because at midnight last night I had all this passion and clarity, and now I’m just wiped.

@bruce – right! I was actually thinking of guys like you when I wrote this post; I was also recalling my days as a consultant to the Canadian Federal Government, and work I was involved with for a major Canadian Bank. I too have the scars of frustration.

@Bud Gibson – while I currently work in an academic environment, I’ve also had years of experience outside of Stanford. I’m all for teaching students (especially CS Students) to stretch for the next boundary; those students also must learn that the web is *NOT* just technology, it’s an entire ecosystem that has massive impact on our society. It’s way more than just the inane “cool, HTML5 is gonna kill off Flash…” comments that populate blogs and the twitter-sphere, and the bureaucracy that those pups rail against is a reality that they *MUST* acknowledge and accept. (When I was in my 20’s I thought I had the world by it’s tail too!)

One remark. You’re obviously speaking from a production perspective in academia. In terms of producing students, they have to know about what’s at the edge. In terms of research, people need to be creating the edge.

Therefore, I hear you, mate, I hear you!