Personally I have no problem with adapting web sites and their size for smaller screens. To me, web standards etc is the important part. Besides, iPhone’s market share as of now is basically nothing compared to all different web browsers available in all kinds of cell phones out there.

Thanks!

Thanks for your comment.

As a Project Manager, you’ll never get me promising that adhering to web standards will ensure a site works in all browsers

It’s hard to ensure or give a 100% guarantee that it would work in all web browsers, but it’s the closest you can get and the best approach available.

In the end, of course, it depends on the customer and their needs. If there exists such a test list in the project that the client wants guaranteed, that gets highest priority.

But they way I see it, when you start developing a new web site, there’s no good reason to stay away from semantics and following web standards either.

I would state that adhering to *current* web standards will allow us to begin to address cross-browser functionality (always agreeing a policy of ‘graceful degradation’).

A comprehensive test list would be agreed and stuck to. If that test list holds IE (v6) only, then so be it. It still has to be XHTML or HTML strict etc- we validate HTML first and CSS second (if the CSS cannot be valid in order to work on a variety of browsers, then that too is agreed with the client).

It’s a question of quality. If your PM doesn’t care about the intergral quality of the product, then they don’t know their arse from their elbow (as we say in the UK).

> But, I wouldn’t tell the managing people all this. Ask them what are next years training goals in the webdesign department…

Thanks for pointing that out.

Ben,

Search engine optimization is definitely important and a business aspect that might convince them. Also, nice sentence…

But I wouldn’t agree that it’s only about future compatibility with web standards; if it’s a web site that’s supposed to work in a number of web browsers on several platforms, web standards would be their most safe bet to accomplish that.

And when it comes to using font tags, that would definitely have a direct impact on the project and the manageability of pages and their look (as compared to using CSS from the beginning).

A lot of managers don’t care about humans, but they do know they want to be in Google.

I try to avoid saying “you’ll save money with web standards” since most savings are future-based savings, about which project managers care not a bit. They only care about build cost; so if you’ve got a bunch of font-tagging, table-nesting old-schoolers on your team, you’re not going to save by retraining them into web standards methodologies.

siftee said: if ff is such a great browser why does this code break…

I guess because FF gets the standard float model right.

Read a bit and think about it, and maybe try this approach:

.box1{
width:200px;
height:200px;
background-color:red;
float:left;
}
.box2{
/*width:200px;*/
height:200px;
background-color:black;
}
.box3{
width:200px;
height:200px;
background-color:blue;
float:left;
}
.box4{
/*width:200px;*/
height:200px;
background-color:green;
}


But, I wouldn’t tell the managing people all this. Ask them what are next years training goals in the webdesign department…

cheers.

Interesting way of putting it!

My hope is that it shouldn’t matter if web standards are vested or not, but that the people responsible will connect the term web standards with, as you said, hearing the sizzle that makes them feel content, calm and positive.

siftee,

Well, that depends on the HTML, doesn’t it?

But point is, even if I do think that Firefox is a very competent web browser, it doesn’t matter if you have an example of something that would break in Firefox (or in any other web browser).

As mentioned in the post, every web browser do have flaws, but the best way to make sure things work is following web standards (which this whole thing is about, not about promoting a certain web browser).

.box1{
width:200px;
height:200px;
background-color:red;
float:left;
}
.box2{
width:200px;
height:200px;
background-color:black;
}
.box3{
width:200px;
height:200px;
background-color:blue;
float:left;
}
.box4{
width:200px;
height:200px;
background-color:green;
}

…

Faruk: You’re right to talk ROI, but that might be too narrow. Maybe his hot-button is impressing the CEO with his acumen, or the cute typist with his aura of power.

Two great sales adages are, “sell the sizzle, not the steak” and “talk benefits, not features”. Nobody wants the flesh of a cow that’s been dead for weeks, but they want the sound of the sizzle, mouth-watering aroma, and the wonderful taste. The same applies to features and benefits. For every mention of a feature, “this is valid html4 strict”, give him ten benefits. Don’t talk about a soft mattress, talk about the restful sleep. Pound on the benefits; he’ll make right associations just fine.

Folks buy in for what it’ll do for them.

Absolutely, the ones making the business decisions have no need to know the details of it. They should just know that things should always be done according to web standards, and this will in turn lead to all the pros mentioned above.

But the one/-s in charge of the web developers should be aware of how the job is supposed to be done, and then make sure that this is followed through.

However, I don’t know if/how often this actually happens in real life…

But you’re right, if there wasn’t such a crappy job done the first time …

To me it should go in the same sentence.

Since you were feisty enough to mention my experience above, I’ll rebut with that from my experience it’s important to present it together.

If I would only sell it to them with arguments like more money earned, lower developing time/costs etc, without mentioning web standards, and then deliver just that, they would be happy.

But next time they would run into the same situation, they would say:

Robert can make it work in all web browsers, while keeping the developing time and costs down

instead of

Using web standards will make it work in all web browsers, while keeping the developing time and costs down

Sure, good for me as a consultant, but I want to hammer it in that following web standards is the key.

I’m not saying that any of your arguments are wrong, not saying that it’s the wrong approach.

As stated above, I suggest saying the term in conjunction with all those arguments. Hell, use them in the same sentence if you’re afraid of them sensing out.

Thing is, I think managers sense that out and stop listening if you come with terms they don’t know yet in the first bit of the conversation. That’s my experience, anyway, and it’s also what I’ve seen happen from other people’s experiences (including yours, above)

Över 4000(!) minnesläckor i Safari har tätats till den senaste veckan, vilket låter som en otrolig mängd.. Ser fram emot Safari 2.1 iaf. I ett något relaterat inlägg läser jag till min förskräckelse h…