|
|
Posted by Jim Higson on 11/25/05 16:35
Travis Newbury wrote:
> Jim Higson <jh@333.org> said:
>> I don't think this is about developers as much as the people who
>> pay for the sites. Most people commissioning a site don't know
>> anything about web standards, so with no increased payout for
>> creating quality there's no incentive for the web developers to
>> improve their sites.
>
> So you believe the demand is more or less caused by the marketing
> departments (they are the people that"pay" for the sites) driving
> web development.
Pretty much. If web design companies are paid just the same for a broken
site, what incentive for their managers to spend money to train their staff
to make fixed ones? Web design is pretty much a free market afterall, a
buyer who doesn't insist on quality standards gets the site they deserve.
Also, CSS makes sites easier for other people to take over and add content
to a site in future... maybe that's a disincentive to use it if you want
keep a contract to maintain the site.
> I also lean that way.
> But I also think people
> are accepting or god forbid enjoying it. Especially if they have
> broadband.
This raises an interesting question: if most people enjoy the most sites I'd
consider broken, maybe the market is functioning correctly by giving them
what they want? The point of the site wasn't to be discussed highly on
alt.html afterall.
And I suppose there's nothing wrong with Flash etc in the right place... I
could point to sites I've created that use Flash, but if the user doesn't
have it they get almost the same experience (and no nagging message to
install it!)
There's a difference between writing invalid HTML and using non-universal
file formats on the web.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|