[thelist] Tip o'the day (x2)

[Jake Stetser]

Personally, I think a site properly designed using web standards means that
it:

1. Is _usable_ in its "perfect state" (browsers that support standards)
2. Is _usable_, even if not pretty, in browsers that do not support
standards.

Look at eBay - it's not "pretty," but every aspect of its design is useful
in some way. If a standards-compliant site degrades into a jumble of
unintelligible sections mishmashed every which way, you haven't done your
job.

The problem with not following standards is the amount of futzing you have
to do to support those older browsers, and there's that idea that it MUST
look the same even in those older browsers - which is why so much
conditional code and hacking around in HTML exists today. Why are we so bent
on being print designers? We're not print designers.

If, on the other hand, it degrades into an organized, understandable format
that despite not being as "pretty" as the designer wants it, I think the job
is successful.

I believe usability is part of design and that design is communication. I
believe that standards done wrong are just as bad as non-standards done
wrong. But done right, they surpass anything else.