[thelist] Re: Why code for standards

[Arlen.P.Walker at jci.com]

>I'm saying that the W3C excludes a *huge* segment of the public, private
and
>small business global sector by requiring *outlandish* membership fees.

Which is wrong because.....?

See, this is our disconnect. I don't see how one million people sitting
around a figurative cyber-table can possibly get anything done. We've seen
it repeated over and over, the larger the mass of people involved in a
co-operative venture, the less likely anything worthwhile will come out of
it. I was in the Air Force IT during the time ADA was developed (I think I
even still have the deisgn documents back from when it was still known as
"Green"); it's a near-perfect example of the adage too many cooks spoil the
broth.

Given, therefore, that numbers must be limited in some way in order to get
anything done, we are left with choosing how to draw the line. Since money
is the way our society seems to measure relative importance (the theory
being that we spend our money on what is important to us, and refrain from
spending on what is less important) it seems as good a way as any other.

(A slight digression which ties back into web design questions: Derek
Powazak in "Designing for Community" remarks that a barrier to entry often
makes for a better community. The idea behind it is by placing a barrier in
front of people, you weed out those whose interest is only casual, and
those who might be there just to cause trouble. Also, by having to pass
that barrier, the people in the community are more committed to making the
community work. It's sort of like "Earnest money" in a financial
transaction. Make the barrier too high and no one comes in, so the
community fails; make it too low and too many come in and the community
gets fractious and tears itself apart.)

I honestly don't see why we should assume the HTML or CSS standards would
be improved by getting the input of every web surfer on the planet. What
would we be missing, that we're not getting now? Is it really any
difference if one or a thousand voices speak up for a feature, if it still
resolves to 1% of the voices?

>There is an organizational bias against this *huge* sector.

Um, so? Everyone is biased against something. I need to be shown why a
particular bias is bad before I condemn it. As I've mentioned, I've not
seen a single example of an item in a standard issued by the W3C which is
biased against that, or any other, sector. I'm open to reviewing that
statement when presented with some evidence, but until then, I'll stick by
it.

>You see in in the operations too,  with attitudes that claim small
>businesses have nothing to offer these orgs.

Just to be clear. I'm not saying that. The closest I'd come to saying that
is that small businesses have nothing *unique* to offer these orgs. That
is, that there is nothing which is unique to the domain of small
businesses. What a small business person can think of about web standards,
a professor at a university can think of, or one of the trade groups can
think of, or a research lab, or even (shudder) a BigCo.

>and see what I see as an organizational flaw which creates
>policy flaws.

I'd like to see an example, please?

>I believe it pertains to the general prejudice that prevails in the minds
of
>people that for whatever reasons,  government / corporate employees are
>better suited,  or have more time,  to be the only choice for positive
>contributors to the www development guideline efforts.

I'm wondering why you seem to think they're *badly* suited? I don't see
them as any better or worse than the rest. I don't care who writes the
standard, I just want to know if it works.

>I just think its silly to restrict an organization to
>such a small demographic,  especially something that is as diverse as the
>www and supposed to serve a much larger and diverse demographic.  Seems
>myopic to me.

I think you're underestimating the creativity of the folks involved with
the W3C. Is it perfect? Don't be silly, of course not. But it's getting
something done. Let's suppose for a short while that the price of admission
to the W3C drops to the point where no one cannot afford it. The membership
swells to what, 10 million? Even one million? A hundred thousand? It's too
large to get anything done as a body, so more and more specialized working
committees are formed, which then take on more and more of the tasks. And
we're back at the same point: people are barred from working on the
committees, only now it's because they don't know the right people in the
organization, so don't get appointed to fill one of the select committee
positions.

In short, another closed system, just with a different gatekeeper
mechanism. Five people is about the maximum that can be relied upon to get
something done; after that point the ability to perform degrades as the
population increases. (There's a psychological reason behind that; a study
once showed that we start to overload at about 500 or so sensory inputs.
Six people in personal contact generate near that number, so we begin to
break up into smaller groups around that point.)

Finally, as this discussion is dreadfully off-topic:

<tip type="Browser workarounds" name="arlen walker">
When positioning a background image in Netscape/Mozilla (both Win and Mac)
on the right side of the viewport (background-position: right) be aware
that if the content scrolls off the page, these browsers will drop the
scroll bar over the top of the last few pixels of the graphic, rather than
moving the graphic over to make room for the scroll bar. To be safe, add a
16-pixel (or larger) border as a matte around any graphic that you want
your audience to see.
</tip>

Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

Arlen.P.Walker at JCI.Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.