Apparently blogs are over and done with. At least, Wired thinks so. Wait… what?

Jeffrey Zeldman would strongly disagree, and he just wrote a scathing critique of Wired’s editorial pronouncing blogs dead, and although his tone is definitely set to ‘acidic’, his points are right on.

I just want to quote the editorial’s misguided author, Paul Boutin:

@WiredReader: Kill yr blog. 2004 over. Google won’t find you. Too much cruft from HuffPo, NYT. Commenters are tards. C u on Facebook?

That’s what he’s proposing that we replace blog culture with. Seriously?

(more…)

A List Apart is a constant, valuable stream of informative, useful topics in making websites better. As such, it never comes as a surprise to me when the site hosts an interesting or insightful article about the literal act of building a website.

However, today ALA featured an article about good behavior on the web, Putting Our Hot Heads Together, which initially threw me just a bit. After all, what does behavior have to do with making a website?

As author Carolyn Wood of pixelingo (yes, that’s her ‘website’ that I’ve linked) shows us, quite a bit.

There’s definitely a difference between behavior on the web versus off it, with web conversations usually being of the less polite variety. In particular, impassioned discussions about topics that are dear to people, such as web development on a web developer’s blog, or a website like ALA that focuses on the industry, tend to get a bit… well… angry. Even politely phrased comments can be barbed with poison or sharp, angry wit.

One of Carolyn’s many points is that angry, inconsiderate conversations can be a major stumbling block in the progress of an industry, stating that by working as allies and not enemies we’re capable of achieving much more. It sounds almost sugar-coated when I put it like that, but I can’t help but feel it’s all too true.

I’ve seen how the conversations can get on my own blog, which isn’t surprising as I’ve come out swinging at times against products or companies that people strongly identify with. It definitely can be a downer when things get aggressive.

The idea of turning a commentary section into a brainstorming area, not a brawler’s arena, is a pretty obvious one. But it’s something that’s eluded a lot of us, myself included at times. I think anyone who likes to talk on the web should take a moment to read Carolyn’s article and think about not what we’re saying, but how and why we’re saying it.

I didn’t wake up today with the intent of revisiting old ground, but a motivated commenter rekindled the topic of Opera’s EU filing encouraging Microsoft to be forced to adhere to a series of guidelines for web standards, and my bold statements that both Microsoft and Opera needed to work on adhering to those guidelines.

As I was crafting a response, I discovered that I had more to say on the topic than could be rationally contained in a simple comment.

First, some facts: I don’t dislike Opera. I dislike hypocrisy. Also, I don’t like Internet Explorer. I hate Internet Explorer, and I would prefer to see Microsoft adhere to modern web standards with the same fervor as the other major browser makers.

However, the responses to my earlier posts made by Opera employees and by others on behalf of the browser maker, amount to the following two statements.

1. Microsoft needs to adhere to Mr. Lie’s list of rules they should play by because Microsoft is a monopoly. Opera does not need to do this because it is not.

2. Opera is justified in delaying implementations of “new” features because they’re focusing on backwards compatibility and not breaking the web.

Each is interesting, but ultimately unconvincing.

First, I don’t believe that implementing web standards and new site features is solely the responsibility of a company that is a monopoly. In his well publicized list of rules for Microsoft, Mr. Lie agrees with me. I’ve already quoted the fifth point (relating to adding a new standards-related feature to a browser if two major browsers have already implemented it), and have pointed out useful features that at least two browsers have implemented that aren’t live yet on Opera. I want to emphasize where Mr. Lie states these rules aren’t just for Opera:

“Microsoft will surely claim that it’s impossible for them to develop a browser that complies with the proposed requirements. However, other browsers have played by these rules for years. If Microsoft can’t live up to the standards of the web, I suggest they leave the browser business.”

His assertions are twofold, first that other browser makers do play by these rules (including Opera I presume, which exclusively makes a browser), and that failure to adhere by these rules is enough reason for a company to leave the browser business.

I agree with him completely. I find it comical that some of Opera’s employees apparently do not, and have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why they should be disregarding their CTO’s wisdom. This ties directly into point #2, which is that implementation of new features must be delayed as a necessary sacrifice to maintain backwards compatibility and not break the old web.

Backwards compatibility with the soccer mom-built sites of the world is the same boogeyman that Microsoft has been waving on a flagpole since at least Internet Explorer 6. The world of web developers have yet to give Microsoft any mercy for that, and often cry for blood when feature implementation or standards compatibility is sacrificed on that altar (such as the well documented IE8 meta-tag explosion). I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument as to why any smaller browser maker can justify their own delays at implementing “new” stuff with the same smoke and mirrors and not deserve the same treatment.

In the end, the simple fact is this: I expect better of Opera. I expect them to be better than Microsoft. This means I’m not going to accept Opera using the same excuses as Microsoft, and somehow get away with it due to their size.

So, chop chop. Back to the grindstone, boys.

Let’s get the disclaimers out of the way.

This week’s comic is not about Microsoft. The history of Internet Explorer’s many issues with standards compliance is well documented elsewhere, including various frustrations listed in this blog and in many of my posts over at Mindfly.

This week’s comic is about expecting a certain standard from someone when you are not living up to those standards yourself. In this case, of course, I’m discussing web standards and the big flap they cause in the development/design world due to the various browsers’ speeds at implementing them.

If you’re a designer, and you’ve ever had to make a website trying to find out how to make a website look correct in Internet Explorer, than you understand how important web standards are. It saves us time, which means it saves businesses money, and ultimately all the happy little people surfing the web get to see their favorite website about cute puppies the way that the site’s designer intended it.

So when someone says: “Hey, browser makers, get on board with styles already,” I’m going to be right there holding a sign and trying to pretend that protesting in the middle of winter in Seattle isn’t cold and demoralizing.

Everything in moderation, though. When Opera went to the European Commision to try to force another browser maker to change it’s feature set through legal actions, we start to muddy the line between “good activism” and “bad business behavior”. When Håkon Wium Lie, Opera’s CTO, then at several different points (including in this article/rant at The Register) outlines a very specific, detailed list of what Microsoft needs to do in order to be compliant to Opera’s view of a browser maker’s responsibility, things go from bad business to hypocrisy.

Why hypocrisy? Simple. Mr. Lie’s little list is incredibly specific, as expected of a programmer, and includes several points that must (his word) be adhered to. The one of most interest to me at the moment is the closing one:

“5. Commit to interoperability. It is important to ensure that Microsoft remains committed to supporting web standards, even beyond Acid2 and Acid3. If two or more major web browsers, in official shipping versions, add standards-related functionality that’s generally considered useful to the progress of the web, and described in a publicly available specification, Microsoft must add the same functionality.”

Is this a good idea? Why yes, yes it is! Nothing frustrates me more than finding a good CSS3 property (or CSS 2.1 property) that would solve a design issue I have with a website, only to discover that a couple of the leading browsers don’t have it, thereby making it of limited use. This is something I experience on a weekly basis (if not more frequently), and probably the largest source of frustration with my job.

However, Microsoft isn’t the only browser that needs to do this. After all, what good is it if only IE was keeping up with standards? Yes, it has the dominant share in browser usage, but there’s a good 25%-30% of users who are using other browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Opera. We wouldn’t want them suffering because their browsers aren’t keeping pace.

Generally, of the four browsers, IE is in fact the one that typically is behind the game. But while going through several CSS3 properties last week, I found myself looking at three that Opera was not yet using, but that were in use by at least two other browsers.

What’s that? Is Opera not living up to the standards it’s expecting of others? Why… that would be very hypocritical of them, wouldn’t it? They’d NEVER do that!

Well, as it turns out, yes they would.

The properties in question (and this isn’t a complete list, I’m sure, just one that came up from only an hour or so of looking) are as follows: border-radius, outline-offset, and word-wrap. The first two are implemented in Firefox and Safari. The last one is implemented in Firefox and (gasp!) Internet Explorer. All three are documented in publicly available specifications.

Opera can’t render any of them.

Now, granted, outline-offset will appear in Opera 9.5. As of yet, though, I’ve seen nary a peep about those other two, and I doubt that’ll change before 9.5 goes gold.

Frankly, Opera, you need to stop focusing on legal action against your competition. This kind of behavior is belittling, and ultimately serves as little more than a PR stunt as long as you’re failing to actually keep your own browser living up to the standards you’re yelling at others for failing to uphold.

We get it already. Microsoft sucks. Now stop poking the big dog with a stick and go grab a larger share of the market by showing everyone how cool Opera really is.

A new Hulk movie is coming out soon. By all accounts, this one isn’t a monstrosity featuring squid DNA, and much more closely resembles the comic franchise it was built upon. Like the movie’s signature character Bruce Banner, I’m generally considered to be a fairly mellow fellow guy. (Unlike him I have neither a doctorate or a gamma radiation tan). Yet, like Dr. Banner, I also can sometimes feel a powerful rage coming over me.

Sadly, I don’t gain a few hundred pounds of muscle and turn green. I just make growly noises and squint my eyes.

I’m reliably informed that it’s not that intimidating.

What is the source of this pathetic geek rage? Web designs that are one page proofs of a pretty homepage, accompanied by a summary by clients to the effect of “Make the rest of the site look like the homepage.”

Why does this drive me insane? Because this rarely (in fact, never) works, and I find myself going back and altering (and re-altering) the carefully crafted markup and CSS that was made for the aforementioned homepage so that the core functionality of their website actually fits inside the design. Usually the “design”, as a result, turns out to resemble the homepage less and less with each pass, until what is left is typically some sort of chimeric mismatched beast.

I’m sure there’s plenty of smart methodologies to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but it occurs to me just often enough that I feel the need to rant about it here.

Look, as Jeffrey Zeldman said in one of those insightful tweets that I’m always hoping to witness (instead of the less insightful tweets about the contents of a man’s lunch): “Content precedes design. Design in the absence of content is not design, it’s decoration.”

I think that’s one of the most useful/relevant things I’ve seen written about web design in months. Based on the responses at his blog, I don’t think I’m alone.

I’m going to add an addendum to this. Barring some exceptions in the “wrapping paper” category, a pretty homepage is not a website. Nor should the homepage be the focus of the design. Creating a design by starting with the homepage, handing it to the developers to cut, and then later heavily modifying said design to actually accomodate the core features of the site wastes time, money, and patience.

Let’s think about it for a moment. Are your customers coming to your website to check out a nifty banner? Are they there to look at a really wicked paragraph of “about me” text? Are they there to see an embedded flash movie of the ocean?

In case you’re not following along, the answer is no. (Except maybe for the ocean movie, depending on the purpose of your site.) They are there to shop at your store, read your blog, play your game, read the news, share their life story, or fulfill whatever function it is that your website serves in their life.

Now, granted, some pages (like blogs about adorable critters) combine the homepage and the core function of the site. In the case of the linked blog, it’s all about displaying cute animals, and they’re doing that from page one. But even in that case, the homepage is following the function of the site, rather than the design following an arbitrarily pretty (and potentially pointless) homepage.

Look, take a page from Daniel Burka, who at the WDN 2008 conference talked about taking the inspiration for the design of a site from the core function the site serves. He’s done it with a little site you may have heard about (Digg, do I even need to link this page?), and I dare say it’s worked well for them.

Seriously, next time you have a pretty proof of your website’s homepage all decked out with bells and flowers, do me a favor and use it to wrap your daughter’s next birthday present. Then, after you’re done affixing the bow, go back to the drawing board, figure out where the tasty flavor of your site lives, and design that first. I think you’ll find that the site (and your budget) will do better as a result.