Comments on: Marketing Web Standards: Show Them Rice

By: Dulan

Dulan — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:00:43 +0000

Well said, bro. I think marketing a technical topic to a non-techy audience is indeed difficult (we both know that), but can be achieved like you said, by focusing on how the client benefits.

Using non-technical terms and analogies to explain the technical benefits works only so far that you read your audience well. Sometimes, the audience could include tech savvy people who might be insulted by the “condescending” terms.

Marketing anything depends on reading your prospective client well and delivering a valid service/product. A good marketer may be able to sell refridgerators to eskimos, but I believe the truly great ones sell fridges to the desert people.

By: Mahangu

Mahangu — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:47:11 +0000

Marketing WS in Sri Lanka is especially difficult, as we are stuck in the stone age of design, where clients still think that gyrating flash animations and snazzy sound effects are cool. I think one of the best ways to market is to put forward the fact that seperating content from design means less in terms of maintainability. That means less maintenance cost for the client. Anyone, likes to save money, right? Also, one other snag I come across is IE. Most clients in Sri Lanka use out dated versions of the browser, and this makes it even harder for the designer, as he has to make his designs backwards compatible instead of moving forward with newer IE versions or Firefox or Safari.

By: indi

indi — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:08:23 +0000

One thing I tell clients is that using standards is like building a house to code. Engineers have requirements for houses - the stairs have to be a certain size, etc. Same for websites. In Sri Lanka I think it’s extra important cause people have such crappy computers and connections. Your site needs to be, like, wheelchair accessible. Of course, none of my stuff validates, but I do feel bad about it.

By: Dulan

Dulan — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:28:27 +0000

The point about ease of maintanence is an important point, Mahangu. It’s something that really helps in the marketing of such a site. It also reduces the time taken to finish the project, which results in a cost saving and better relations with the client.

Further, I’d just like to point out that you seem to misunderstand compatibility. Machan, if the site is web standards compliant, then it *IS* backwards compatible. From the little I do know (I’m not a web designer, per se), the whole point of W3C standards is about better compatibility, yeah?

By: Prabhath

Prabhath — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:49:20 +0000

Catering for old IE is a real pain, and most probably the site will never look perfect on it. However, unless we are sure that the site is catering to users on up-to-date browsers, there’s nothing we can do but to be liberal in our application of IE hacks. Yes, I know, it’s ugly, and frustrating.

Web standards do make sites backwards compatible - it’s just that they won’t look exactly pretty on an outdated browser. If the site looks OK on IE5.5 and presentable on IE5, that’d be enough for most clients I guess.

By: Mahangu

Mahangu — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 09:09:34 +0000

I think you guys missed my point. Most clients (at least most mid - small biz people I work with), still use IE 5 (some even use IE4). When I do a design for a new generation browser, I often have to spend extra time backward-hacking (forgive the coinage) for IE. It sucks. I wish everyone would just get off their asses and download firefox. The fact that MS was not controlled when they were bundling browser with OS really sucks. Now we’re stuck in a universe where almost every technophobe only knows IE. That’s the problem I face.

By: Dulan

Dulan — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:17:49 +0000

ahhh….

well, I guess this is an issue that so many linux fans would love to talk about…

but that’s another story. Looks like I need to update myself on the crappy IE issue. Thanks.

By: indi

indi — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:05:32 +0000

The day you wrote this I was talking to a client about the same thing, but it still doesn’t work. She wants Flash, she wants moving shit, and she wants music. So I’ll do it. I mean, it’s her website.

My question is, are this things not up to webstandards?

1. Flash
2. Javascript
3. AJAX

I don’t like Flash cause its invisible on Google, but I’m getting very interested in AJAX. How does that stuff fit into standards?

By: Prabhath

Prabhath — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:57:08 +0000

Sensible use of Flash, Javascript or AJAX integrated to a standards compliant website can enhance user experience, so it’s actually good design.

“Sensible use” heavily depends on the context: there might be an instance where the website is targeted towards high-end users where going completely Flash may be acceptable. If the client is insisting on ignoring a good part of her potential online customer base and asking for more bling on the site, which by the way doesn’t make good business sense, I’d go ahead with Flash. But only after explaining what’s wrong with her decision. The only thing I will never do is going back to crappy tables.

The same goes for Javascript and AJAX. If the website/online app. degrades gracefully for users who don’t support them, I’d strongly support their use. Choosing the right technology becomes easier when accessibility is given priority, and clever use of Javascript and AJAX can help towards making the site more accessible and usable. Once again, it’s a matter of context.