Blog:

Vitamin: The majority of users in the world use IE. Some people would argue that we should be standardizing around Microsoft, instead of the other way around. What do you think?

Standardization around a singular piece of proprietary software is antithetical to the whole vision of the Web. That’s the first problem with the premise: It’s philosophically wrong.

From a more practical perspective, relying on a singular source for software puts both consumers and developers at the mercy of Microsoft. We would be forever dependent on their Operating System and other software releases. This would push us away from open source solutions and therefore affordable and flexible development and design options.

Sure, a one platform approach would solve the immediate problems of incompatibilities between browsers, but that problem emerged precisely because browsers didn’t focus as much on W3C implementations as they should have from the beginning.

We don’t live in a one-size-fits all world. It’d be pretty sad if we did. What if every tall guy had to buy his trousers in a size standard meant for “average” sized people. Where’s the fun in that?

I think a point many people fail to realize is that the W3C working groups are comprised of W3C Members that include implementers. Sit in on an HTML or CSS working group and you can bet the room is filled with Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, Adobe and other corporate representatives.

The implementers are by and large the ones making W3C specs, so there’s a dark irony here that at the end of the day, an approach might be agreed upon and then not implemented in favor of other features. Some of this is due to practical reasons such as difficulty implementing a particular feature in a given codebase. Another would be if priorities within the project lifecycle of a browser have to take precedence, such as patching gaping security holes.

Vitamin: Has Microsoft made any positive moves with IE7 that demonstrate a direction towards Web Standards?

Standards have come to the forefront of Microsoft discussion lately.

I think it’s critical that Web designers and developers at large make a clean separation in their minds of what is the business strategy of Microsoft and what goes on with the developers building the software. At Mix06 I was sitting with Andy Clarke in a session and the term “web standards” was used no less than five times in the first 15 minutes. He turned to me and quipped “are we at the right conference?”

Witty, but the reality is that Microsoft’s business strategy has definitely realized that for now, at least, there’s good PR in talking about and implementing standards. That’s the business.

The developer perspective is another story entirely. There are folks working on IE7 such as Chris Wilson who has spent his entire career since the early days of Mosaic building browsers, being involved in the CSS Working Group at the W3C. This is a man with a great deal of passion for making a great browser, and possibly one of the very few people who has perspective but who also faces huge challenges. He has to manage the business priorities with a desire to truly bring the IE browser up to par.

Markus Mielke and a slew of other developers are so passionate about the subject that it is sobering to talk to these guys face to face and realize they are as much standards evangelists as any of us can be in the industry. That they’re faced with a very, very difficult task; that they are in between a hard rock and a harder place is unquestionable. This isn’t their fault.

Hate Microsoft if you want, but please don’t ever think that the developers themselves are anything but our colleagues fighting the hardest fight of all.

Vitamin: Will IE ever be completely Standards compliant?

Will anything? There is no browser today that can claim that, and the evolutionary, iterative nature of open standards development will ensure that browsers and user agents in general will always be short on something.

It’s the nature of an evolutionary industry and it should be part of what keeps people interested in and invigorated by the challenge of constant change. Stability is not something I expect to see in standards in the duration of our careers, and thinking it’ll ever be that way is, in my opinion, a very dangerous attitude.

Vitamin: What will be the state of the browser landscape in two years?

We’ll have much better CSS, much improved DOM in desktop computers. We’ll see more native SVG and other technologies. We’ll also see continued growth and confusion with mobile browsers, with more and more support for handheld styles but a wide range of browser support issues. I hope we’ll see more standards support in assistive device technologies.

I think we’ll also find that the tools we use will improve a great deal, but one thing is going to remain true: We need to constantly learn and challenge ourselves to keep up with the realities. Again, it’s the nature of our industry, which is in the earliest stages of its evolutionary process.

Vitamin: What is WaSP and why does it exist?

WaSP is the Web Standards Project, founded in 1998 by a group of concerned Web designers and developers who wanted to help advocate better, more consistent support for standards, specifically the DOM at the time and very soon thereafter, CSS.

WaSP continues to be a driving force in terms of creating relationships between web designers and developers; tools and device developers and of course browser implementers.

Vitamin: What’s your role at WaSP?

I’m the Group Lead. You’ve no doubt heard the old saying about herding cats? Well, that’s what I do within the organization. I also act as a liaison between other groups such as the W3C, and work on several WaSP Task Forces. My own focus over the last year has been with Microsoft, as that relationship opened up and it’s been a very eye-opening experience to say the least.

Vitamin: Why did you get involved?

Because Zeldman asked me to, and who says no to Zeldman?

Like this article? Digg it!