Quality Standards
Each project at 9artsmedia is under constant control of a dedicated quality assurance department that monitors project activities and results at each development phase.

In spite of the widespread acceptance of Web standards by a specific segment of the design and development community, hosts of professionals – those out there right now creating the Web – are working in direct opposition to these standards. A significant reason for why this is happening and how those not working with Web standards justify their activity boils down, I believe, to something regrettably simple: nomenclature.

So far as I can tell, “Web standards” and “standards compliancy” are exactly the wrong names and terminology for the worthy ideals and purposes that these terms embody. The Web standards movement faces widespread resistance and apathy, in part, for the most ridiculous of reasons. These reasons are unnecessarily supported by poorly chosen terminology and how the message is being communicated.

This is unfortunate, because when you examine the fullness of the technical and experiential results of crafting websites and web applications according to Web standards, and compare the results with efforts not crafted according to these standards, what you’re confronted with is a stark contrast in what really matters: quality. It is the idea of quality, not standardization, which provides the compelling argument for the Web Standards Project and for the W3C. It is unfortunate, however, that they’re not effectively seizing on this important fact and are not appropriately crafting their message for the intended audience. Regardless of what WaSP and W3C are putting out into the community, the proper argument is not being heard and the message is not nearly as compelling as it needs to be.

It is not going off on a tangent to also observe that the fundamental structure and approach exemplified by poorly crafted websites and applications perverts certain foundational elements of the Internet environment; namely, search engines. For unfortunate but understandable reasons, there are too many who view search engines as little more than obstacles or instruments of commerce – something to be exploited and mislead for selfish or competitive purposes.

To conceive of search engines only in this way is to ignore or distort the actual, useful, incredibly necessary purpose of search engines: to index and catalog a vast amount of information, in the proper context, so that it can later be found and accessed according to some fundamentally sound, standardized models. It is irresponsible to hinder this worthy task or to disrupt the related, necessary standards.

You might wonder why I mention these two seemingly unrelated issues at the start of this article. Well, issues of high quality Web craft and those of search engine function and purpose are interrelated. How they’re related is central to the proper context for championing good practices on both fronts. For when characteristics of Web design and development quality are mischaracterized or when search engine optimizing/indexing purpose is perverted or improperly approached, the fabric of the Internet is damaged. All Web professionals need to learn to recognize the real reasons for adopting what are called Web standards, and they need to learn to think about the related concepts in the proper context; not for the sake of standards, but for the sake of quality.

This is where we’re losing the battle for the adoption of Web standards. The argument is centered on standards rather than quality. The Web is not just some frivolous vehicle for entertainment and virtual community. Going forward, it’s going to be a vital aspect of human endeavor and an important lynchpin in affecting the human condition. What we’re making today is what we’re delivering to those who come after us. If we’re irresponsible in our approach and concepts we will fail ourselves and our decendents in ways we may scarcely imagine right now.

Therefore, our arguments in favor of these things that constitute Web standards must be characterized according to the more real and more compelling reasons involved. Else we stay mired in issues of argumentative semantics and imbedded in protracted conflicts of misrepresented interest.