Comments on Examining the Role of De Facto Standards on the Web

Andrei Herasimchuk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:45 GMT

“The point I was attempting to make is that it is less complex to develop products where there is a single technology standard than where there are multiple, competing ‘standards.’”

That makes more sense.

An interesting note here is how many of the few standards ever came into existence, and you may want to do more research on that as well. I’m sure you’ll find many of the interface standards that do exist came about by happenstance.

Brendan Hamley — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:45 GMT

A fine article, and its appearance should be applauded. This seems a timely piece about the use of increasingly common (web) design objects.

Perhaps if the title had more clearly referenced GUI standards, then we all might be agreeing less violently.

Kyle Pero — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:45 GMT

I believe that the content should always be the unique experience not the interface. Of course this does not include labels. We should never get creative when it comes to labeling our content.

Standards are created to make life easier. I am not against the practice of standards online since my main concern is always the usability of a website.

blech — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:45 GMT

Or some articles/essays that are clear and inclusive.

Brendan Hamley — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:45 GMT

Maybe we need some standards about standards?

blech — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:45 GMT

Wait.

Since when did HTML, XHTML and CSS2 become development standards?

With what other tools would one design and present on the web?

Heidi Adkisson — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:45 GMT

“Ever code with any of the development environments? Work with open source like Apache or PERL or learn C++? They are extraordinarliy complex, requiring volumes and volumes of books to discuss the environments in detail”

I did not mean to imply that development environments such as these are not complex. The point I was attempting to make is that it is less complex to develop products where there is a single technology standard than where there are multiple, competing “standards.” In saying this, I only wanted to address the issue of two different types of standards—user interface vs. underlying technology—and to clarify that in my article I was focusing on user interface standards, which is why I didn’t mention things like CCS2.

blech — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:44 GMT

I think you missed my point entirely.

Development standards are great, however, design standards are even better (but that’s my opinion).

I’ve yet to see design standards limit anything; hence, they even do things like institute “transitional” stages.

In fact, these design standards allow for forward and backward compatibility. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about here and I really think you’ve missed a major, critical part of your own essay.

“(Sidenote: I’m curious where you get the idea that software development follows interface standards anymore… None of the major software apps out there these days follow standards other than maybe using three or four common controls and windows.)”

For what it’s worth, I worked for a major automotive manufacturer and spent a long, long time working through development and GUI standards for an internal application. Just saying.

Andrei Herasimchuk — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:18:06 GMT

“Development standards help lower development costs by reducing the complexity of the development environment.”

Not sure where you got this idea from, but it’s simply not true.

All development standards do is create a consistent set of tools, discussions, and support around a certain development envrionment. Complexity rarely has been reduced with any meaningful impact on coding by using common development standards. Ever code with any of the development environments? Work with open source like Apache or PERL or learn C++? They are extraordinarliy complex, requiring volumes and volumes of books to discuss the environments in detail.

“Interface standards, by their nature, limit design flexibility…”

Designs are limited mearly by what your engineers are willing to do or can do. Interface standards, the actual few that have ever existed on the planet in the history of software and web devleopment, have never been the limiting factor of any design.

(Sidenote: I’m curious where you get the idea that software development follows interface standards anymore… None of the major software apps out there these days follow standards other than maybe using three or four common controls and windows.)

And even if there were many interface standards, design would still not be limited. At least not by my definition of the term. That would be like saying car design is limited because you have to have four wheels and a steering wheel. I guess it’s limited in a minor way, but not by deep meaning of the term.

“These considerations may warrant a going with a unique, rather than standard, approach.”

The biggest fallacy in any software or web devleopment environment is thinking certain “considerations” give you the perfect excuse to ignore consistency or places where you should attempt to follow or create some standardization. You tend to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Where should standards always apply? In what I call “conceptual” interface elements. What exactly is that? It’s the highest level of an action or behavior.

For example: Making a mutally exclusive choice. (Standard: Radio buttons. Why try and invent something new here?)

Example: Scroll a window or some panel of content. (Standard: scrollbars. And please, dear God, all you Flash devleopers out there STOP DESIGNING NEW SCROLLBARS. It’s pointless.)

Example: Choosing a color. (The color palette in most Adobe apps try to follow a consistent approach due to the lack of a robust color picker across operating systems, but don’t always follow through 100%.) When picking “red”, there is absolutely no legitmate reason you will be able to come up with that will excuse you from not finding a standard way to perfom the action. Picking “red” is picking red. Users should be able to do so in a fashion that is relatively consistent and standardized.

These are the type of actions that require standards. There are many more.

Where your article and research should focus itself, IMHO, and where the design community should focus their energy is figuring out what kind of actions are conceptual in nature, and then go about documenting standards in how an interface should operate, taking into consideration various platform of technology. In doing this, we provide building blocks that rich design can spring from. Back to the car analogy: Once you know a car has four wheels, a steering wheel, uses gas, needs a front windshield, some side glass, a rearview mirror, some seats, etc… well… you have a ton of flexibility in the design of the car to accomplish your goal.

We should do this in an open forum, or in a consortium. It’s been a long time coming.

And Nielsen is pretty much wrong on most of his articles around the subject of standards. Especially silly notions that links should be an ugly shade of blue and underlined. He loses much credibiliy when he says things of this nature over and over.

The blue underlined link was not a standard that had any thought put into besides solving an engineering problem without a the presence of a designer around. (Please… what deisgner in their right mind who knows ANYTHING about color and type would make a link that shade of blue and underlined?! Not even entry-level design students in school would have made that choice.) Nielsen’s comments on standards are always reactive instead of proactive. He basically comments on things that had forward momentum in engineering but not much design put into them, and then somehow decided those early choices should become the standard. Hogwash.

Heidi Adkisson — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:44 GMT

I’ve had a few emails (and Ken’s comment) asking for more details about how I did the data collection. I conducted this study as part of my master’s thesis in Technical Communication. My thesis is posted online as a PDF at my personal web site: http://www.hpadkisson.com/papers/index.html.

Brendan Hamley — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:44 GMT

It’s really about patterns. Patterns of commonality,

It’s the ‘why’ – not the ‘what’. A gravitational pull towards efficiency, convenience and empathy. It’s not about rules or standards.

Design standards are dreary static things. Dry and unsmudgeable before the ink can change colour. They document the by-product not the process. Clipboard notes telling us critical mass has finally been reached.

People are evolutionary and adaptive. They model their views of design success based on the efficiency of their own experiences. They don’t really care if something is bad design or *standard*, but are drawn towards ANY pattern that meets needs, fits mental models, or reinforces previous experience.

It’s always happened in the relationships between design(er) and use. The dials in a car appear in front of the steering wheel, a ring-pull is a certain shape, the symbol for fast forward is understood everywhere. Are these enforced standards or the result of iterative observation of behaviour?

For the Web, there are great mechanical standards (W3c WASP, CSS2 et al), recognised gurus, and some clever coffee table books on standards. Styleguides and instructions abound. For designers though, what is often missing is the understanding of underlying behaviours and the key influence these should have on their output.

The master trick, is to try to observe and predict all the shoals of commonality or behaviour that are forming around us. Ultimately, this (and not standards) will mould our rules of engagement with our users, whether we are aware of this or not.

Ken Zirkel — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:44 GMT

This is very useful stuff. Would be even more useful if you listed out all of the specific interface design elements you looked for, methodology, etc. so that your study could be replicated. I’d love to do a similar study of leading .edu sites.

Heidi Adkisson — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:44 GMT

Blech, you make a good point about type of Web standards that are helpful—that is, development standards. I would have done well to mention these in my article, and to clarify the difference between development standards and interface standards.

Development standards help lower development costs by reducing the complexity of the development environment. For example, creating a Web-based application that will work across browsers can be costly and frustrating. It often results in compromises in the user experience: that is, a particular type of functionality is desired, but it’s too costly to provide across platforms so a “lowest common denominator” solution is implemented. And so, as you point out, development standards provide for more design flexibility.

Interface standards, by their nature, limit design flexibility—but have some clear benefits to users and developers alike. These benefits have been long realized in the domain of software development. And I do believe, for the most part, the benefits of interface standards transfer over to the Web. But I think there are additional considerations on the Web—considerations that include selling, reinforcing brand or otherwise making an emotional connection with audience. These considerations may warrant a going with a unique, rather than standard, approach.

Blech — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:15:56 GMT

Unfortunately, I think your article has really, truly failed. You missed the major benefits of web standards and the design and the development using them.

You didn’t even bother to discuss the w3c, the web design standards project or Jeffrey Zeldman.

You didn’t consider that the DOM and XHTML and CSS2 are all very much geared to create web content that is separated from web design that is separated from development—and those all allow dramatic flexibility in the site design (see www.wired.com for a great example).

In fact, you really failed to bring about any good reason to stray from standards except how limiting it can be on design—which is an untruth; design is limited not by standards, but the inability to work well with the limitations you have in front of you.

Perhaps I’m entirely missing your point, but it really seems to me that you’re missing the point of standards on the web.

Janice Lodato — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:44 GMT

Excellent reminder article about the pros and cons of web design standards. The GROW civil engineering collection: http://www.grow.arizona.edu is part of the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) http://www.nsdl.org. The NSDL is made up of 100s of unique collections in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Should NSDL adopt and enforce design standards for its collections? Certainly this goes against the academic freedom that many collections work hard to maintain. Would design standardization increase the user experience? I think the answer is a big MAYBE as those users interested in mathematics (and the math content itself) might require a different design experience than for users interested in biology, for instance.