Comments on: Design by committee http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/ Web Standards, Web Culture, Web Everything.™ Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:23:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Respiro Media http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-15949 Respiro Media Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:27:00 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-15949 According to wikipedia.org design by committee seems to be a bad idea. My opinion is that the creation process should be kept as simple and as effective as possible. Respiro According to wikipedia.org design by committee seems to be a bad idea. My opinion is that the creation process should be kept as simple and as effective as possible.

Respiro

]]> By: The Schmu http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-12479 The Schmu Thu, 17 May 2007 13:17:59 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-12479 My understanding is that WHATWG is basically a coallition of the discontent. They weren't happy with how things were done with the W3C, so they created a faction. This new faction promises open discussions where everyone has its say and that it wont be like with the W3C... of course not... how could it be? This sounds like either glorified school-yard brawl or a miniature political intrigue. We just recently got out of a long-winded browser war, and are just starting to get decent compatibility across the board. Having mozilla and opera on one side with whatwigimabob and microsoft with the W3C on the other side sounds to me like the begining of more and more of the same old crap. If you ask me, specifications can be "designed"... but the "standard" part of "standard specifications" isnt about design; it is about agreement. Consensus is ALWAYS costly and time consuming, and has nothing to do with "design". I think that convergence of ALL browser to the support of xhtml was an amazing thing... but it seems that html pundits cant restrain themselves from splitting the hairs from the camel's back. -- Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's web developers, And all the king's browser manufacturer, Couldn't put Humpty together again. -- Sorry... I love to hate technology! My understanding is that WHATWG is basically a coallition of the discontent. They weren’t happy with how things were done with the W3C, so they created a faction. This new faction promises open discussions where everyone has its say and that it wont be like with the W3C… of course not… how could it be?

This sounds like either glorified school-yard brawl or a miniature political intrigue.

We just recently got out of a long-winded browser war, and are just starting to get decent compatibility across the board.

Having mozilla and opera on one side with whatwigimabob and microsoft with the W3C on the other side sounds to me like the begining of more and more of the same old crap.

If you ask me, specifications can be “designed”… but the “standard” part of “standard specifications” isnt about design; it is about agreement. Consensus is ALWAYS costly and time consuming, and has nothing to do with “design”.

I think that convergence of ALL browser to the support of xhtml was an amazing thing… but it seems that html pundits cant restrain themselves from splitting the hairs from the camel’s back.

–

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s web developers, And all the king’s browser manufacturer, Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

–

Sorry… I love to hate technology!

]]> By: Keĉjo http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-12449 Keĉjo Thu, 17 May 2007 06:27:26 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-12449 I don't see anything inherently bad about the process. I do, however, see the fragmentation as a bit unnecessary. The two (or more) groups should seek collaboration and compromise, not fragmentation. I personally think XML is the future, not the least of which because it's easier to parse (and has fewer rules to remember) than quasi-SGML. And Jon, I think CSS3 will probably always be draft. It's designed to be modular, so some modules will be standardized faster than others, new modules will be added, old modules will be updated, etc. I don’t see anything inherently bad about the process. I do, however, see the fragmentation as a bit unnecessary. The two (or more) groups should seek collaboration and compromise, not fragmentation. I personally think XML is the future, not the least of which because it’s easier to parse (and has fewer rules to remember) than quasi-SGML.

And Jon, I think CSS3 will probably always be draft. It’s designed to be modular, so some modules will be standardized faster than others, new modules will be added, old modules will be updated, etc.

]]> By: jon http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-12305 jon Tue, 15 May 2007 16:21:43 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-12305 And maybe all this "committee-ing" is why CSS 3 is still in "spec" mode as well. It's good to have input, of course, but at a certain point, it seems ridiculous. And maybe all this “committee-ing” is why CSS 3 is still in “spec” mode as well. It’s good to have input, of course, but at a certain point, it seems ridiculous.

]]> By: Lachlan Hunt http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-12298 Lachlan Hunt Tue, 15 May 2007 15:23:17 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-12298 We're trying hard to avoid design-by-committee for HTML5. Instead. we have a benevolent dictator as an editor who takes feedback from the whole community, but makes the final decisions about what goes in the spec. We’re trying hard to avoid design-by-committee for HTML5. Instead. we have a benevolent dictator as an editor who takes feedback from the whole community, but makes the final decisions about what goes in the spec.

]]> By: JJ07 http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-12296 JJ07 Tue, 15 May 2007 15:19:49 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-12296 Without a committee there would be no web standards because methods would be constantly changed to suit the needs of individuals and groups. Id say leave it the way it is. Thats my 2 cents worth. Without a committee there would be no web standards because methods would be constantly changed to suit the needs of individuals and groups.

Id say leave it the way it is. Thats my 2 cents worth.

]]> By: Sarven Capadisli http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-12295 Sarven Capadisli Tue, 15 May 2007 15:01:08 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-12295 .. I love the camel 2.0 reflections. .. I love the camel 2.0 reflections.

]]> By: Sarven Capadisli http://arapehlivanian.com/design-by-committee/comment-page-1/#comment-12294 Sarven Capadisli Tue, 15 May 2007 14:57:43 +0000 http://arapehlivanian.com/2007/05/15/design-by-committee/#comment-12294 Does it go to show that there is a magic number for each project which will be well carried out? How do we determine that number and do we need a committee to come up with that list? ;) Does it go to show that there is a magic number for each project which will be well carried out? How do we determine that number and do we need a committee to come up with that list? ;)

]]>