xml-dev - Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?

[James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>]

At 06:09 14/10/2000, Joseph Kesselman/Watson/IBM wrote:


>James asked:
> > Is it therefore not sensible to do
> > "usability testing" (involving real users)
> > on documents?
>
>Sure. But see the subject line. Also, this takes time, so it may simply be
>one of the things you give up when you expect development to occur in
>"web-years" rather than calendar years.

I just don't accept any argument that say
that "web-years" prevent people from actually
involving users, and producing usable results.

The output of W3C consists of only two things:
designs and documents. If neither of these
can be understood and used, why bother?

Usability need not be an expensive outcome.

>Let's face it: If XML was a commercial product, we'd still be in beta-test
>on many of the things which are now RECs.

And is this a good thing?

Frankly, is quick rubbish better than slow
quality?

Yes, I am aware of the arguments here: evolution
through use, survival of the fittest, etc, etc, etc.

However, as far as I can see, once the W3C has
published a spec, it really doesn't change
much, regardless of how many people complain ...

(eg. How do we get namespaces fixed?
And then XSL?)

Surely W3C should be held to "best practice"
standards?

J

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution

http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au