Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: James Robertson <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 13:01:53 +1000
At 06:09 14/10/2000, Joseph Kesselman/Watson/IBM wrote:
> > 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
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"
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution