Quote this comment

dRu Posted…

I concur Nate, and I would love to see a w3c homepage redisgn challange. Nate, if I can help just shoot me an email. How awesome would it be to come together and develop something to help them, help themselves. WooHoo!

Quote this comment

James Posted…

Agreed here as well. From the validation badges to the website, the W3C has failed to speak to one of its main user bases.

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Brainstorming has begun, first of many challenges is to discover if we can scrounge up some sort of exciting prize (plus a whole lot of other brainstorming). Please stay tuned and pipe up if this is a remotely interesting idea.

Quote this comment

Joshua Kaufman Posted…

It’s a very interesting idea, Nate! As far as an exciting prize, I think getting your name mentioned on the w3c homepage would be exciting enough for a lot of designers! Should we set up some sort of formal discussion somewhere? Maybe create a Yahoo! Group for the project? Let me know if I can help in any way.

Quote this comment

Dan Posted…

Come on guys, do you actually think the W3C would use an unsolicited design? They just spent like the last 5 years coming up with this current layout. They’re totally vested in this design for the next 5 years. Also, judging from what from what i’ve seen, their layout isn’t that much different from most of the blog designs I’ve visited recently. It’s the same generic black text on white background 3 column layout with a small smattering of color thrown in for giggles. Heh...and like mschmidt still has authority to talk about design. k10k is notoriously known to look exactly the same after each re-design. Anyway...hey how bout that Neilsen fellow being a closet Harry Potter fan...creepy huh.

Quote this comment

Nick Finck Posted…

I have to dissagree here. I think the W3C redesign, be it as bland and boring as you can get with CSS, is an accurate reflection of it’s user base. I for one do not want to see some fancy eye-candy design on W3C when I am trying to find or read a recommendation. They could, however, invested more time on some good information architecture for the site... I can never find exactly what I need because of the inconsistancies in the navigation, and structure of the site. Does every page on this site need a different layout and navigation? gesh.

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Dan: Well, we haven’t spoken to anyone at the w3c yet about this, so no idea if they would be supportive or interested. Frankly, despite the missed opportunity to inspire designers with their homepage–of any group, they have the most on their shoulders already. I’m suggesting (my suggestion is evolving), that we simply use the opportunity to have a high profile excuse to inspire folks to take up this design challenge–wether or not it’s used or even recognized by the w3c. For the record, I don’t agree with your k10k comments, and I enjoyed the Harry Potter books and movies; but everyone’s encouraged to share their opnion.

Nick: Yeah, I agree about the eyecandy, but that type of solution would be a failure from a design perspective anyways. In other words, even skipping over the idea of designers as a userbase to be spoken to–a site design that compliments it’s purposes for non-designers would be much more inspring. I’m not sure I’m making sense.

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

(... more on Nick’s comments) Oh yeah, I also agree about the information architecture–maybe the design challengers could begin to address that from the perspective of the homepage. And yes, the inconsistancies of design and navigation from section to section is probably the biggest problem, and one that wouldn’t be addressed by a design challenge unfortunately.

Quote this comment

Dan Posted…

IA challenge!

Quote this comment

dRu Posted…

So to what degree can we help the w3c see its errors when it comes to their overall IA plan. These people are supposed to be at the forefront of the technology and their site ends up looking like a childs toy. I must also concur with the ease of getting lost. How many companies would be scathed by us if they deployed a site like this? (Maybe scathed is too strong, oh well) How many marketing execs scream at the complete lack of brand identification in the site? Just my 2 cents. I look forward to future discussion.

Quote this comment

Nick Finck Posted…

don’t get me started about the W3C. We all know the information on their site could be organized better. We all know that the visual appearance of their site could be designed better. And even my grandma knows that the writing in their recomendations could be written far more effectivly. We’re not even going to talk about accessibility and usability at this point because frankly it will look a lot like picking on the kid with the new clothes. What I feel the W3C needs to concentrate on is the user. Yes, you all remember the term “User-Centric Design” ...it no long just in the hands of the designer... the IAs and the content writers need to take note. If there should be a contest or challange for the W3C site it should to reinvent how they present themselves on all levels.

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Nick, you make good points. Perhaps the best way to impliment a design challenge with a “reinvent” scope, is to reward entries which take more of these things into consideration? Can this challenge be effective if it’s limited to the homepage? Will anyone be interested (or have the time) if more is required? The W3C has only applied their XHTML re-do to the homepage and associated frequently asked questions page, perhaps then this should be the scope of the challenge. “Challenge” being to redefine the interface (design, IA, content, etc) with an inspiring look and a user-centric approach?

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Oh and of course, the benifits of XHTML/CSS tableless layout is part of that challenge too.

On a somewhat related note: there is an odd smattering of reactions to the new homepage at the W3C site-comment archive for December 2002

Quote this comment

Dru Posted…

Instead of limiting it to the homepage could we designate (for example) three types of pages that the w3c uses? For instance, the home page, inner, non-recommendation pages, and recommendation pages. This limits the amount of work but allows for a broader scope and would allow for a better demonstration of IA work.

Quote this comment

Nick Finck Posted…

Nate, to answer your questions: Yes, No, Probably Not, I suppose, and Sounds good. :P

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Heck! We are defining the challenge right here, all ideas are open! A sampling of 3 page types seems like a good idea. I’ll go see if I can’t get through to someone over there connected to the w3c website–we will need to make sure we aren’t opening up any issues with copyright, and given the wording of it, I think we will really need written permission.

Quote this comment

Dan Posted…

I’m getting paid for this, right?

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

[server error comment duplicates removed at request of commenter] Apologies dan, but no one gets compensated for particpating here.

Quote this comment

Dan Posted…

Free donuts and coffee?

Something?

Anything?

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Well, if I hear back from the W3C, and get permission to hold the challenge, I might just be inspired to provide a few cheese danishes.

Quote this comment

Dave Posted…

I could chip in some coffee-stained dog-eared O’Reilly books (old editions, of course).

Quote this comment

mschmidt Posted…

Nick: I think you’re misinterpreting my original statement–I never stated that the W3C should re-design with a focus on “eyecandy”. I’m merely pointing out that their current design does nothing to help designers see what standards-compatible code is capable of. I find the W3C depressingly ugly, with an incomprehensible navigational structure–and it saddens me because I know it doesn’t have to be this way. You can do beautiful things with CSS/XHTML–so why not take advantage of this? Dan: I’m a designer–so, yes, I believe I have the authority to talk about design.

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

mschmidt, despite issues with our discussion, I was hoping you would be willing to help judge for the challenge. As the inspiration for the idea in the first place, would you consider it?

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Some sort of framed interface, might be the best way to avoid copyright issues, if W3C doesn’t get back to me. This seems to be the way 37 Signals accomplished their redo of the FedEx interface.

Quote this comment

Dan Posted…

Perhaps instead of judging, mschmidt would like to submit some standards compliant css/xhtml designs himself? A put your money where your mouth is sort of thing?

Quote this comment

Keith Posted…

Hmm. What can I say? This is quite an idea. Even though I’ve often groaned at the look of the W3C site–I tend to agree with Nick. I think the W3C needs much (much, much) more help in the writing and IA department than the design department. The design could use a bit of work (the biggest problem being inconsistancies), but I don’t know if it “needs” it. I’m not sure it’s serving the needs of their users to show the “nice & beautiful” things you can do with standards based code. But then again–it is pretty ugly. In any case–I’m excited to see how the challenge shapes up. If nothing else it could be fun.

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Well, label me a doofus, but I think we are all a lot closer to agreeing on things than not. I see the arguments for various things (writing, IA, etc) the W3C should be paying more attention to, and hopefully in some way the challenge can address and reward improvements in those areas. But I also think it will benifit by focusing on design, given the context of: a re-design of the homepage to use tableless XHTML/CSS. So my next plan is to wait till the weekend to see if I hear back from the W3C, and then (assuming nothing) go ahead and start putting together a little site to describe the challenge and invite participants. But this isn’t meant to close the discussion, just a status update.

Quote this comment

scott Posted…

I totally agree with comments about the W3C site desparately needing an IA upgrade (and copy writing also) but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t benefit from some consistent attractice design (not eyecandy!, just easy on the eye)

Quote this comment

Nick Finck Posted…

Clarification: I think several people reading and posting on this thread have misinterpreted the meaning of “eye-candy” and therefore tend to believe I am talking about gratuitous graphics that get in the way of “function.” This is not the case. To me, eye-candy is any graphic on a site that does not serve a core purpose other than to “enhance the visual representation.” Web-Graphics does not have any eye-candy as far as I can see. Digital Web Magazine (my own site) does (mainly because the design you see was built in 1998... that will change before March 2003). K10k most certainly does... and why not? Their audience is web designers. I don’t think the W3C really considers web designers (and I mean graphic designers who believe they know what web design is) part of their audience. I believe the W3C site is in its current state (setting aside the problems with IA and writing) is basically functional and serves its primary audience: the web developers (by this, I mean the people who really know the guts of CSS, HTML, XML, etc). If you are still reading this, you are a die-hard... so please know that Web Design is the art of finding a solution to a known problem... it is not by any stretch of the imagination the art of visual stimulus.

Quote this comment

mschmidt Posted…

Dan: Enough with the snideness, please–since when did this discussion have anything to do with me personally? I thought we were talking about the W3C site? And, btw, does this mean that you are not allowed to take part in this discussion just because your redcricket.site doesn’t even validate as HTML 4.0? Not from where I’m standing–but perhaps you should just “put your money where your mouth is” & try to get back to the subject at hand.

... But seeing that you did ask: K10k actually validates as XHTML, with the sole exceptions being the shockwave moodstats file (for obvious reasons) and the border-tags we have on our master frameset (because I haven’t found a css-substitute for them yet). Does this mean I’m allowed to continue this discussion now?

Quote this comment

mschmidt Posted…

Nick: I see what you mean, but I’m not sure that I agree. I consider myself a “web developer” as well as being a designer, which means that I should also be counted amongst the audience of the W3C site. I think that the distinction you’re making between web developers and web designers is way too strict–nowadays it seems more like the norm rather than the exception that web-people dabble in almost all aspects of the net.

“Web Design is the art of finding a solution to a known problem”, well ... yes, but in this case I believe that the lack of any sort of design (UI, IA, what not) is the problem that hasn’t been solved over at the W3C. To me websites like The Morning News, Textism or even Zeldman.com show that an almost eyecandy-less design can both work, enhance the contents of a website and create a more usable experience for everyone–and I still think that the W3C should have considered this before re-designing.

Quote this comment

dan Posted…

mschmidt:

1) I wasn’t the one who publicly bad mouthed the W3C design.

2) I wasn’t being snide...I was being snarky. There’s a slight and subtle difference.

3) It’s not personal, hell I don’t even know you.  I do know however that making negative comments about a site without showing specific examples is bad form.

Quote this comment

mschmidt Posted…

Dan:

1)No–but you certainly didn’t have any qualms about publicly bad-mouthing me & K10k. Which is relevant in which way in this discussion? AND ... how could what I initally said be construed as bad-mouthing? I was trying to post up constructive criticism.

2) No, not really–“snarky” would be if you’d lost your temper and called everyone assholes. Trying to prove that you are better than someone else is definitely “snide”.

3) I was using the entire site as an example–and I linked to it. What more did you want? Screenshots? I don’t think there’s a single nicely-designed element on the W3C site–so there was absolutely no point in me trying to go into detail.

Quote this comment

dan Posted…

(chuckle)

mschmidt: For relevancy see the beginning of this thread...and for the record I never once implied I was better than anyone else. However...this does.

-“The W3C site looks dull, unappetizing, and utterly uninspiring and as a designer I found myself thinking, ”wait a minute–if this is what a standards-compatible site looks like, I think I’ll just stick to HTML 4 / XHTML transitional and a mixture of css & tables“.-

No point in going into detail? Come on, you completely dismissed all the work the W3C people did and to add insult to injury....you threw ”get a designer" as a suggestion for improvement.

The W3C is a reference site and requires nothing more than simple yet practical layout that doesn’t distract the users from their intended goals.

You made some pretty blanketed statements based on personal aesthetic...I was merely curious on what standard CSS/XHTML design ideas you may or may not have to back up those statements.

Nate: I’m sorry this thread derailed a bit. :/

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

Well, in an effort to not thow too much oil into the mix, I’ll sidestep the various debating devices that are not my cup of tea, and put out a list of observations I think are directly related to the matter at hand:

• The W3C put out an XHTML/CSS based table-less homepage design; as they are the folks who created the specs for those standards, this is welcome news to those trying to evangelize them
• In and of itself the change is good news for reasons of readability in devices that wouldnt have faired well with the old table layout
• There are a lot of issues with the W3C site IA, consistency, and writting–in a wholistic sense these are big issues for all target audiences of the site, but they also superciede the scope of the orginal announcment which was limited to the homepage and faq only

Now, here’s why mschmidt’s original post at k10k struck such a chord: when I first saw a note somewhere about the w3c “redesign”and went to check it out–my heart sunk. There is a part of me which retains some semblance of designer sensibilities, and for those, this new layout was nails on a chalkboard. It had everything to do with who the w3c is, the respect they deserve, and what we know is achieveable in design using these technologies. If the site were a personal blog or something not related to the w3c, I would not have been so heartbroken. It’s the unspoken validation to designers that strict standards and sensible/beautiful design don’t mix that upset me (see the tagline: “Leading the Web to its Full Potential...”). On the other hand, I think I see some how some folks visited the new site design without all the melodrama–it’s a matter of viewing the site in a reductionistic manner (what things are wrong) vs taking an inductive approach (what could be better).

Quote this comment

zeldman Posted…

W3.org is known to be badly written, incomprehensibly structured, and depressingly ugly. It’s not a consumer site. It’s a repository of technical specifications, written by and for uber-geeks. These geeks are good at coming up with specs. They’re not good at design (in any sense of that word) or writing and they’re not supposed to be.

I agree that w3.org is a turn-off to people who care about content and design (i.e. a turn-off to the very people who are supposed to be inspired by and use the specs). I’ve always known this to be true. I’ve written about it. I’ve talked to some W3C folks about trying to at least do a better job of writing (speaking the language of designers and developers). “WaSP Asks the W3C” is a tiny effort in that direction. It’s nowhere near enough, but it’s something.

Problems with the site are probably not solvable because the site is not created by specialists in design and communications and never will be.

There’s another problem, which mschmidt is also getting at: designers, real designers, are mostly not involved in the creation of these specs. That’s the REAL problem. (If designers and developers are turned off to the W3C’s bad design, architecture, and writing, so what? We can always buy books by people like Eric Meyer and get our education that way.)

But the lack of participation in the process by people who design sites for a living is a major problem — much more important than the consumer-unfriendliness of w3.org.

It costs $50K to become a W3C member, but you can participate as a non-member (an “invited expert”) for free.

Participation however takes a great deal of time — more time than most working designers and developers who are any good at their jobs could begin to devote to it.

That’s the real problem. I used to think the problem was “the site is uninspiring.” But the real problem is too few people who really USE THIS STUFF (and do it well) are involved in the creation of the specs.

My argument here may be a bit disjointed. It was hard typing it in this tiny box. I lost track of what I might already have said. So forgive any redundancies, omissions, or general weirdness in this post.

Quote this comment

zeldman Posted…

To be clear, I think the contest is a great idea, and didn’t mean to imply otherwise in the lengthy note above. The challenge of organizing all W3C’s info into a user-oriented, intuitively navigable scheme, writing human-readable descriptive copy, and creating an appropriate visual style is well worthwhile.

Quote this comment

Timo Posted…

It is a classic case of a sprawling organisation, with disparate initiatives and a confusing internal structure that has gradually made it's way into the user interface and IA. I would quite happily participate in some css revisioning to make the site look better (as I did with the validation icon remix), but I wouldn't touch the structure with a bargepole. Imagine the politics...

Quote this comment

Nate Posted…

To all folks interested in the concept: stay tuned, more information on the contest this weekend!

Quote this comment

evan Posted…

Timo, your site is one of the most beautiful ever. Keep up the good work. Sorry for the off-topic post. Btw - dig the new fontage, Nate.

Quote this comment

Xarius Posted…

This is a fab idea in my opinion. I have always found that the W3C site is a bit droll and boring. Granted it is a technical site - but that is no reason for it to not show off what you can achieve if you follow their recommendations! *starts designing*

Quote this comment

Sarcosos Posted…

To some so-called "designers" (some "top-notch", some not): You are stylefascists and you are stylefreaks, I don't know why, and I really don't care. But, please: Don't call yourselves designers when you're not!

Quote this comment

James Posted…

Well that was a pointless statement. This isn't a shoutboard. Come back when you have something of value to add. Some designer are good, some aren't. Some consider it an art, others a problem solving exercise. Most a little of both.

Quote this comment

David Peterson Posted…

Please don't toss about the word "standards" unless you are talking about ISO, the W3 are not a standards organization and they goto great lengths to emphasize on their site that they offer "reccomendations" not standards, they are not a legal entity or a recognized official standards body and until such time as they are a legally recognized international standards body they will only offer "reccomendations" i quote from their mission statement To promote adoption of W3C recommendations among developers, application builders, and standards setters, and to encourage inclusion of stakeholder organizations in the creation of future recommendations by joining W3C thank you

Quote this comment

Dave Posted…

Thank you David for that fine piece of erudition, but I'm not sure what is your point. Are you trying to get us to change our terminology? Should we be saying "web recommendations" when we refer to W3C technologies? Does ISO have a markup standard we should know about? Interestingly, Dictionary.com lists the W3C alongside ISO in its list of standards bodies, proving there is little difference between de facto standards and de jure standards. Anyway, I don't think that people will get as worked up over "non-recommended" web pages.

Quote this comment

David Peterson Posted…

Why yes actually they do. Maybe W3 "specifications" would be be a more appropriate description of the W3's technologies instead of saying "strict standards compliance" when in reality (technically speaking),they are not standards at all , of course they are free to submit their "specifications" to ISO for approval. anyway this is all semantics its just amusing when talking about "strict standards compliance" some people dont even understand the phrase they are using.

Quote this comment

Nick Finck Posted…

David, you, by chance, wouldn’t happen to be a software developer would you? Maybe you majored in computer science? Or perhaps you just love how abused terminology has become over the years? Well, maybe we should hunt down those bastards that use "alt tag" when referring to an alt attribute for an image tag (or should we say element)? And man, why did they name that attribute "title"? What were they thinking?? David, I understand your point, and it is just semantics. Don't worry, the W3C won't form a coup and take over ISO with brute force.

Quote this comment

XariusX Posted…

Well golly gosh David! What have we been thinking all these years. W3C should be scrapped and thrown away... I mean they are only recommendations and we can do without them. Let the browsers make up their own mind, implement their OWN idea of what is right. Sheesh. You could easily construe "Standards" in the context of page design as a "slang" term if you are going to be pedantic about what it is called! For example, CSS - It is Cascading Style Sheets however this term extends to the tyle="blah" we see inside tags does it not? However you will find that this attribute is NOT a "style sheet". So give over, we use common terminology and unless you can offer some constructive, or objective criticism/comments on the subject at hand then go away...

Quote this comment

Mrs. Web-Graphics Posted…

You all are nuts and I'd like to have my husband back.

Quote this comment

Sarcosos (Honey, I'm home!) Posted…

...So, here’s my plea to mschmidt & co. - try getting a designer involved with your next re-design, and try creating a site that actually shows the nice & beautiful things you can do with standards-compatible code.

...So, here’s my plea to mschmidt & co. - try to improve your communication skills before you make public pleas, on your inaccessible, w3c-rec incompatible, and contextually inappropriate, web sites. (how many readers of k10k ever care about W3C and recommendations?!)

Benote: Design is the act of designating, and stylista is not W3C designatee. If you're stylista, that's your problem. W3C is no promo giggo'. And the W3C people are designers [a.k.a. actors of designating], we all are.

Quote this comment

Fran Posted…

Design is the act of designating, and in a visual medium, it takes the form of a visual design. The www is always text and meaning, and sometimes text, meaning and visual. Don't let the www become a never-visual medium.

Quote this comment

BBlackmoor Posted…

W3C is very much a standards body. That the W3C doesn't have any way to enforce the standards they promulgate makes them a highly righteous organization, in my opinion, because it means the standards have to actually be useful and realistic for anyone to use them (and they are, shock of shocks).

Quote this comment

Tom Posted…

David - Quote: 'Why yes actually they do' An interesting statement, made even more interesting by the fact that if you actually bother reading through the ISO standard example you'll note that in correcting various defects in the the ISO standard for HTML, it is corrected against the W3C recommendations. Ergo - the ISO standard is equivalent to the W3C specifications, and who is really providing the standard?

Quote this comment

Lasty Posted…

Hmm, perhaps someone can help with this - I've just 'finished' my submission for the contest, and I've been checking it for standards compliance all through the build process. The XHTML and CSS validate with no problems, but although it displays perfectly well in IE6, the page won't render beyond the first two div's in either Opera or Moz. Anyone got any ideas? I'm stumped, and its rather disheartening having spent a week writing this page to be standards compliant for it then not to work in the two browsers that are supposed to be most compliant. I'm afraid I only started learning HTML in November 02, and I've tried a few fixes, but this is beyond me :( Here's the page

Quote this comment

Lasty Posted…

Hmm, perhaps someone can help with this - I've just 'finished' my submission for the contest, and I've been checking it for standards compliance all through the build process. The XHTML and CSS validate with no problems, but although it displays perfectly well in IE6, the page won't render beyond the first two div's in either Opera or Moz. Anyone got any ideas? I'm stumped, and its rather disheartening having spent a week writing this page to be standards compliant for it then not to work in the two browsers that are supposed to be most compliant. I'm afraid I only started learning HTML in November 02, and I've tried a few fixes, but this is beyond me :( Here's the page

Quote this comment

sarcosos Posted…

Fran, I'm sorry that you didn't get my point. My point was simply to point out to messerschmidt & the gangsta's (who really are nice kids, I know.) That (perhaps) they should watch their language, and their own asses, before they start ranting other's designs. I agree that web design has a visual side, and of course that that must be cared for, and wisely crafted. However, I do not agree that the W3C aren't doing any of that. I do not agree in making W3C into a self-promotional organisation, because I never think it was meant to be. And I absolutely do not agree that the web is nothing but a visual medium. I'm not the nicest boy alive, far from. And maybe I should care for that. But I didn't find mschmidt rant in anyway nice & beautiful, and absolutely not the words of a considerate and true designer. So I fucked him. Just like he fucked my friendly neighbours at the W3C, which you honestly can talk directly to if you really want to make a plea. And not just a lazy dumb rant.

Quote this comment

Julie Roswell Posted…

Yeah, sure, it could be more, but it's very hard for the nice people at W3C to read your minds. And I'm not talking 'bout the gangsta's who pay all the money - in my opinion, not only to do things good, but also to lazy things down; probably because it's gonna hit them hard when people get that they really aren't that good at all; just like a lot of people in this world - web design - are overblown in many perspectives. [no names, today. -sorry.] To me it's not übertech, and to me the layout ain't that bad. I have no particular problems with it really. I have more problems with mschmidt's, zeldman's, and nielsen's all-around design(s) really, if you need names on that. And if it bothers me, because I like them, I try to point it out to them in person, not behind there back. I've never seen anyone of you take much part in the "public work" at w3.org the latest 3-4 years I've been around. (And I know!.. a lot of you have been around, too.) I agree to much of what you all say, but the way you do it. Well,.. just fuck it! fuck it. fuck it. fuck it. It's a shame. A damn shame! That good people are that bad.

Quote this comment

Mike Leung Posted…

Given the complexity of the material made available on w3c.org, I don't doubt they have good reasons for neglecting their own rule on site navigation consistency. But are "you aren't entitled to criticize my friends" and "I'm swearing gratuitously, so you must have antagonized me" among them? If you want to criticize the contest, I think you might get better results with something like, "Call me crazy, but I imagine people one day holding court online about topics OTHER THAN WEB DESIGN -- and when these people arrive to rip you a new asshole, they will do it by using W3C standards."

Quote this comment

sarcosos Posted…

Yeah, baby! and tommorow we'll hold a contest to redesign your ass, kaliber10000, and elsewhere, where all the dumb vibes live.

Quote this comment

Mike Leung Posted…

Anyone who's sat through even one media or art class has to tolerate constructive criticism. It's not dumb. It's taking into consideration what other people make of what you present.

Quote this comment

Julie Roswell Posted…

-Mmmm, I think I'll have the poo-poo platter. -Chickity China. -Thanks, Charlie! -Gotta go! -Khe Sanh, you know? -No Yakuza Azz?! -Don't think so. -Too bad. -Yeah, we miss 'em so sweet. -But, give me bombshells or give me death. -No cocktail? -A Molotov to that, then. They blend so fine.

Quote this comment

sarcosos Posted…

So it's a good vibe then, sir?

Quote this comment

Mike Leung Posted…

It's always a shame when someone's need to control others daunts their ability to receive gratification in life.

Quote this comment

Julie Roswell Posted…

Don't you go mess up design with art and media, because there's no analogy what so ever. Design is design, art is art, and media is media. Sometimes they blend, sometimes they don't. You know that.

Quote this comment

sarcosos Posted…

And in what way do you think W3C does that, Mike?

Quote this comment

Mike Posted…

It's funny how you can witness someone attempt to isolate me, based not on my reasoning or merit, but based on my ethnicity, and assume my reply to that is directed at the W3C. Are you sure you aren't looking for the K3 boards?

Quote this comment

Julie Roswell Posted…

I'm not sure you're talking to me, Mike. K3, What's that? But you shouldn't take anything I say too serious. I tend to do stuff like that. And it's not a rasist thing. I just wanna show you how irrelevant I think you guy are by doing something I think is just as irrevelavant, not more. Call me a bitch, cause I am. (At times.) Sarcosos just rides the wave of sarcasm and irony, he always have, I'm sure he always will.

Quote this comment

...Julie... Posted…

oops... you guys.

Quote this comment

sarcosos Posted…

Here's a final statement, hope you finds it more constructive than the previous ones, Mike. But shit! I always thought most here where: 1. I don't give a chicken shit about your ethnicity, and I don't know yours, based on your name I can guess, of course. Based on your language I can guess pretty much your social and cultural context, and what country you're hosted in. 2. I don't find your reasoning constructive, probably because I never got your point. 3. I don't know your merits, and you don't know mine. 4. Neither me nor Julie has, or have ever had, a closer relationship to anyone at the W3C than most; they are not our buddies. However, they do things we like, we don't think your criticism justified. And that's why I rant. (Handing key over to Julie, I'm sure she'll write you a final plea, you're all worthy...)

Quote this comment

Mike Posted…

Ok, Julie. I'm glad you aren't racist. To avoid the confusion in the future, it helps to not shout out a person's difference like Austin Powers shouting "MOLE!" when he sees someone with an obvious mole. They are liable to think you see them as defective, as racists do.

Quote this comment

julie [again.] Posted…

Thanks, Mike! I hope I deserved it. Here's some litter for the kids. Julie thinks it's nice, not really... 1. That mschmidt thinks so little of the people at W3C, that he actually think they aren't designers. 2. That mschmidt, as a designer, found himself thinking: "wait a minute - if this is what a standards-compatible site looks like, I think I'll just stick to HTML 4 / XHTML transitional and a mixture of css & tables". 5. That mschmidt, as a designer, didn't think: wait a minute - if I can make a non standards-compliant, but really beautiful (yet complex) site [like the k10k] compliant. I could probably get the people I know as designers not thinking what I [above] was thinking. 3. That sarcosos thinks of mschmidt as, "nothing but a self-righteous ignorant bitch, who obviously should have studied english (even more). Before trying to do - what seemed to be - a serious attempt of criticism." 4. That Mr. Zeldman has the nerve of repeateadly calling the W3C homepage: "Dogfood." 5. That I'm a dog who likes my food. 6. That a bit bookish boy, doesn't read, what's good enough for me. 7. That some people can feel the only difference between "constructive criticism" and "destructive criticism" is how it is expressed. As if, what it truly expresses, is irrelevant. [I'm not talking to you, Charlie. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Read my lips; no more.] 8. That the W3C is supposedly composed by "super-geeks" and "übergeeks", and that you're jury is supposedly conducted by "a team of experts, comprised of top-notch designers, markup artists, and too many other talents to list here,.." (whoever wrote that.) when the people I know - like myself - think both is wrong. 9. That people obviosly cannot read the W3C homepage top-down, because than we probably would have gotten much further. 10. And, most importantly, that this post became so long, dull, and late, that noone will probably (ever) take it into consideration. /Julie Roswell, in the belly of sweden. -Not blogging for the KKK, you dummie! [-Go, Charlie! Go! -May you be the best and win!]

Quote this comment

julie [is sorry. austin is great.] Posted…

god! the box was so small, i thought i deserved a bigger one, so i faked it, but wordwrapping do-not rule... here comes the post again, kill the previous one if it fills your drives... ### Julie thinks it's nice, not really... 1. That mschmidt thinks so little of the people at W3C, that he actually think they aren't designers. 2. That mschmidt, as a designer, found himself thinking: "wait a minute - if this is what a standards-compatible site looks like, I think I'll just stick to HTML 4 / XHTML transitional and a mixture of css & tables". 5. That mschmidt, as a designer, didn't think: wait a minute - if I can make a non standards-compliant, but really beautiful (yet complex) site [like the k10k] compliant. I could probably get the people I know as designers not thinking what I [above] was thinking. 3. That sarcosos thinks of mschmidt as, "nothing but a self-righteous ignorant bitch, who obviously should have studied english (even more). Before trying to do - what seemed to be - a serious attempt of criticism." 4. That Mr. Zeldman has the nerve of repeateadly calling the W3C homepage: "Dogfood." 5. That I'm a dog who likes my food. 6. That a bit bookish boy, doesn't read, what's good enough for me. 7. That some people can feel the only difference between "constructive criticism" and "destructive criticism" is how it is expressed. As if, what it truly expresses, is irrelevant. [I'm not talking to you, Charlie. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Read my lips; no more.] 8. That the W3C is supposedly composed by "super-geeks" and "übergeeks", and that you're jury is supposedly conducted by "a team of experts, comprised of top-notch designers, markup artists, and too many other talents to list here,.." (whoever wrote that.) when the people I know - like myself - think both is wrong. 9. That people obviosly cannot read the W3C homepage top-down, because than we probably would have gotten much further. 10. And, most importantly, that this post became so long, dull, and late, that noone will probably (ever) take it into consideration. /Julie Roswell, in the belly of sweden. -Not blogging for the KKK, you dummie! [-Go, Charlie! Go! -May you be the best and win!]

Quote this comment

Julie [A final to Mike, because I don't have your mail.] Posted…

Warning! Don't read this post if you're name is NOT Mike, because it's almost more off-topic than ever! You may never understand, but I like differences, even though they're are bad. But, I probably should have invited, Mr. Bush, Sharon, Himmler, and the gangsta's, in my warhoe'ing. Even if they're eventually gonna kill us all. But I thought most people already knew the sad news, and that they could interpret the totally distorted message, already. I know who gave who the bombshells. The a-bombs, and the molotov cocktails, and the cluster bombs. And I have never believed there ever has been any justified killing of any person, in eternity back-and-forth. I don't support collective punishment. I don't support killing and opppression of anyone, just to get some another. I hate all of nationalism. I hate my own country because it's so lame and weak, and seem to lack certain cruicial values, in a devestating way for to many people. And most of all I hate myself, because I'm almost as weak, at times it seems. Forever sorry, if it hurts.

Quote this comment

sarc Posted…

Hyeah! This war is the best of things! It gives us that itchy feelin' of W3C as "a forum for information, commerce, communication, and [most importantly?] collective understanding." Dont you say?

Quote this comment

Julie Roswell Posted…

Yep, sarc. But I'm trying to stop insulting the kids here. They've seemed to stop insulting the kids at the W3C culture club, and I have no urge right now to rant 'em. And I don't think they'll listen to us any time soon, anyways. So I'll just go back listenin' to "Cold Chisel, Sara Evans, The Bloodhound Gang & All That". And writing on my other pro'gies (and proggies), of course. Siesta, manja!

Quote this comment

Mike Posted…

"Due to a complex entry voting system, we are extending the time available for the judges to submit properly qualified voting on each entry." Are you using butterfly ballots? Am I getting all of Al Gore's votes? I still say they are legal.

Quote this comment

julie roswell Posted…

Ha, Mike!

(You can probably count 'em in the next remix...or mix them in the next recount.. - ah, whatever!)

For those of us who really don't have the pleasure of reading webgraphics on a periodical basis. Nate said this; not too long ago..

Remember that contest we held a while back? Just wanted to update those who are interested, and most especially the very patient entrants. Of the three judges who still need to cast their votes, one down - two left.

Quote this comment

julie roswell Posted…

why do I always fail with markup. I'm worse than my neighbor: bongo. crap

Quote this comment

sarcosos Posted…

Wow, these guy's are tryin' real hard to hippocrite themselves by pushing "the next few days" forward and forward. Now, there's a final date! That's splendid. Thank you.

Quote this comment

Mike Posted…

The winners look like the existing W3C page. What did y'all hold this contest for?

Quote this comment

sarcosos Posted…

For my personal & greedy pleasure of instantly insulting people based on no facts whatsoever, of course. What did you think: Fun? Necessity?