Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@s...
|
