>> While in a perfect world I'd agree with David, it's not so much the
>> 'tender egos of folk involved in designing the site' it's usually,
>> imnsho, the un- or refused-to-be-educated folk who actually pay for the
>> site to look/feel a certain way.
>> 0.02 delivered :)
> Part of this business is education. It may take awhile. Reinforced with
> factual information demonstrating how customers unhappy with their
> mousetype are happily shopping at their competition's websites sometimes
> helps. ;-)
Without at doubt, educating clients is truly the hardest part of my job.
But nonetheless the one I do most often. Sometimes they're agreeable
and open to suggestions for reasons of browser compatibility or
accessibility. Other times they're um...less reasonable :)
Either way, I agree that getting people to 'see right' is the key...and
that often means defending the 'reasons that separation of content and
layout is a good idea'. Thankfully, I am a true believer in that, now
(amazing since a year ago I'd have fought diligently for my ol'
tables!). I generally preach standards adherence, but since reading
some really good things from this list about serving XHTML as XML, I've
worked towards getting clients to understand a bit more of the "how and
why" rather than the "this is just good practice".
kudos and credits: http://www.gunlaug.no/ (Gunlaug Sørtun)
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/