The Adoption of Web Standards, 1
The Adoption of Web Standards into Web Design and Development: A Report on a
Large Survey
The Adoption of Web Standards, 2
Abstract
This paper reports preliminary results from a survey administered world-wide to
better understand how web designers and developers are adopting web standards into
their work processes. Specifically we wanted to find (1) the level of commitment to web
standards by designers, developers and organizations, (2) what forces drive the adoption
of web standards, and (3) the extent to which web standards have influenced work
processes. 128 people from 12 countries responded. Results regarding motivations,
barriers, perceptions of ROI impacts, and the impacts on work processes are presented.
Introduction
The World Wide Web has been in a state of constant and rapid evolution in its
short life. In early versions of web browsers, it was impossible to design and create
content in ways we now take for granted. It is now hard to imagine that 15 years ago,
HTML tables, forms, shopping carts, portals, content management systems and AJAX
applications were nonexistent or rarely used. This study seeks to establish an
understanding of the extent to which designers and developers are adopting web
standards into their work processes. Specifically, we want to know more about
organizational commitment to the use of web standards, the forces driving the adoption of
web standards, and whether web standards are changing the work of designers and
developers.
By “web standards,” we are referring to the use of best practices and technical
specifications for content development and presentation put forth by the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C). Furthermore, we regard web standards as a design “modus
operandi,” philosophy or even paradigm to which web designers and developers align
The Adoption of Web Standards, 3
their processes and methods. Certainly, aspects of technical specifications possibly
associated with web standards could be numerous but we are not, in this paper, referring
to technologies such as web services, although we could. Instead, we are referring mainly
to content-based technical specifications such as Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), HTML
(HyperText Markup Language), XHTML (Extensible HyperText Markup Language) and
the like.
It is useful to think of web standards as a model consisting of three-tiers:
presentation/style, content/structure, and behavior/programming (Figure 1). This is useful
both conceptually and as a framework for division of labor. Presentation/Style is the layer
closest to users and may be thought of as the visual design that is laid on top of the
content/structure layer. Presentation is accomplished through the use of CSS. The
content/structure layer contains the markup necessary to construct documents according
to semantic and syntactic (not display) norms established through technical
specifications. The structure of content is accomplished usually through the use of
XHTML, although any standards compliant model may be acceptable as long as there is
philosophical alignment within the local and global design community. The
behavior/programming layer allows content to be more or less dynamic through the use
of scripts, rich Internet applications and database connectivity.
Until a few years ago, the use of CSS as anything more than a global font and text
styling tool was unthinkable because CSS was not fully supported by enough browsers to
make CSS development feasible. In the last few years, however, this has begun to
change. The importance of web standards has forced browser developers to design
browsers that support most CSS features. This has given web content developers and
The Adoption of Web Standards, 4
visual designers the ability to work within standards compliance. The aim of this study is
find out how, if at all, content developers, web designers and visual designers are
incorporating web standards into their work.
Figure 1. Three layers of activities related to web standards development.
The fact that browser technology now supports web standards better than at any
other time does not mean that designers and developers are using web standards in their
work. There are many reasons why web developers and designers would not immediately
embrace web standards in their work processes. The main reason may be that before it
was possible to design and develop using web standards, designers had to use many
The Adoption of Web Standards, 5
“work-arounds” that would not be considered “good” design by the web standards
community. For example, designers routinely used tables to force page layout, used font
tags to vary the appearance of text, and used all manner of markup to control presentation
in the browser. Although these practices are frowned on from a web standards
perspective, designers got very good at employing them. It is expensive from both a
financial standpoint and in terms of cognitive load to relearn what you do. This is made
all the more difficult by the fact that what the designers are doing now works. That is,
browsers render content produced by the old way of doing things.
On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to adopt web standards, not the
least of which is the threat of legal action from disabled people unable to use a site that
does not conform to accessibility standards.
In any case, we wanted to find out what is the extent of web standards adoption
among the web design and development community. Despite strong reasons to design
with standards, not everyone does. Furthermore, there are different degrees of web
standards use. There are strict interpretations and more lenient, or transitional standards.
There are many versions of HTML or XHTML available for use. Therefore, there is no
“one way” to adopt web standards.
This study seeks to show whether people are using web standards, what types of
standards they are using, how the use of standards has influenced their practice, and how
detailed their use of standards is.
Research Questions
1. Among organizations, designers and developers, what level of
commitment is there to the adoption of web standards?
The Adoption of Web Standards, 6
2. What forces are driving the adoption of web standards?
3. How have web standards influenced web design processes among these
actors?
Literature Review
There is much literature that describes how to mechanically use CSS (Meyer,
2004, 2007; Shea & Holzschlag, 2005) or how to structure documents with HTML or
XHTML (Musciano & Kennedy, 2006). But there are no models or studies, of which we
are aware, that provide a model for what to expect when an organization attempts to
change old practices of web design to standards-based practices. In this study, we seek to
gather data that will help us form such a model.
Before going any further, it is useful to establish what we mean by web standards.
Like many other concepts, web standards mean different things to different people. One
starting place to understand web standards is technical specifications for the various
technologies developed at the W3C. For example, one could read the various CSS
specifications such as Level 1 (W3C, 1999), Level 2 (W3C, 2007a), or the emerging
documentation on Level 3. One could read the specifications for XHTML 1.0 (W3C,
2002), XHTML 1.1 (W3C, 2007b) or HTML 5 (W3C, 2008). The problem with these
specifications is they are written in a fairly arcane way. For example, consider the
following text form the W3C (2007a) Level 2 CSS specification found in section 10.6.3
entitled, “Block-level non-replaced elements in normal flow when 'overflow' computes to
'visible'”:
If it has block-level children, the height is the distance between the top border-
edge of the topmost block-level child box that doesn't have margins collapsed
through it and the bottom border-edge of the bottommost block-level child box
The Adoption of Web Standards, 7
that doesn't have margins collapsed through it. However, if the element has a non-
zero top padding and/or top border, or is the root element, then the content starts
at the top margin edge of the topmost child. (The first case expresses the fact that
the top and bottom margins of the element collapse with those of the topmost and
bottommost children, while in the second case the presence of the padding/border
prevents the top margins from collapsing.) Similarly, if the bottom margin of the
block does not collapse with the bottom margin of its last in-flow child, then the
content ends at the bottom margin edge of the bottommost child.
There are few who can interpret these sorts of passages, and therefore most of us
are left to trial and error learning (or secondary literature) about the results of adjusting
height and margins when there is influence from related block level elements.
However, the problem of implementing web standards can be expressed in two
other ways: (1) there is no, one, standard within which people can work, and (2) the
expense of changing methods of working. To address the variety of standards, as we saw
above, there are 2 existing CSS versions, at least 2 XHTML versions, and they all must
be backward compatible to at least some extent. This problem received wonderful
treatment by Spolsky (2008). To summarize the problem, a standards compliant web page
may be written in HTML 4, XHTML 1.0 (transitional or strict), XHTML 1.1, or HTML
5. The same page may be styled in CSS Level 1 or Level 2. Which one is the standard?
The second problem with web standards (at least of the two we just identified) is
that of how to change methods of work to incorporate standards. For many years
designers and developers used tables to facilitate layout and liberally sprinkled formatting
elements throughout documents. They used Photoshop to layout pages and then used the
slicing tool to move their graphics into HTML tables. These methods required years to
perfect and they remain an entrenched method of work in some organizations. Despite
assurances by designers such as Logadòttir (2001), changing these methods and learning
The Adoption of Web Standards, 8
to separate content and presentation is a bit like turning an oil tanker around; it can’t be
done quickly or easily.
One final note: accessibility compliance is certainly one factor motivating the use
of web standards by organizations. Although we do not address accessibility in this
paper, we did address it in our survey. Limitations on space and time prevent us from
discussing those issues here except to say that we acknowledge accessibility issues to be
one of many reasons why people adopt web standards (Thatcher et al, 2006).
This research, then, is designed to build a base to find out what is going on with
web standards in the design and development community. We want to know the level of
adoption so that we can know where contributions to the web standards community might
be made.
Research Design
Overview of the Research Design
The researchers’ original intent for this line of research was to formulate some
sort of model for the adoption of web standards in organizations, whether for internal
web design and development or for design and development consultants. Although this
remains our intent, we quickly realized that some basic data were required before we
could engage in model building. To that end, we developed a survey to administer to web
designers and developers in order to better understand the extent to which, and why, they
are using web standards. We also wanted to know more about how the adoption of web
standards changed prior practice, and items to elicit that information were included in the
instrument.
It was intended that this survey should cover a broad range of web standards
topics. This paper reports a subset of the survey’s findings. In addition, we offered open-
The Adoption of Web Standards, 9
ended questions to allow respondents to address topics we had not directly asked about in
the survey. We also want this survey to be an instrument to be used in subsequent years
to monitor changes in behavior of web standards stakeholders. Therefore, these open-
ended questions will serve to help us refine the range and topics of items in the survey.
Description of the Survey Instrument
In any case, this iteration of the instrument contained the following sections (also
summarized in Table 1):
General questions about web standards adoption
Forces that drive web standards adoption
Implementation of web standards into work processes
Use of style guides and naming conventions
Use of web accessibility standards
Use of microformats
Open-ended comments on web standards.
For the sake of brevity, we provide an overview of the types of questions asked in
the survey in Table 1. The left column reflects major categories of questions we wished
to address with the instrument and the right column provides specifics about the
questions asked in each category. Also for the sake of brevity, this paper reports the
results of sections 1-3.
The Adoption of Web Standards, 10
Table 1. Overview of the survey instrument in terms of its sections and specific
elicitations.
Section Specific Data Elicitations
1. General questions about Respondent’s country of origin
web standards adoption Job type/title
Organization type
Familiarity with web standards
Types of web standards used
Commitment of respondents and their organizations to
web standards
Importance of web standards
Uses of consultants
Hiring practices
2. Forces that drive web People/groups pushing for web standards adoption
standards adoption Perceptions about the return on investment from the use
of web standards
Barriers to web standards adoption
3. Implementation of web Changes to work processes
standards into work Changes in design and development time, including
processes anticipation of long-term effects
Implications of web standards design and development
for legacy (non-standard) content
4. Use of style guides and Role of style guides
naming conventions* Overall use of naming conventions
Effort required to employ and enforce naming
conventions
Other comments
5. Use of web accessibility Organizational commitment
standards* Extent of accessibility standards use
Motivation for accessibility standards adoption
Types of accessibility standards used
6. Use of microformats* Familiarity with microformats
Specific uses
Development of new microformats
Other comments about microformats
7. Other comments* Open-ended question to elicit data not already addressed by the
survey instrument
* Not reported in this paper for the sake of brevity.
Participants
The Adoption of Web Standards, 11
Participants for this study were recruited through their affiliation with groups such
as the Web Standards Group (http://webstandardsgroup.org/, which has nearly 2000
members worldwide), several regional groups dedicated to web standards design, and
similar regional groups dedicated to web development and design. We also sent a similar
letter to graduates of the Visual Communication Design program at Kent State
University, many of whom are currently working as web designers. To each of these
groups we selected (primarily on the basis of how many members they had), we sent an
email explaining the study, what we hoped to find out, what we would do with the
results, and how long it would take to complete the survey. From these email
solicitations, 126 people responded from 12 countries.
Method of Distribution
As noted in the previous section potential respondents received an email that
described the study. The email also contained a link to the survey that we created and
housed in Survey Monkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/). Respondents could click on
the link and be taken to the opening screen of the survey that once again described it in
detail and contained wording about informed consent to participate anonymously in the
study.
The survey itself was online for an eight-week period, roughly during July and
August of 2008. After that period results of the survey were compiled and analyzed.
Each section of the study was a different screen presented with items related to
the section. For example, respondents would answer the items in the section “General
questions about web standards adoption,” and then click an action button called “Next,”
The Adoption of Web Standards, 12
which would take them to the next page containing the section, “Forces that drive web
standards adoption.”
Results
This survey elicited 128 responses over a two-month period during the summer of
2008. 91 (71%) respondents completed all items of the survey, so not all survey questions
will have 128 responses. That is, when we report percentages of answers to any given
question, it is the percentage of respondents to that question, not the entire survey, that
are reported. Respondents were primarily from the United States, the UK, and Australia,
but 10 other countries were also represented. 50% of respondents worked as in-house
web developers and 35% were web development consultants. 6% were in-house graphic
designers and another 6% were graphic design consultants. 88% of respondents were
either very familiar with web standards (52%) or reported expert knowledge of web
standards (36%). Nearly 90% of our respondents reported that their organizations
employed web standards in one form or another. With these basic characteristics in mind,
we will now discuss the results of the survey with regard to the research questions stated
earlier.
RQ 1: Among organizations, designers and developers, what level of commitment is there
to the adoption of web standards?
Over 66% of the participants said that web standards were very important to them
when designing websites and over 22% said it was somewhat important. They appeared
committed to the web standards.
The Adoption of Web Standards, 13
Approximately 80% of the participants strongly agree or agree that web standards
are important to their company. 87% either “agree” or “strongly agree” with a statement
that their organization has a strong commitment to web standards. These two findings
indicate that organizations are both expressing and acting on their commitment to web
standards.
Further commitment is indicated by the 46% of the participants who said that
their organization develops web sites with web standards on all of their client’s projects
and close to 33% said that their organization uses web standards on most of their client’s
projects.
Another way organizations can demonstrate commitment to the adoption of web
standards is through hiring of consultants and employees to help implement standards.
Somewhat surprisingly, 91% of the participants said they have not used web standard
professionals (consultants) to help them transition to web standards. Only 8% of the
people surveyed said they have used a web standard professional. Out of the 8% who said
they did use a consultant, 7% said that they have implemented most of the consultants’
suggestions.
54% of respondents said their company has hired people based on their expertise
in web standards and 38% said that they did not. In addition, 39% of the people said that
their company has created 1-3 positions requiring significant web standards expertise in
the last 3 years. 10% of the people hired 4-6 people and almost 11% of those people said
they’ve hired 10 or more people with this expertise.
Finally, it is possible to measure the level of commitment to web standards by
they types of devices content is developed for. In other words, if an organization is
The Adoption of Web Standards, 14
developing content that will be used on more than one platform (cell phones and web
browsers, for example), then it is more effective and efficient to develop content using
web standards. 100% of the participants said that they have developed content for
publishing on the web, 31% for PDAs and 29% for cell phones. In response to how
important web standards are to the future of the web, 99% of the participants said it was
important or very important to them.
From our results it appears that developers and organizations are firmly
committed to the use of web standards, and have even hired people to help with their
implementation (although consultants have not been used on any large scale). In the next
section, we will discuss the reasons designers, developers and organizations are using
web standards.
RQ 2 What forces are driving the adoption of web standards?
The forces innovation in web development often come from unlikely places.
Perhaps this is why it isn’t surprising to find that 96% of the people said their clients are
not promoting at all, or are somewhat promoting the use of web standards in their
projects, 43% said their management is strongly promoting web standards and 72% said
that development teams are strongly promoting the use of web standards. 77% said that it
mill make their job easier in the long run, 73% said that it will make documents usable in
multiple environments.
We were somewhat surprised to find that “legal pressures” were not regarded as a
strong reason to adopt web standards since web standards are used as the basis of
accessible web sites. In fact when asked about the importance of legal pressures in the
adoption of web standards, the results were somewhat evenly distributed across the “Very
The Adoption of Web Standards, 15
Important” (20%) to the “Not Important at All” (24%) scale. However, “Good Will” was
ranked “Very Important” by 47% of respondents, a vast majority over the other ratings.
Figure 2 shows the how people view the importance of reasons to implement web
standards.
Figure 2. Responses in the “Somewhat Important” and “Very Important” category
regarding reasons to implement web standards.
Return on investment (ROI) is one compelling reason for doing anything in an
organization. The use of web standards in design and development must, it would seem,
produce a positive ROI in order to be a viable process. 57% strongly agree that switching
The Adoption of Web Standards, 16
to web standards will produce a positive return on investment (ROI) for any organization
that decides to invest in web standards development. In response to weather their
organization’s management believes that switching to web standards will produce a
positive return on investment (ROI) if it invests in web standards development, 31% said
that they agree.
When asked whether expense should or should not be the determining factor
when deciding whether to switch to web standards development, 33% said they
somewhat agree, 22% strongly agreed, but 20% neither agreed nor disagreed. In other
words, not all respondents were willing to go out on the limb stating that they are for the
use of web standards despite any concerns about ROI.
Barriers to adopting web standards
The flip side of reasons to adopt web standards are the barriers that may exist to
adopting them. Out of 88 respondents, almost half of them, 43%, said that the biggest
barrier to the adoption of web standards is the lack of time to learn web standards. 34%
named lack of time as the barrier and 38% said it was the expense of converting that was
the biggest barrier. To a lesser degree, 33% participants said that the lack of support by
legacy browsers was a factor in not adopting web standards.
From these results, we can say that design teams are the main promoters of web
standards use, and that ROI (by way of making developers’ jobs easier and the creation of
multi-use documents) is a major motivator for standards use. However, the down side is
that changing processes is difficult. If designers and developers don’t have the time learn
to use standards, then conversion is too expensive to do.
The Adoption of Web Standards, 17
To better understand this problem of time and expense of changing work
processes, in the next section, we will investigate the influence of web standards on
development and work processes.
RQ 3: How have web standards influenced web design processes among these actors?
We asked whether web standards had made work processes easier or more
difficult overall. Over 50% said that it made their processes much easier or somewhat
easier. Only 20% said it complicated the processes, 19% said that there was no impact on
Web development process at all, and 7% were not sure. 0% participants said that it made
the processes much more complicated. Figure 3 shows whether web standards have made
their work processes easier or more complicated.
Figure 3. Influence of the use of web standards on development processes.
We then asked about the effect on design and development time when web
standards were adopted into the work process. Out of 68 people who answered this
The Adoption of Web Standards, 18
question, 36% of the respondents said that it neither increased nor decreased development
time, 28% said that it somewhat increased development time, 6% said that it caused
major increase in development time and 31% said that it somewhat decreased or caused
major decrease in development time. Figure 4 shows whether respondents perceived web
standards to increase or decrease development time.
Figure 4. Influence of the use of web standards on development time.
The impact on development time as a result of switching to web standards was
overwhelmingly positive. Out of 67 respondents, 42% said that switching to web
standards increased development time (i.e. slowed us down) at first, but they anticipate
(or have experienced) a long-term decrease (i.e. speed up) in development time. 33% said
that switching to WS produced an immediate decrease (i.e. speed up) in development
time, 18% said that there was no impact on development time at all. Certainly this will be
encouraging to those trying to convince management to convert to web standards.
The Adoption of Web Standards, 19
One of the largest and most expensive problems associated with web standards is
what to do with legacy, nonstandard content. We asked for whom, and how much of
peoples’ time is spent in converting legacy content. Out of 73 people who answered this
question, 56% of them said that they are doing that for some or most of their clients
content. Only 12% said that they are doing it for all their clients’ content, and 23% said
they will do it for none of their client’s content. 41% of the people said that they are not
doing any conversion, 37% said they are doing it 25% of their time and 12% said that
they are doing that 50% to75% of their time.
In terms of time spend on legacy conversion, less than 40% said that their
organization is spending 25% of their time in converting legacy code to standards-based
code. Almost none of the respondents reported large amounts of time spent by them or
others in their organization was being spent on legacy conversion. Figure 5 shows how
much time people are putting into the conversion of legacy content.
Figure 5. Percentage of time spent on the conversion of legacy content to
standards-based content for individuals and organizations.
The Adoption of Web Standards, 20
With regard to this research question, there is a perception that investment in the
use of web standards has long-term benefits while slowing processes during the learning
and conversion phase. That view, however, was not shared overwhelmingly. Some
reported a relatively quick transition to web standards. The ease of transition probably
depends on the environment and available talent in an organization. Legacy content
proved to be the largest problem in converting to web standards and one that by necessity
is often ignored.
Discussion
The aim in this paper was to find out: (1) the level of commitment to web
standards by designers, developers and organizations, (2) what forces drive the adoption
of web standards, and (3) the extent to which web standards have influenced work
processes. The implications of this research on each of these three areas are discussed
below.
Commitment
The Adoption of Web Standards, 21
Respondents indicated that both they and their organizations had a strong
commitment to web standards development. This, of course, does not indicate the amount
of resources committed to transitioning to web standards development. One indication of
commitment is, however, whether legacy content is transitioned to web standards.
Respondents indicated that legacy content was not being converted to any large extent.
Legacy content is an example of disconnect between the world of web standards
proponents and the world of web site developers. Large amounts of non-standard content
currently exist on the web (Zeldman, 2007), which creates a massive dilemma for web
standards proponents. This dilemma was brought into sharp focus by the controversy
over Internet Explorer 8 being developed to display only pages developed in adherence to
web standards. Web standards proponents were happy to see this sort of commitment on
the part of a major software developer, but others worried about the practicality of a
product that could render only a small portion of web content.
This dilemma surrounding legacy content is also tied closely to the problem of
ROI. The expense of retrofitting all nonstandard content to work would be an expensive,
daunting task few would undertake. This is clearly reflected in our survey results by the
low numbers of people who are putting very much effort into reformulating nonstandard
content. And yet, if they have web sites authored in nonstandard code, they have to redo
the markup when it is time to redesign a site anyway. In short, the ROI on legacy content
revisions is based on whether the content is important enough to warrant the effort to
make it standard. This dilemma is reflected somewhat in Figure 6, where it is shown that
developers/designers are much more optimistic about the positive effects on ROI than
they perceive their organization’s management to be. From this finding, it seems that they
The Adoption of Web Standards, 22
are actively justifying or otherwise trying to convince management of the benefits of web
standards. That is, management may like the idea of web standards but cannot see the
benefit in terms of ROI.
Figure 6. Differences between designers/developers perceptions of ROI benefits
of web standards and what they perceive their management’s feelings about ROI to be.
Forces Driving Adoption
The Adoption of Web Standards, 23
Despite the expense of updating processes and converting legacy content,
developers and designers are actively committed to web standards. The forces that drive
this commitment are varied, and our survey produced some surprising findings. We
expected legal pressures to motivate adoption of web standards far more than they did
because of the need to comply with accessibility laws and guidelines. We can then
conclude that in many organizations, legal teams are not aware of the legal dangers of
using non-standard web development and have not created policies to mandate such.
However, when accessibility was specifically mentioned, it was ranked second highest in
reasons to adopt (see Figure 2).
Making one’s job easier in the long run and making content available in multiple
environments were quite important motivators for the use of web standards. This reflects
our earlier notion that ROI is an important consideration for web standards. That is, it is
far more efficient for content developers to author once and reuse many times and many
ways.
In any case, since past ways of working required document scrubbing to remove
formatting elements and then new markup to reflect the new design, work processes must
change radically in an organization to accommodate changing norms.
Impact on Work Processes
Again, we cannot discount the influence of ROI on web standards adoption.
While a majority of respondents said using web standards made work processes easier,
they also indicated it increased development time somewhat or had no impact at all on
development time. It may be difficult to convince reluctant management to commit
resources to web standards on the basis of these findings alone—certainly the threat of
The Adoption of Web Standards, 24
legal action from non-compliance with accessibility standards should be a co-argument.
Designers and developers are optimistic, however, that while development time will
increase during the learning curve, the use of web standards will ultimately reduce
development time.
The most expensive work process, conversion of legacy content, is not being done
on a large scale. It is either not being done at all or only up to about 25% of peoples’
time. Most effort is being put into develop standards-based content for new projects or
new content in old projects. This fact is not too surprising since most designers and
developers have only time enough to think forwardly. This in turn makes web standards
development something a future-based activity, and we are leaving behind vast quantities
of content that will not be ready for technologies that require standards-based markup for
use in multiple devices.
Future Research
We first want to continue to analyze the results of the current survey, and then see
where the gaps occur in the data collection. But beyond the survey, it would be
interesting to do some ethnographic research targeted at phenomena we could not glean
from the survey. For example, we would like to observe the ways in which people are
implementing web standards, what political obstacles they face in their work situation,
what resources are provided by their employers and so on. We would also like to
interview developers who have recently switched to standards-based development to see
how they coped with the transition, and compile a list of best practices.
Conclusion
One of our motivations behind this study was get data on which we could begin to
build a model for designers and developers to use when converting to web standards
The Adoption of Web Standards, 25
development. Anecdotally, we had found that while there was a commitment employing
web standards, it was very difficult to change work processes in order to accommodate
them. This survey was developed in part to see if people had incorporated standards into
their work and what impact it had. Finding out “how” they did so is not something a
survey can easily uncover and may be need to be explored in future studies.
In any case, adopting web standards into work processes requires commitment on
the part of organizations, designers and developers. While most see the value of
development with web standards, and many are using them, there certainly exist many
areas where cost/benefit doesn’t make sense. For instance, it is extremely expensive (and
largely uninteresting for designers) to convert legacy content into standards-based
content.
This paper is the first in a series in which we unravel the findings of this extensive
survey. In future studies we would like to know how organizations have made the
transition to web standards development. This would help us understand better the impact
of web standards but also give an insight into early adapters of such technologies.
Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to acknowledge those who took the time and effort to
complete our survey and who gave thoughtful feedback in the open-ended questions. It
was a long survey, and required commitment to complete it. We would like to thank the
School of Library and Information Science at Kent State University for funding our
Survey Monkey Account. And finally, we wish to thank Dr. Rick Rubin for his valuable
and generous input into the development of our survey.
References
The Adoption of Web Standards, 26
Cedarholm, D. (2007). Bulletproof web design: Improving flexibility and protecting
against worst-case scenarios with XHTML and CSS (2nd Ed.). Berkeley: New
Riders Press.
Logadòttir, E. (2001). The XHTML Transition: It's not that difficult. Evolt. (Available
online:
http://www.evolt.org/article/The_XHTML_Transition_It_s_not_that_difficult/17/
9953/index.html). Last accessed October 10, 2008.
Meyer, E. (2004). More Eric Meyer on CSS. Berkeley: New Riders Press.
Meyer, E. (2006). CSS: The Definitive Guide. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Musciano, C. & Kennedy, B (2006). HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide (6th Ed.).
Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Shea, D. & Holzschlag, M. (2005). The Zen of CSS Design: Visual enlightenment for the
web. Berkeley: Peachpit Pr.
Spolksy, J. (2008). Martian headsets. Joel on Software. (Available online:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html). Last accessed October
10, 2008.
Thatcher, J. et al (2006). Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance.
Berkeley: Friends of Ed.
W3C (1999). Cascading Style Sheets, level 1. (Available online:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/). Last accessed October 10, 2008.
W3C (2002). XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language:
A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0 (2nd Ed.). (Available online:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/). Last accessed October 10, 2008.
The Adoption of Web Standards, 27
W3C (2007a). Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1 (CSS 2.1) Specification.
(Available online: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/). Last accessed October 10,
2008.
W3C (2007b). XHTML™ 1.1 - Module-based XHTML (2nd Ed.). (Available online:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/). Last accessed October 10, 2008.
W3C (2008). HTML 5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML.
(Available online: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/). Last accessed October 10,
2008.
W3C Validator (http://validator.w3.org/)
Zeldman, J. (2007). Designing with web standards (2nd Ed.). Berkeley: New Riders.