Ethics

[Jason Batten]

Do you have a code of ethics that you apply to your work? If yes, Why? If not, Why not? Do you think a large percentage of web developers are unethical? Or is it just ignorance.

Personally, I'm in the middle of developing my own ethics at the moment but I still apply many even if the wording isn't right in my head :p
Ethics are a good way to let people know about what drives you to do things and make certain discissions. They can let clients know how they will be treated by you. Better yet, they let the client know how you will treat their business ;)
I believe that a strong amount of web developers are unethical, largely because they are ignorant. It can be because of age but that is no excuse - there is none.

Ethics, like personal morals can slip at times. The best way to counter something like this is to plant your code of ethics right above your head or somewhere in a daily view. You could write a script so when you start your computer it displays a random ethic from your code.

And no, let's not start a code of our own on this forum. Why? Because everyone and every business is different. It can be a very touchy and personal subject. But any way, looking forward to seeing certain peoples answers :)

[laserlight]

You could take a look at ACM: Code of Ethics (http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html).

[vaaaska]

Nobody has ever asked what my ethics are (I think). However, my actions, the kind of projects I've done, the kinds of clients I've worked with, etc., do show some kind of background. Additionally, generally when you sit down and talk to a person you find out who/what they stand for (without ever having to talk about ethics specifically).

For instance, and I don't know why, I proposed to a client that we try to use half the paper and half the ink we would normally use because it was a form of conservation. They loved the idea. We printed on only one-side and used YK (of CMYK) so that the printer would not require a press cleaning for a custom ink. The other part of the identity was simply a hand embossing machine. It came out sort of funny, but everybody loves the final product (including me which is sort of rare).

Aside from that...we've never talked about 'ethics' per se.

Doing...is...everything...

[Shrike]

I don't think there are any ethics that are related to programming. Ethics refer to notions of good and bad, right and wrong and so forth. Any ethical question you might ask about programming probably has a more general application to any subject.

I believe that a strong amount of web developers are unethical, largely because they are ignorant.

Ethics presumes a level of understanding, that an ethical individual understands the cause and effect of an action (e.g. theft). Ignorant people are not unethical because they don't have that understanding.

Interesting topic :)

[dalecosp]

I'm not sure that personal morals and ethics should be treated as different things. At least, not if you are a single entity (a individual, as opposed to a corporation). In a corporation, generally the ethics are those of the leadership; where it gets [fun?] is when the leadership each follows their own personal morals/ethics and nobody really has any ...

I suppose that a situation like *that* would certainly demand that the corporation determine a 'ethics policy'. For example, this is what many companies' "privacy policy" is basically about. Think about the COPPA, too....

As for me, I am an individual, and my company is very small. Furthermore, and more importantly (and "out with it", if you didn't know already): I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and that's the real origin of ethics, although YWMV (your worldview may vary*).

I know that I have occasionally made ribald humor part of my "net repertoire", but it's possible that even that is wrong, (e.g., unethical) :o. I know that I've apologized for that once or twice, or more, to a potentially injured party.

So, how does this apply to business? Well, for starters, I try to be as accurate as possible in keep time logs and accurate records of the work I accomplish. I try to be straightforward in my communication in clients, even if it means that a juicy opportunity might not come my way.

Another area: access to data. Since I act as a server administrator and/or troubleshooter for various companies and/or organizations, I don't poke around in areas of the database (or application) where I might be exposed to such things as inventory, accounting info, personal ID information, stored credit card information, etc., unless there is a good reason for doing so. And if it's justified, I will notify the client in advance and have them present, if called for. Generally, they already know me and my repuration, and it's "no big deal" to most of them.

We repair people's computers in our shop. We don't read their Quicken/Quickbooks data. We don't read their e-mail. If we find pictures of them in their altogether, as 'twere, we don't keep them, discuss them, or post 'em to flickr (although I suppose we would have to mention them to the proper authorities if the photos depicted illegal activity).

Of course, this is probably just want most people would call "basic" when discussing ethics. Face it: if you thought your sysadmin was altering your W-4's, placing security cameras over the ladies' restroom stalls, reading the closed-door BD minutes to decide how to play the stock market, or padding the expense account and routing the excess to his anonymous Paypal or Swiss bank account ... you'd call that "unethical". For me, it comes down to that 'love your neighbor as yourself' thing...and it probably should for you, too, although I'm not going to shout at you about it or threaten to come over to your house and thump a Bible at you ...

In the end, you've a choice to make. I wish you a good decision. :)

* Now, we _could_ discuss 'absolute truth' ... that might get very interesting, indeed.

[Doug G]

seems to me that before discussing ethics there should be some common definition of what are ethics, what's unethical, etc. Like most behavioural situations there are lots of grey areas.

Lets say your kid's starving, so you rip off someone elses web stuff, sell it, and buy baby food. Who will define the ethics here? Would it be ethical to let your kid starve to death rather than commit larceny?

[Jason Batten]

Grey areas are for fence sitters. You either agree, disagree. Do something, don't do something. In my opinion you can't say "Oh I'd never do that unless...", it just doesn't work.

Religious beliefs: Rules of god.
Laws: Rules of society.
Morals: Personal beliefs about life, IF you are religious - this can have an influence on your personal interpretation.
Ethics: Morals of how you conduct business / work.

Agree? Disagree? :confused:

[vaaaska]

Grey areas are for fence sitters.

Totally disagree...

You need a few years of job experience before you can judge people like this. Calling programmers mostly 'ignorant' IS pretty darn ignorant. If you are going to make the statement then why not explain it?

Ethics, if you haven't had a Civics 101 class, has very little to do with right/wrong. It's mostly about context. Is it wrong for India to take jobs from the states? Yes...on some levels...and no on others. It all depeneds where you are standing. Hence, 'fence sitting' is a by-product that we all live with (unless you live in a world where half the people hate you and half the people love you and nothing in between - that would totally suck). Ignorance, created by right/wrong paradigms, is what leads to war in our world (and I don't even really need to point at the most obvious example of it happening right now).

[Shrike]

Sorry Vaaaska, Ethics is everything to do with right and wrong. That is driving idea behind it. Of course when you introduce context, you find shifting notions of right and wrong which is where the difficulty begins.

[vaaaska]

Sorry Vaaaska, Ethics is everything to do with right and wrong. That is driving idea behind it. Of course when you introduce context, you find shifting notions of right and wrong which is where the difficulty begins.

Yes, you are correct (my statement went too far). But the second part of your statement is what I was trying to get at. Thanks for keeping me straight!

I'm trying to get at the fact that right and wrong are a very messy subject once you look beyond your immediate world. 'Fence sitting' is a very negative way to judge other people who are contemplative of the issues. You ultimately get into big ranges of things that include industry, race, gender, culture, nationality, etc., etc...

That's why you have reams of books written on the subject. Certainly, things like killing is unethical (but even the law provides room for real debate on this in many instances). Or abortion - oh geez I'll stop there.

One persons 'right' is another persons 'wrong' oftentimes.

;)

[Doug G]

Grey areas are for fence sitters. You either agree, disagree. Do something, don't do something. In my opinion you can't say "Oh I'd never do that unless...", it just doesn't work.
Sheesh! Call me a fence sitter and I'm proud to be one! I'd hate to be trapped in a narrow world view without room for other people with other ideas, it would be such a boring life. :)

[Jason Batten]

Calling programmers mostly 'ignorant' IS pretty darn ignorant. If you are going to make the statement then why not explain it?Quote me. QUOTE ME, never vaguely bloody re-write what I bloody say. I am sick of people getting what I say wrong. Then I have to CORRECT them. It get's pretty bloody tiring after every bloody post. Here is what I said:
I believe that a strong amount of web developers are unethical, largely because they are ignorant.That is so very different from what you think I said.

Web Developers and ignorance. I'll say a few topics. Information Architecture, Usability, Accessibility, Web standards, Basic Web Site Security. Now go have a google and think about it. Developing a web site is not easy, things can be over looked.

Back on track.

Do you have a code of ethics that you apply to your work? If yes, Why? If not, Why not?

[vaaaska]

Web Developers and ignorance. I'll say a few topics. Information Architecture, Usability, Accessibility, Web standards, Basic Web Site Security. Now go have a google and think about it. Developing a web site is not easy, things can be over looked.

It's not about ignorance though. It's about skill level, audience and how much a client is willing to spend. The more you spend, assuming you are a 'smart' client, the more you get.

I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time working on standards for a small site as opposed to a site for a public agency. Unless of course getting it 'right' for the small site is part of the program (which normally it is not).

And I don't expect a dev who primarily builds sites for bands (and those who do sometimes make hella cash) to get standards totally 'right' either.

It's still about context...and it's about the image YOU want to present. I think it's very simple that way. If you are worried about competitors then you probably have a different subject altogether...time to thing strategies, etc.

[Jason Batten]

So are you basically saying web standards and getting the design and development "right" doesn't matter for clients with less money?

It's still about context...and it's about the image YOU want to present.Funny I thought it was about representing the clients' needs online.

[Shrike]

Sad but true Jason - money makes the world go round.

In my previous job we built web pages to a basic standard of HTML 4.01 transitional and WAI level 1. I guess you could say anything below that would be unethical since it's the loosest standard you can adhere to. If clients wanted a more accessible application they could ask for, or have suggested, stricter standards. But they sure got charged through the nose for it. Building an XHTML/Strict document takes alot longer than the HTML/Transitional one. WAI level 3 takes a hell of alot of thinking and examining to get right.

[Jason Batten]

I believe that a strong amount of web developers are unethical, largely because they are lazy. :glare:

[Shrike]

Maybe if you work for yourself. I have deadlines and budgets. It's very naive to think "just because you could, you should".

In fact your statement has really got my goat. I work as a web developer to get paid. I enjoy my work but I'm not doing it for my own benefit. I work for a company who's primary interest is to make a profit from what they do. It's plain ridiculous to suggest that they should give a client more value for less money.

[bpat1434]

It's plain ridiculous to suggest that they should give a client more value for less money.
Well, that's where the business values come into play. What is your company's Mission Vision Values statement? Do you have one? You should. It should outline everything about that company in a short paragraph. Some companies feed on quality for less, while others feed on quantity for less. It's all about how you corner yourself in the market. And expansion means re-working that statement so that your values adapt to what your new mission is.

I believe that a strong amount of web developers are unethical, largely because they are lazy.
I disagree. I am going to chalk it up to being ignorant in the field. Not "stupid" ignorant, but "inexperienced" ignorant. Or, their client doesn't want it. I've offered plenty of clients websites with standards, and they just **** their head in confusion. Then the price tag comes, and they say: "We'll take the cheapest".

So are you basically saying web standards and getting the design and development "right" doesn't matter for clients with less money?
Time is money in business. Why spend 3 weeks designing an XHMTL 1.1 Strict WAI Level 3 CSS 2 site, when you could spend 3 days doing an HTML 4.01 Loose w/ tables, and work on a different project that will net you more profit? Once again, goes back to the Values of the company/designer.

Web Developers and ignorance. I'll say a few topics. Information Architecture, Usability, Accessibility, Web standards, Basic Web Site Security. Now go have a google and think about it. Developing a web site is not easy, things can be over looked.
So, are you saying that if you aren't an authority or able to answer every question under the sun about "Information Architecture, Usability, Accessibility, Web Standards, Basic Website Security" then you are an ignorant developer? I think that just because you don't know, doesn't make you ignorant. I'm plenty ignorant of plenty of subjects/standards; however, I solve that with looking it up, and validating. So really, you're telling us that you know everything there is to know about web development, and we don't, right? I whole heartedly disagree with that.

Grey areas are for fence sitters. You either agree, disagree. Do something, don't do something. In my opinion you can't say "Oh I'd never do that unless...", it just doesn't work.
I guarantee that you've said (at any point in your life) "Man, if I were there I'd do XX". And when the opportunity came around, you did "ZZ". It happens to everyone. And if you bring up the point: "Well, outside business life isn't what we're talking about here", I disagree. No matter what you do, your personal values, morals and ethics will be carried into your career. If you personally stand up for the minority/little-people, and your job wants to under-cut a project for that person, you might say "Man, if I were him, I wouldn't do that", when in reality, you'd make the same, or similar move. And then you go off and talk privately with that customer and offer your services on the side (because you want to help the minority/little-people).

I don't think there are any ethics that are related to programming.
I think there are some, but they come sparingly. Take for instance if you know your software has a security hole, and the customer doesn't notice. You don't tell them (asymmetric information) and they never know. That either goes against your ethics/morals, or with them. If you believe "Don't ask don't tell" to be a part of your business model, then what the customer doesn't know won't hurt them. Until something happens, and you say "Oh, well I knew about it all the time but you never asked". Honestly, I believe that it's our duty to point out to the less-informed problems/issues with the script(s) we created for them or are being used by them. Adds respect to your business, and furthers your repoire with the customer.

Conclusion
To sum up my thoughts, I think ethics and morals should be an ever evolving thing for people. You can't go through life having a select few morals/ethics. You won't last long. Obviously external environmental forces cause us to change or rethink our position on some points (9-11 attacks and terrorists, child killed in DUI, etc.). But to lay stagnant in your morals/ethics is ridiculous.

No matter how hard you try, they will be carried over into your business, whether you like it or not. Your personal feelings will influence your work and behavior. It's just how it is. And if your business is a good one, you'll have some of this laid out already.

Each business, that plans to go far, will have a "Mission Statement" that outlines the Mission, Vision, and Values of itself and its employees. As the business ages, and times change, the Mission Statement will grow with the company.

So really, my ethics are pretty simple:
-- Treat others how I want to be treated (Love thy neighbor as thyself)
-- Stand up for the small people/minority
-- Help in understanding and comprehension of material
-- Do what is necessary to get the job done

I've followed all four of those for a while now, and as I'm getting ready to leave college, they're changing and I'm adding one about my girlfriend (seeing as we're moving in together). Ethics are good to have, but you have to know what ethics you have to start . . .

[Shrike]

Well, that's where the business values come into play. What is your company's Mission Vision Values statement? Do you have one?

Umm - maybe? A mission statement is something for the management team to do, not me.

Selling cheap to sell more is not the issue - that's still driven by profit margins rather than an ethical, altruistic desire to do good.

I think there are some, but they come sparingly. Take for instance if you know your software has a security hole, and the customer doesn't notice. You don't tell them (asymmetric information) and they never know.

This is my point - the dilemma has nothing to do with programming per se.

[bpat1434]

Umm - maybe? A mission statement is something for the management team to do, not me.
A mission statement is vital for everyone in the company to know though. If you don't know what your company is there to do (Mission), where it's headed (Vision), or how it will get there (Values), then how can you be apart of it and help achieve it? It's just something to think about. I'm sure plenty of people don't think about it, but me personally, I do think about it. Mainly because I'm a management major, so these things stick out.

And while it is a management thing to create the Mission Statement, it's the employees that have to stick to it, or ammend it as needed. Management can't do anything without employees, so your voice needs to be heard. If you don't agree with it, or it goes against your values, something needs to be done. It's just my opinion, but lots of people leave jobs because they don't like where "it" (their job, or company) is going. And lots of times, the job follows the company, so if the company gets worse, so does the job.

[Jason Batten]

I've offered plenty of clients websites with standards, and they just **** their head in confusion. Then the price tag comes, and they say: "We'll take the cheapest".Why not just provide websites with standards?

So, are you saying that if you aren't an authority or able to answer every question under the sun about "Information Architecture, Usability, Accessibility, Web Standards, Basic Website Security" then you are an ignorant developer? I think that just because you don't know, doesn't make you ignorant. I'm plenty ignorant of plenty of subjects/standards; however, I solve that with looking it up, and validating. So really, you're telling us that you know everything there is to know about web development, and we don't, right? I whole heartedly disagree with that.No one man / woman can be expected to know everything about web development. I definitely don't. That doesn't stop us from finding people who do though does it? :)

[bpat1434]

Why not just provide websites with standards?
Plenty of reasons: Time, compensation, customer satisfaction, deadlines.

If I had time to make standards compliant sites for everyone, I would. But I don't. I don't get paid by certain people enough to do a full-blown compliant website. And if the customer asks for less, I give them just a little bit more. My cheapest would be a tabled design. But I give them a CSS design that is compliant to at least 1.0 standards and HTML 4. I do give them standards websites; however, in a business model, it may not always be possible.

Say you have 5 sites, all with different designs, and one customer says "I don't care if it's compliant, I need it by the end of the week", would you code to standards when you can throw something together and work on the other 4? Probably. Unless you are your company. Then you'd put pride in it and push the other projects back, or stay up late and get up earlier to meet each deadline.

It's not always possible, but it would be nice.

That doesn't stop us from finding people who do though does it?
Weedpacket...

[Shrike]

Mission statements are written by management executives, for management executives. Anything that can sum up the whole raison d'etre of a company in one or two paragraphs is, in my very humble opinion, not worth the paper it's written on. It well may be true that deals are made and broken on such things as mission statements, but until I am in a position to make those deals, mission statements mean very little to me.

My previous company's statement is a prime example:

To build a profitable and agile hosting and application services business, that is a recognised leader in the market, committed to increasing our customers' competitive advantage, flexibility, security, and peace of mind.

To me this says: we want to make money, and keep the customers happy. Well no sh*t ;)

[vaaaska]

Weedpacket...

:)

My mission statement for 2006 is to have more fun, to be more busy and to give half of everything I do away (even if it drives me crazy sometimes). And to hate MS more than ever. And sleep more. And vacation more. And ride my bike more. And to finish my book. And to release some products.

I'm so goal oriented this year it seems...

[bpat1434]

To me this says: we want to make money, and keep the customers happy. Well no sh*t
That's what most say, but it's still good to have. And they're not worthless. If placed properly, the public can know what your company is about without reading a long-drawn-out history. It's meant as a snapshot of the business. Nothing more.

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Can't be much simpler. Then, if you need to know more, the history is right below it.

[Elizabeth]

Personally, I'm in the middle of developing my own ethics at the moment but I still apply many even if the wording isn't right in my head :p
Ethics are a good way to let people know about what drives you to do things and make certain discissions. They can let clients know how they will be treated by you. Better yet, they let the client know how you will treat their business ;)

Besides Laserlight's link you can also reference the International Programmer's Guild Code of Ethics (http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe/IPG-CoE.html) that basically says you won't write malicious, obsolete or obfuscated code for clients and such. Kind of a nice guideline to let your clients know where you stand.

I do agree that it's nice to reassure your clients (or your employer I guess) that you adhere to a code of ethics. But I don't agree that things are as black and white as you say...

I agree with what bpat says about time vs. money and what the concerns are for the client. Sometimes there just aren't enough hours in the day to do everything you want to/should do with a site. Would it be ethical of me to add in hours without pay thereby effectively cutting my rate in half? That doesn't seem ethical to my other clients who have paid me the full rate. That also doesn't seem ethical to my family who doesn't see me for those hours and who have to make cutbacks because now we don't have enough money to pay the bills.

Ok, I exaggerate to make a point. Ethics is all about your POV. Is it ethical to lie? Usually not. But does that mean it's unethical to pretend to be Santa Claus for your kids? Geez I hope not.

[bpat1434]

pretend to be Santa Claus for your kids?
What? There's no Santa!!!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!
:confused: :confused: :mad: :mad:

[Elizabeth]

What? There's no Santa!!!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!
:confused: :confused: :mad: :mad:We have to fill in for Santa at our house because the kids are so naughty. He won't come near the place since the "chimney incident".

[bpat1434]

Uh oh.. now you have to explain (or would that be unethical?)

Did they use the bellow to catch Santa's pants on fire? Wait... that was me . . . :blush:

[Jason Batten]

*sigh* :(

[dalecosp]

Hey, don't get depressed. It's absolutely *not* her fault....

[Elizabeth]

Jason, why the sigh? I surely hope it's not because of a little levity injected into a serious topic.

[Jason Batten]

Just disappointed.

[Elizabeth]

I thought your thread brought up some interesting points and a nice discussion. No need to get disappointed in the result. If you'd gotten no replies, then maybe-- but it's a good, interesting thread. Right?

[Jason Batten]

Not disappointed in the thread, disappointed in what people have written. It will give me some great advantages but it is upsetting.

[bpat1434]

What disappoints you? You're disappointed in peoples points of views? That's interesting.....

POV's are like @$$h0l35... everyone has one....

I don't understand why you're bummed. The thread got some lively conversation out of it....

[Doug G]

The message in this line from Fleetwood Mac's "Oh Well" remains true 35 or so years later -

"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to"

Starting an opinion thread and then being disappointed in other's opinions is indeed interesting.

[Elizabeth]

Not disappointed in the thread, disappointed in what people have written. It will give me some great advantages but it is upsetting.I wonder if you're referring to the subject of being standard-compliant in coding. I don't want to say that standards aren't important, because they are. However, I don't want to confuse "ethics" with "quality." Ethics would imply that harm would be caused, or that there was malicious intent, and it will adversely affect your client to the point where they were worse off than before you started. I don't think putting out a crappy piece of code that is not standards-compliant falls into this category. My clients wouldn't care if I used freakin' FrontPage to do the work. They just want something that looks good and does what it's supposed to do at a reasonable cost. And it also depends on what their concerns are. If they're concerned about accessibility, I focus more of my attention on that. If they're concerned about the pages loading quickly, then that is what is optimized. It's all about the client. It's not to say standards are completely thrown to the wind, but it's not my main focus.

I may be completely off base with what your intentions were but oh well.

Incidentally, if anyone is a standards champion and wants a nice piece to show a client, this is a nice blog post (although I can't say I agree 100% with everything the author says) : Ten Reasons to Learn and Use Web Standards (http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200512/ten_reasons_to_learn_and_use_web_standards/)

[Jason Batten]

Say Mr Dee makes lighters. Mr Dee doesn't care for the standards of producing quality lighters. Say you buy a lighter from Mr Dee - You think he makes quality lighters, I mean how would you know unless you asked and let's be honest you wouldn't care to check. Oops, you left it out because we all make mistakes. Your children find the lighter and start playing with it then suddenly your children explode. Do you think from then on you'll be checking or standard complaint lighters?

Your clients don't know much half the time so how the hell are they supposed to know? They assume, THEY ASSUME. Stop making excuses!

Why don't people "Get it"?

Use Web Standards before your clients explode! :glare:

[Jason Batten]

OH!

I apologise for my attitude. Just recently I had an argument with a friend over his "sexual behaviour" this is another example of how I try to force my views on to other people. i do my best to do what I believe to be right and I do my best to search out what is "right".

*slaps self

[laserlight]

Say Mr Dee makes lighters. Mr Dee doesn't care for the standards of producing quality lighters. Say you buy a lighter from Mr Dee - You think he makes quality lighters, I mean how would you know unless you asked and let's be honest you wouldn't care to check. Oops, you left it out because we all make mistakes. Your children find the lighter and start playing with it then suddenly your children explode. Do you think from then on you'll be checking or standard complaint lighters?
The difference here is that your hypothetical Mr Dee is malicious. He doesnt care for the standards of producing quality lighters, when those standards presumably concern safety.

Here we consider the case of failure to comply with standards that do not deal with safety, under circumstances where it is impractical to fully comply given the restraints on time and money, and perhaps even the instructions of the client.

If there is no malicious intent, and the developer warns the client of these potential problems, then I do not see why this failure should be considered unethical, as long as the agreement with the client does not place priority on the given standards.

That said, web development with say, standards compliant XHTML+CSS may actually be faster in the long run.

Your clients don't know much half the time so how the hell are they supposed to know? They assume, THEY ASSUME. Stop making excuses!
Here you yourself assume that the developers in question maliciously withhold professional advice from their clients in order to pursue deviant interests.

[bpat1434]

Well, you're talking about two different things: Web standards, versus ethics.

As Elizabeth stated already: Ethics would imply that harm would be caused, or that there was malicious intent, and it will adversely affect your client to the point where they were worse off than before you started. I don't think putting out a crappy piece of code that is not standards-compliant falls into this category.
Web Standards aren't ethics. Just because the site isn't compliant, doesn't make it less ethical for you to be "finished" with it. You have your standards of exellence (quality) and your ethical standards (harmfulness or lack thereof).

Just because developers either choose not to code to standards, or actually are forced not to by deadlines and what not, does not mean that the code is harmful. They're not putting unclean activeX controls in browsers. They're not distributing viri (at least I hope not :p ). So the code isn't malicious, for the most part.

And even then, if you do code to standards, only 1% of the entire web will actually see the correct page (currently) since Safari and Konquerer (on KDE 4.5 or whatever) are the only ones that pass the CSS2 WASP Acid 2 test. Every other browser does fine for plain tables and (x)html.

And kids don't explode..... they melt, fizzle & pop :p :)

[Elizabeth]

Your children find the lighter and start playing with it then suddenly your children explode. Do you think from then on you'll be checking or standard complaint lighters?But that's my point as well. If you're making something like lighters then you do have an ethical obligation to make sure they are as safe as possible, because people can get physically hurt. Likewise if you're doing a site for a bank. You have an ethical obligation to make it as safe as possible because people can get financially hurt.

But we're not talking about security, we're talking about web standards. No one is going to lose their life if the site isn't 100% standards compliant.

Here's another example. I had a client that really wanted the design to be done in hot pink and the font to be comic-sans. Is it my ethical and moral obligation to tell the client the site won't look very good that way? I would consider it more of a professional courtesy to suggest an alternative rather than a "moral" obligation. Her site would have been more effective had she made a different choice, but would her choice harm her or leave her worse off than before? I doubt it. It goes against my general professional opinion, and it looks like crap in my portfolio of sites, so I would prefer not to do things that way. I guess I could say "my way or the highway" but I don't think I would be in business very long if I said that. I can try and sell the advantages of doing a better design, but it's ultimately the client's choice.

In fact, I consider it more "ethical" to use the client's money in the best possible way based on what they need. Therefore, in this case, I wasn't going to spin my wheels experimenting with different fonts and looks, I was going to do the best design I could based on her choices and the constraints of her budget.

Now, I'm not saying that making a site standards compliant (like good design) has to be mutually exclusive with other goals for the site. And in a perfect world every site on the internet would be 100% standards compliant. I agree they are very important. My issue with your argument is the level of damage done if a site isn't.

[Jason Batten]

Yes. I agree with you all. How silly of me to get carried away.

Again *slaps self

I shall return to my noob cage, someone please lock the door ;)

[bpat1434]

Now... should we throw away the key or not....? ;)

[Elizabeth]

Naw, we have to have someone to abuse around here :)

[Jason Batten]

I just downloaded Jaws, the screen reader. From now on I will be using this to test my web pages. It would be cruel not too. You really have no idea until you hear a web site!

[vaaaska]

If you can't get in sign-up - I believe the site is public now.

http://web-dev.newsvine.com/_news/2006/03/20/139855-20-rules-of-smart-and-successful-web-development

[Jason Batten]

Very good article thanks for the link :) (yeah it's public)