Last year I linked to an interview with Eric Reiss over at Boxes and Arrows. The interview explores the thoughts that went into creating the Web Dogma:
Web Dogma ˜06
- Anything that exists only to satisfy the internal politics of the site owner must be eliminated.
- Anything that exists only to satisfy the ego of the designer must be eliminated.
- Anything that is irrelevant within the context of the page must be eliminated.
- Any feature or technique that reduces the visitor’s ability to navigate freely must be reworked or eliminated.
- Any interactive object that forces the visitor to guess its meaning must be reworked or eliminated.
- No software, apart from the browser itself, must be required to get the site to work correctly.
- Content must be readable first, printable second, downloadable third.
- Usability must never be sacrificed for the sake of a style guide.
- No visitor must be forced to register or surrender personal data unless the site owner is unable to provide a service or complete a transaction without it.
- Break any of these rules sooner than do anything outright barbarous.
It’s been a year since it was created, and I’m wondering if it still has the same relevance as it did last year…especially with the increasing inclusion of more interactivity (AJAX and Flash elements) on websites, and a greater trend away from pure ‘Websites’ into more hybrid social media sites.
For example, item 7 doesn’t really work within the context of Google Spreadsheet. Item 9, the surrendering of personal data, is becoming more of a norm in the online world where businesses need to recoup the ROI of an online property.
And do we need another item that deals with an online code of conduct, as evidenced by the Kathy Sierra incident?
So what do the big brains think? I think it’s mostly relevant, maybe needs a bit of dusting off, etc, but for the most part, it works, which is why it’s still on my cube wall.
Technorati Tags: Web Dogma, Design, Rules, Process, Social Media, Blogging, Kathy Sierra, Code of Conduct
Related posts:
- Every silver lining has a dark cloud: Cookies, Consumers and Consent This post is a bit unusal for me for two...
- United Way of the Alberta Capital Region website redesign/realign Role: Project Lead, Manager, Webmaster.Like many website projects, United Way’s...
- How to *really* know your blog is successful (or not) Hey! How’ya doin’!There are many ways to define your blog’s...
{ 4 comments }
Hi.
Good questions. Since the Dogma are the guiding philosophy of our own company, we discuss them regularly. Here are some thoughts.
With regards to AJAX etc, a “page” is much more dynamic than it was two years ago. However, as long as things are displayed on a two-dimensional screen, the metaphor seems to work.
With regard to point 7, as long as an on-line app lets you view stuff directly on the screen and not force you to download a pdf, then I’m pretty happy. The point is to let people continue to view and manipulate information within the context of whatever browser or program they are already using.
With regard to point 9, my aim was to prevent companies from forcing people to surrender personal information if it wasn’t relevant to the transaction. Given the current trends, I’d say it is more important today than ever before.
Cheers,
Eric
Hi Eric, thanks for dropping by.
Item 7 — agreed, the clarification you provide above helps.
Item 9 — I’m starting to believe there’s a need to develop and maintain an ‘online’ identity or two, and a ‘real’ identity. The online identities are ultimately disposable… but there is a time when you’d want to use your ‘real’ one online..ie with banking, ordering books, etc.
So the line blurs. Where do you use a ‘real’ identity, and where would you use a disposable one? Fodder for another post, methinks.
Brad
Sadly, I agree that there’s probably value in creating a false on-line identity. But the entire point of Dogma #9 was to make this unnecessary.
If you check out personality tests on the web, I’m flabbergasted by how many actually expect me to tell them who I am - and without even bothering to post a privacy policy. As profiles (Flickr, LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) become more and more public, I’m tending to get more and more private. I’m not paranoid, just careful - like some radioactivity, online personal info can have an uncomfortably long half-life.
Yeah, I agree with that. Anything written in a public space is likely to remain online in one form or another for a long long time.
As an example, I would have never suspected that my Usenet posts about Amiga software would still be around and readable today. I wrote them in October of ‘91.
Imagine if I was discussing a personal situation or event. That long lived text could ‘haunt’ me for a while.
Comments on this entry are closed.