w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Release "HTML Design Principles" as a W3C Working Draft?
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2007-11-02 to 2007-11-09.
60 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
1. Release "HTML Design Principles" as a W3C Working Draft?
Shall we release HTML Design Principles as a W3C Working Draft? Specifically, version 1.18 of 2007-11-02 13:48:38 plus any publication-related changes (e.g. status section, typos, broken links) agreed by one of the editors (Maciej Stachowiak, Anne van Kesteren) and one of the co-chairs (Dan Connolly and Chris Wilson).
See also Results of a recent survey which shows considerable support for publication.
If you're not familiar with the process of Working Draft publication, see the list of W3C working drafts, section 7.4.1 First Public Working Draft of the Process document, and the heartbeat requirement.
Section 3.3 Consensus in the W3C process defines consensus as a "substantial number" in support of a proposal and no formal objections. In this survey, you may indicate disagreement without formally objecting. An individual who registers a Formal Objection should cite technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection. Please put your arguments (or a pointer to your arguments) in the rationale field.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yes, agree | 51 |
| Abstain | 4 |
| No, disagree | 2 |
| Formally Object | 1 |
(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Details
| Responder | Release "HTML Design Principles" as a W3C Working Draft? | Rationale | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google LLC (Ian Hickson) | Yes, agree | I would like us to add the Baby Steps principle too, as I said in: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results | |
| Opera Software AS (Anne van Kesteren) | Yes, agree | ||
| Mozilla Foundation (Jonas Sicking) | Yes, agree | ||
| Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd. (Masataka Yakura) | Yes, agree | ||
| mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart) | Yes, agree | ||
| Disruptive Innovations (Daniel Glazman) | Yes, agree | ||
| Invited Experts with Member Access | |||
| Microsoft Corporation (Chris Wilson) | Yes, agree | ||
| International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Pasquale Popolizio) | Yes, agree | ||
| W3C Invited Experts | |||
| Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) | Yes, agree | ||
| Arjan Eising (Arjan Eising) | Yes, agree | ||
| Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) | Yes, agree | ||
| Henk-Jan de Boer (Henk-Jan de Boer) | Yes, agree | ||
| Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) | Yes, agree | ||
| Danny Liang (Danny Liang) | Yes, agree | ||
| Marc Drumm (Marc Drumm) | Yes, agree | ||
| Rick Mans (Rick Mans) | Yes, agree | ||
| Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) | Yes, agree | ||
| Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) | Yes, agree | ||
| Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk) | Abstain | I do not have opinion. | |
| Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) | Yes, agree | ||
| Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) | Yes, agree | ||
| Marghanita da Cruz (Marghanita da Cruz) | No, disagree | Anne van Kesteren wrote: <snip> > The other thing that seems a bit weird about the current document is > that two principles cover several paragraphs where the others are just a > few sentences. I don't think this is problematic though and I suppose we > can always fix that if desired in an update of the document. <snip> Another inconsistency in the document is the use of examples. Examples do help the reader understand the intent of the principles and it would be useful to identify an application of each principle (perhaps in the move from HTML3.2 to HTML4). Note, I have commented previously that, the example for supporting existing content (the syntactically incorrect html), seems to me, to be more an application of degrading gracefully. Perhaps editing the principles down to one page/10 principles would make them more useful ie * 1. Support Existing Content * 2. Degrade Gracefully/Handle Errors * 3. Do not Reinvent the Wheel/Pave Cowpaths/Evolution not revolution * 4. Solve Real Problem/ Priority of Constituencies/Support World Languages * 5. Secure By Design * 6. Separation of Concerns * 7. DOM Consistency * 8. Well-defined Behavior * 9. Avoid Needless Complexity * 10. Media Independence/Accessibility | |
| Philip Taylor (Philip Taylor) | Yes, agree | ||
| Marek Pawlowski (Marek Pawlowski) | Yes, agree | Lot of work has been done. Let's inform people about it. Feedback is very important. | |
| Raphael Champeimont (Raphael Champeimont) | Yes, agree | ||
| Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm) | Yes, agree | ||
| Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle) | Yes, agree | ||
| Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall) | Yes, agree | ||
| Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement) | Yes, agree | ||
| Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR) | Formally Object | No, the Design Principles as currently formulated make reference to putative HTML 5 elements about which there is widespread disagreement (<i> and (b>, to name but two). The Design Principles should be cast in abstract language so as not to appear to lend support to any particular putative HTML 5 feature, element, attribute, etc. | |
| Doug Wright (Doug Wright) | Yes, agree | ||
| Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer) | Abstain | I haven't even read it in details. | |
| Shunsuke Kurumatani (Shunsuke Kurumatani) | Yes, agree | ||
| Brad Fults (Brad Fults) | Yes, agree | Release early and often. | |
| Asbjørn Ulsberg (Asbjørn Ulsberg) | Yes, agree | ||
| Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) | Yes, agree | This document is certainly ready for Working Draft status... we need to let the public (those who are bit too busy to mine a 1000 emails) know what we are up to. | |
| Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) | Yes, agree | ||
| David Håsäther (David Håsäther) | Yes, agree | ||
| James Graham (James Graham) | Yes, agree | ||
| Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) | Yes, agree | ||
| Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke) | Yes, agree | ||
| Jens Oliver Meiert (Jens Oliver Meiert) | Yes, agree | ||
| Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner) | Yes, agree | ||
| Roy Fielding (Roy Fielding) | Abstain | The document doesn't seem to understand the differences among design principles, requirements, constraints, and properties of the resulting artifact. But that can be worked on in future drafts. | |
| Sam Sneddon | Yes, agree | ||
| Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) | Yes, agree | ||
| Bill Mason (Bill Mason) | Yes, agree | ||
| John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) | Yes, agree | ||
| Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) | Yes, agree | ||
| David Andersson (David Andersson) | Yes, agree | ||
| Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) | Yes, agree | ||
| David Dailey (David Dailey) | No, disagree | While it has been argued that these Design Principles may serve to present needless reiteration of previous discussions, I have not seen any evidence that they do. I have merely observed a large amount of time spent debating them (reiteratively), absent final "consensus" (to use the vernacular sense of the term), in the end. I have seen, on several occasions, design principles misused (even prior to their "approval") to quash dissent, and fear the same being done again. I strongly feel that, if recommended by the W3C, they are in need of a very strong disclaimer about their limitations, the presence of strongly felt dissent, the potential impossibility of consistent implementation of them, examples of proper and improper applications of them, and a need for a periodic and systematic review of the principles as well as the methodology for their debate and approval. In the long run, the tyranny of the majority, that the climate surrounding their debate fostered, had a chilling effect on the group overall. The humor with which I raised my original objections has largely vanished, but my opposition to them has not. It is not so much the individual principles (which I chose not to vote on for various reasons in October) but the whole package that troubles me. Collectively, they seem rather like the Galactic Federation posting a note on a nearby planet that your own planet is soon to be destroyed. But then, I can be a pessimist at times. | |
| Josh Lawton (Josh Lawton) | Yes, agree | ||
| Ben Millard (Ben Millard) | Abstain | Each conversation where I've seen these principles used has got bogged down in debating the principles instead of resolving the issue. In these cases, the document was counter-productive. On the other hand, there are several Participants who are adamant about us needing it. So I don't know what to do. | |
| Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) | Yes, agree | Thank you for removing the escape clause of "when possible" from the accessibility principle and making it a principle in its own right, as well as splitting up the aspects of universality. There is still much work to do on this document (see my comments from the last survey on the subject [1]). But this is progress. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results | |
| Dimitri Glazkov (Dimitri Glazkov) | Yes, agree | It's good enough. Trying to refine it any further will be an exercise in demagogy. | |
| Erik van Kempen (Erik van Kempen) | Yes, agree | ||
| Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) | Yes, agree | although i still think that accessibility, interoperability and internationalization deserve a mention in Section 2.1, "Support Existing Content", as indicated in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0340.html i do thank the editors for adding quote The top user agents designed to meet specific needs or address specialized markets, such as assistive technologies, mobile browsers or user agents targeting less typical media such as text-only terminals or print. unquote to Section 2.2. and appreciate the collaborative effort at strengthening Section 5. | i also think that Marghanita da Cruz's comments in response to this survey should be considered seriously by the editors, chairs, and working group, and i, like several other responders, am eager to receive feedback from a wider audience. |
More details on responses
- Google LLC: last responded on 2, November 2007 at 22:24 (UTC)
- Opera Software AS: last responded on 3, November 2007 at 00:37 (UTC)
- Mozilla Foundation: last responded on 3, November 2007 at 06:18 (UTC)
- Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd.: last responded on 4, November 2007 at 23:47 (UTC)
- mTLD Top Level Domain Limited: last responded on 6, November 2007 at 14:01 (UTC)
- Disruptive Innovations: last responded on 6, November 2007 at 16:20 (UTC)
- Invited Experts with Member Access: last responded on 8, November 2007 at 14:29 (UTC)
- Microsoft Corporation: last responded on 9, November 2007 at 21:23 (UTC)
- International Webmasters Association (IWA): last responded on 9, November 2007 at 22:56 (UTC)
- W3C Invited Experts: last responded on 10, November 2007 at 04:53 (UTC)
- Dylan Smith: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Arjan Eising: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Michael Puls II: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Henk-Jan de Boer: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Arne Johannessen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Danny Liang: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Marc Drumm: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Rick Mans: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Theresa O'Connor: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Daniel Schattenkirchner: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dominik Tomaszuk: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sander van Lambalgen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dannii Willis: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Marghanita da Cruz: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Philip Taylor: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Marek Pawlowski: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Raphael Champeimont: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Stephen Axthelm: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Ben Boyle: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Robert Marshall: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Michaeljohn Clement: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Philip TAYLOR: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Doug Wright: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Thomas Broyer: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Shunsuke Kurumatani: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Brad Fults: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Asbjørn Ulsberg: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Shawn Medero: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Arthur Jennings: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- David Håsäther: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- James Graham: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Cameron McCormack: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Julian Reschke: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Jens Oliver Meiert: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Steve Faulkner: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Roy Fielding: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sam Sneddon: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Sean Fraser: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Bill Mason: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- John-Mark Bell: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Weston Ruter: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- David Andersson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Tim McMahon: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- David Dailey: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Josh Lawton: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Ben Millard: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Laura Carlson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Dimitri Glazkov: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Erik van Kempen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
- Gregory Rosmaita: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project