|
|
Why Browsers Haven't Standardized
Page 6 —
Wait and See
If the browser company waits until specifications become actual
Recommendations, the consequences are two-fold. First, they'll be accused of
dragging their feet on implementing standards, thereby slowing down the
progress of the Web and sabotaging the efforts of the W3C. Second, if
you leave out the fun, new technologies, you lose the interest of Web
designers. After all, what good is a toy if you can't actually play with
it? And if nobody's really interested in a new technology, why on earth
would UltraBrowserCorp waste its resources on implementing it?
That, in a nutshell, is the standards-compliance problem which browser
vendors face. Users and designers expect browser companies to give them new
stuff to play with; in fact, they demand it. If UBC, for example, slows
development or doesn't make significant additions to their browsers
with each major release, everyone complains. The pundits claim that UBC is
growing complacent and doesn't really care about Web advancement, and Web
designers and trade media blast them for "another boring bug-fix release."
Yet if UBC tries to stay ahead of the curve, inevitably something is pulled
out from under their implementation. This leaves the company in the
rock-and-a-hard-place position of choosing between annoying potential
customers or annoying their loyal, established users - a choice that usually
boils down to which will generate the least bad press. This sort of
lesser-of-two-evils decision isn't one the CEO will be happy to make,
especially if it happens with any regularity.
Without browser innovation, the Web won't get anywhere. But since we
penalize those who do innovate, why should they bother? Lord
knows they're busy enough without having to defend themselves against
charges of obstructionism, ignorance, laziness, and occasional insanity.
next page»
|
|
|
