Comments On Evangelizing Standards

Written on April 13, 2006 // Miscellaneous 24 Comments

This was a comment that started to go off in another direction, so I thought it would be better to start a new post about it. Philip said:

“If the client wants to be educated about the process and what web standards are, that’s great. But it shouldn’t be as, “Well, you can also do it this way.” Shouldn’t it rather be, “Oh, you want to learn and know how things are done, sure. This is how you build websites on a conceptual/technical/whatever-they-want-to-know-about level.”

I understand why you use web standards as a selling point, I do it a bit myself. I just wish we didn’t have to. It’s a selling point because we do and they don’t. Won’t the web be great when we all do?”

Philip, you’re describing EXACTLY what most christians feel. We know living by God’s standards are the only way, the right way, the way the world was designed, but so many people just don’t want to see that. They think it’s too hard or no fun, or they tried it once and didn’t like it, etc. For the same reason Christians fail to bring people to the truth with a harsh ‘there-is-no-other-way’ attitude, we fail as designers trying to convince people that web standards is the only way, even when we know that to be the case.

The best way I’ve found of convincing people of either truth is to show them how following the standard (web standards or christ standards) has changed my life and made me better at what I do. I explain the fundamentals of that truth (separating markup, or Christ dying for our sin), but that’s all I can do really. In the same way many people can’t admit they sin in the first place, they often won’t be able to see the problem in their web designing tactics either. As in religious discussions, people in design discussions often have the attitude of “live and let live” instead of thinking about what can be done to improve – ourselves first, and then the world around us (who we have to live with).

I think this is a relatively important point Philip brought up and I’m sure some of you (Christian and non) will have thoughts on this… share them!

Oh, and you might read “the comment rules](/misc/the-rules too (Philip).


Natalie Jost
Share Tweet me (but don't mistweet me)

Copyright © 2006 – 2010 Natalie Jost

Home Print Comments

I gave up Amazon.com for BN Top 100 Bestsellers: Save up to 30%

24 Comments

  1. David Hammond April 13, 2006 | 11:23am

    Being an atheist myself, I’d of course have to disagree on that point. I believe it is most important to teach people about ethical behavior and the logical reasoning for being an ethical person. Religion can be an effective tool for promoting basic human ethics, but I have a problem with this “my way or the wrong way” attitude in religion, since religion by its very nature requires some leap of faith. The way I see it, a leap of faith is simply a shot in the dark—one could choose to have faith in anything with equal confidence. That’s why so many people have such confidence in so many different religions: one person’s rationale for believing in one god is the same as another person’s rationale for believing in another. Rather than preaching that only one of them is correct, I think it’s more important to focus on the fundamental ideas that make the various religions positive contributors to the health of the society.

    I believe that, if there is a god, he/she/it would simply be cruel to punish someone for taking the wrong leap of faith when, from an outside perspective, they all look pretty darn equal. I think that as long as you follow the basic human ethics that make up the core of most religions (and which can be deduced logically for us non-religious types), any truly good god would accept you for being the good-at-heart person you are.


  2. Natalie Jost April 13, 2006 | 11:38am

    :) First, thanks for being so open. This is the reason for my blog… to talk about standards – all standards. There has to be a base or a foundation to who you are and that’s the standard set for us. Without standards, it’s all up to each person to decide what’s “logical” to them. At some point there has to be a single standard that everyone is accountable to.

    In web design there is a standard, as well in life God gave us a standard to live up to (don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t kill), and yet there’s not a single person on earth who can follow that standard. People argue that it’s not “fair” for God to hold us to a standard that is impossible to follow, but that means that God has to submit to a lower common denominator. I can tell you that in web design that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Can you imagine if the W3C decided that their guidelines were really not so important after all, and each designer has to come up with their own way of doing things? What kind of internet would we have?

    I just ask people to imagine for a moment that God works the same way. He wants more for us than the bare minimum of what well meaning “good-at-heart people” are capable of. He wants to push us to be more. A good God would never settle for the lowest denominator any more than a designer should settle for using Frontpage even though he means well. A good God would expect more. A good parent would expect more of His child. Just as a good designer will expect more of himself in terms of design.

    You have some good points, especially about faith. I thought along the same lines. I was constantly berating friends for believing I had it wrong. It was my life and my choice. And that’s important that people have that choice. That was the point to free will. God doesn’t want servants who are blindly following Him. He was strong people who’ve covered all the bases and find Him to be that most “logical” conclusion. The trick is to do that before He decides you’re no longer worth courting.


  3. Mark Epstein April 13, 2006 | 12:31pm

    Natalie,

    I must begin by addressing Dave Hammond’s comments on ethics and religion. Dave: Where do you posit ethics came from? Has mankind ever demonstrated “ethical” behavior in its recorded history (wars, murder, rape, lust, theft, gluttony, etc.)? I’m often left aghast at the little to no knowledge of American history and religion contemporary Americans (including Christians) exhibit. Allow me to begin with history.

    A plurality of Americans sincerely believe this country’s Founding Fathers established our Constitutional Republic based on Greek philosophy. Not so. Only one-third of Revolutionary War Americans participated in the revolt (the other two-thirds were either loyal to the crown or abstained). The largest obstacle the Revolutionaries had to overcome was reconciling the Revolution to the biblical admonition in Romans 13. Fortunately, these men had the Geneva Bible with John Calvin’s marginalia. The King James Version, though published, was not a hot seller before the 19th Century. Another tome that assisted in this decision process was Lex Rex. The point is this, just as Natalie advocates “standards,” these men were slavish to God’s standards before the first shot was fired, because they believed they were accountable to God after their deaths.

    Returning to ethical decisions. What happens when someone who invokes pragmatism as their guiding philosophy makes an “ethical” decision? What determines a “standard” in this case or the case of a nihilist? BTW, for the record, theism and nihilism comprise the two polar ends on the philosophical spectrum and, therefore, all other philosophies ““ including atheism ““ are found somewhere between these two points. Anyway, I think you can probably see where I am going with this ““ without an external “standard,” there cannot be, and never is, a consensus-based ethical standard. It just isn’t going to happen. You state that, “religion can be an effective tool for promoting basic human ethics, but I have a problem with this “my way or the wrong way” attitude in religion.” Actually, Dave, there is only one religion that makes such a claim in its holy writings, and that religion is Christianity. Islam does not make this claim in the Koran, but men’s interpretation of the Koran forces Islam’s adherents to view conquering the world and establishing a theocracy as coming from Allah (side note: Despite the president’s rhetoric and deliberate media distortions, a cursory study of Islam reveals it does not share the same God of Judaism and Christianity).

    Thus, we come to the real issue: standards. Whether they are standards for living ones life or standards for web design, there must be an external source for ones conduct. In the case of life, I will choose to submit myself to the God revealed in Christianity. You may choose atheism, however, you must recognize the “religious” nature of your choice (let’s call it “faith”). This is an inescapable conclusion and reality because you are placing your “faith” in their not being God, since you cannot disprove His existence (just as I cannot prove His existence). As for web design, we can already see that people, left to their own natures, will not establish a “standard” in a vacuum. Therefore, just as with the external standard of God, there must be an external standard for web design. Frankly, I think Natalie has hit upon a great analogy.

    Mark


  4. Natalie Jost April 13, 2006 | 12:38pm

    Mark, thank you for your insights. You hit on something that I hadn’t really thought through. You said, ”…you are placing your “faith” in their not being God…” and that’s something I never considered. You’re right though… before I put my faith in Christ, I unknowingly had faith that He didn’t do all the Bible claimed and that God was not real and living, forgiving, etc. It’s scary for me to imagine where I would be right now had I continued in that “faith” – thank you for that reminder.


  5. Philip April 13, 2006 | 2:24pm

    Well look at that, Clive and I got ourselves a post! Cool.

    Natalie, sorry about breaking the rules – but I have to know, did you add the ‘no@thanks.com’ line to it after my posts? ;) Though I’m a programmer and designer, I’ve never used these prebuilt blog programs so I am uncomfortable leaving a real email address because I really don’t know what happens to it and how much I can trust it. I did this time though.

    I was going to apologize for getting off topic in the other post as well, but it seems that it has gone from web standards to Christ standards here. It’s all good though, I like the way you tie them together.

    I think a difference in what you’re saying about the two standards though is that in the web, we’ve been asked and are being paid to build the site, to do the job. We didn’t walk up to someone and start proselytizing them about the W3C standards. In the same way, it’s a heck of a lot easier I’m sure to convert one to your faith if they come up to you with the questions rather than you walking up to them on the street corner or wherever and telling them about Jesus.

    And I think that’s a big difference. If someone hires you, they trust you, trust you to do it the best you can. It’s like when your daughter will ask you about boys or God: she trusts you and expects you to answer in the best and most honest way you can.—-

    I think I’ll be adding you to my blogroll, I definitly like what I’ve seen around here so far. Plus you update quite often!Cheers Natalie.


  6. Natalie Jost April 13, 2006 | 2:32pm

    Yep, that was for you, Phil, thanks for being a good sport. It takes time to get to know me, but you can bet 90% of what I say around here, even when serious, is said with a light heart. If I’m really being mean or snooty you’ll know it.

    I appreciate your thoughts and you’re right about initiating these discussions. It’s easier to handle when people come to you. And there IS a big difference, the main one I see being that the only thing in jeopardy by ignoring web standards is a website. With God’s standards one’s entire life is at stake, so it’s a little more grave.

    In either case, though, the decision is yours. I can only give you information and explain what it means to me. Like web standards you, the client, or anyone else I talk to has to draw their own conclusions and make their own decisions.