Large sites use poor markup for a whole load of reasons -
1. Lack of awareness of the issue amongst management. They don't know they could have a faster, more accessible, easier to maintain site.
2. Lack of developer skills. Too many developers have stuck with what they know and made little effort to try anything new.
3. Lack of time/money. I'm sure some firms would love to improve their sites but currently are struggling to survive.
4. Poor output from CMS packages, having to integrate with old systems etc.. Many server side & desktop programmers seem to have little or no respect for client side code and produce systems that churn out any old rubbish. When you've got people like the shy and retiring Dave Winer making feeble excuses for poor markup instead of acknowledging the problems and trying to help fix them via his products I don't know whether to be amused or dismayed (blockquote really is for quotes, Dave, even if many incorrectly use it for indenting; don't worry, I'm sure you'll get the hang of this tricky HTML stuff eventually).

Posted by: Matt Round on October 13, 2002 07:51 AM

---

 

I am absolutely underwhelmed by the wired update. It may very well make things easier to maintain 'under the hood', but it does absolutely nothing for me.

Why? Because I am a PDA wired news reader, and this change has made absolutely no difference to what I see.

These changes are designed to enhance our content and make Wired News a better experience for every one of our users, as well as to add new features.

Enhance content? - Not for me.
Better experience? - Not for me.
New Features? - Not for me.

I would rather that wired changed their ridiculous categorisation whereby I see the same news stories under different categories and have to play 'hunt the new story'.

But that wouldn't excite the techies as it would only enhace my 'user experience'.

I have looked at the new site, and the only thing I thought looked useful was the text resizing buttons, would this save me having to access the Text Size menu item? No of course it doesn't, as it appears only to work for the page currently being viewed. Although I am getting some funny page flashes that seems to imply that either they are trying to carry the option across pages and it isn't quite working, or they haven't allowed for the 'Flash of Unstyled Content' feature.

Updating the wired site in this half-assed manner won't do the standards movement any good and may well do it some harm.

Posted by: Mac on October 13, 2002 08:28 AM

---

 

From a design and usability point of view it may be a let down, but technically it's pretty good (only spotted a few dodgy areas), and that does (indirectly) make a difference for users.

It might seem strange that it's gained so much attention, but people like me who've been using XHTML/CSS for years now and know it works really well have waited and wondered why we've not seen large sites do the same (despite being aware of the reasons I listed). Finally, a fairly large site has taken the plunge, and it might influence others just a little.

So yeah, it's techies getting excited about stuff that's under the hood, but the web'll be a slightly better place (for users and developers) if more sites follow their lead.

Posted by: Matt Round on October 13, 2002 10:59 AM

---

 

Mac: Do you think that Wired's moved to standards may improve your experience over time. For example, because they're using standards it will reduce their maintenance costs and over time improve the quality of their news stories? Also, their move to standards will do the standards movement good - a lot of good. As Matt said, the web will be a better place if more site follow their lead. That's how change happens: the progressive sites make the leap and set the standards, and other sites slowly follow the trend.

Posted by: Joshua Kaufman on October 13, 2002 10:00 PM

---

 

Yes, technically it's a good thing and should be applauded.

BUT when will I 'easily' be able to see the new news stories without having to hunt throught the categories seeing the same stories over and over again.

Posted by: Mac on October 14, 2002 04:38 AM

---

 

I never gave Wired's design a second thought, but now it's damned ugly. In-my-face ugly. Color scheme from hell. It changes daily? So each day we will be treated to a new visual assault?

Today's flavor is hot pink and yellow-orange. I'm debating whether I want to go out and buy a poodle, or wear a polyester shirt. At least their colors are a call to action.

At this point they might as well randomly select colors and let users vote on the next day's dreck.

Posted by: Contrarian on October 15, 2002 04:14 PM

---

 

Why is no one bothered by the text sizing menu? So now we need screen real estate consumed by basic browser functions? Golly, why not add a "back" button to the web page so users are not forced to use the back button built into their web browsers?

Your browser's text resizing function should work throughout Wired's site, unlike the goofy resizer on their web page. Teach people how to use their browser and you save the world the trouble of a billion web sites each adopting their own conventions for basic functions.

Posted by: Contrarian Continued on October 15, 2002 04:22 PM

---

 

I would add to Matt's list that many developers are concerned about backward compatibility. What will their site look like if someone is viewing it with an older browser? Or with AOL, or with Web TV?

Also, lack of time/money is such a huge factor. That is the problem I am currently facing. It's nuts!

The new Wired design is definitely faster, but it is still too cluttered, too annoying to read because of oversized ads, and the articles are still too broken up. I don't mind scrolling if it is in a continuous article, but they want to break it up into five screens so I'll see five ads. Argh.

Posted by: Lydia on October 15, 2002 05:09 PM

---