This is I think one of the biggest problems in web standards. There’s all of this stuff that “everybody knows” but there’s nothing you can link to explaining it. It’s in a slide deck. It’s in a github comment that means nothing out of context. It’s in an earlier draft of a spec.
-
-
Without disagreeing that we should be constantly seeking to improve the standards process and make it more inclusive, can we appreciate for a moment what an improvement it is that today these things *can* be found on a slide deck or in a GitHub comment?
3 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
So much of this stuff used to happen entirely behind closed doors, and that only improved because of the enormous effort of people who believed strongly in the need to open the process up to the world.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
The limiting factor IMO is time and energy. People already feel like standards bodies move too slowly. Gaining consensus across so many different groups is emotionally exhausting, and that’s before dealing with the general public. It’s a hard balance to get right.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I've advocated over the years that
@w3c and others should have individual membership classes whose dues pay into a more democratically-allocated budget for travel and representation. Glad JS Foundation is doing more of this now, but not the same.1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @tomdale and
The crisis of legitimacy is why I've forced our teams to use incubation (modeled on IETF and Raf's TC39 process, which we now take for granted). Going to places where you can more easily meet users *matters* at the early stages.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @tomdale and
Most SDOs aren't comfortable with discussing funding models and believe they have an evergreen model and constituency. It ain't so.
@w3c, e.g., is currently suffering for not building a broader coalition (after many, many warnings).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @tomdale and
At the same time, the web (overall) isn't succeeding on mobile. The data I see is more dire than it's ever been. Nobody will go to the web for anything in ~5 years. When it's a pervasively bad time, why would you? Standards are downstream of use.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
-
The specific form of the bet matters; my wager would look something like: "if Lighthouse performance scores for the median page do not increase by ~50% in the next two years, investment in new mobile-web projects will fall off a cliff by 2024"
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I’ll take the other side of the bet: “in 2024 most people still won’t know what Lighthouse scores are, and people will still be using the mobile web”.
-
-
-
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.