CNet News has an interesting report on what campaign websites validated to W3C web specifications and apparently Libertarian candidates did the best job. It was also interesting to note how many candidates and party leaders in the Libertarian Party are tech savvy computer geeks. As would be expected, Republican and Democratic candidates were pretty clueless except for a handful of candidates who some geeky staffers. See: http://news.com.com/On+Web+standards,+Libertarian+candidates+win/2100-1028_3-6129672.html Maybe tech geeks are going to try and take over the world and the Libertarian Party is the vehicle they have chosen to accomplish this objective.
Well, since they don't have many supporters to visit; they have more time to work on their homepages *barump bump bump*
the libertarians are coming, the libertarians are coming............... "I am going do today what I always do, I'm going to take over the world"
If they want to beat those non-W3C compliant guys, they need to attract more rich pro-regulation, anti-free market, pro-big government corporate donors. Until then, 'L' will stand for 'loosers'. It's all about $$
Hmmm... How did I know that this would focus on political rhetoric rather than looking at the technical aspects of the issue like developing sites to W3C specifications?
it was under politics, so what did you expect. Wasn't this a fun exercise in "we are smarter than them" politics?
You mean the irony of producing a site to general w3c specifications, when libertarians don't believe in general specifications for everyday life?
I don't think Libertarians are against best practices guidelines, which W3C specifications are. What they are against is government legislation of behavior. From my understanding, they believe that in an ideal world people would be responsible for their own actions and wouldn't need many laws as people would do what is right on their own. So in essence, guidelines like W3C specifications are good, while laws mandating compliance with W3C specifications would be bad.
Here's the rub. No one (or very few people, apparently) care about w3c, because they aren't enforced. Wouldn't that naturally flow to the real world? I do think its a great metaphor, though, and I see your point. But reality is reality. People are not going to follow voluntary guidelines to behavior, unless there are consequences for not doing so.
Given the political slant, I figured I'd better place it in this forum to keep it from polluting a more appropriate forum with the comments like we saw above. Although discussing the Libertarians greater rate of embracing web "standards" is really the interesting story here. I personally never realized how many IT types really embrace the Libertarian party.
Hence a major flaw in core Libertarian ideals, even if I really like those ideals. The interesting thing is that should be taken from the article is how coding to W3C specifications really does increase how many people are able to receive the message a website is trying to spread. Following accessibility guidelines for instance helps ensure the disabled segments of a population can access one's message. A political campaign is about swaying the opinion of as many voters as possible. By not coding to W3C specifications and by not ensuring that one's campaign website is accessible to as many users as possible regardless of the browser they use or disability they have, one is hindering one's own objectives. Given how close so many elections are these days, it seems that a detail that is as easy and comparably inexpensive as coding one's website correctly from the get go would be a no brainer.
I just saw a Democrat's website the other day, the main page just a bunch of links to text files, no formatting or anything. I'd link to it, but it was on free hosting like geocities or something, without it's own domain, hence URL can't be memorized :banghead smiley goes here:
Unless it is a really local election which are always super low budget (at least here in Maine), I'd really wonder about the professionalism of any candidate who could put up a halfway professional campaign website that detailed their positions on issues.
For those who need a really good laugh (and to try to bring this thread back o n topic), here is CNet's list of the worst campaign websites: http://news.com.com/2300-1028_3-6129164-1.html Be forewarned there are some really pathetic websites in the list. Your party is sure to be represented on the list, even if you belong to the "Independent Deportation Party" (ya I never heard of that one either, go figure).