Web Designers... The Purists

I thought I'd write a bit about web design, as it is becoming a more and more popular choice of career. I have been involved in some sort of web work for over 10 years, and I've seen internet technology blossom during this time. The main thing I have learned is that there are two main types of web designer. I try and settle myself somewhere in between these two extremes. In this post I'm going to tell you about the first kind of web designer.

The first type is what I call the "Purists". Purists consider themselves experts in the subject of HTML. Well, "expert" is too tame a word. They each believe themselves to be the The Master, The Overlord, the Lord God Almighty of HTML. If your webpage doesn't strictly conform to RFC 2070* they come wading in to strike you down with their mighty flaming Lynx scimitar. In case you're unfamiliar with Lynx, it's a DOS based browser that displays text only. These Purists use Lynx as an excuse for their pathetic websites and unwarranted critiquing of others work. 10 years ago these Purists websites were the norm, HTML being in its infancy without much control in the way of formatting and presentation, but today, with new technologies available, companies want their corporate websites to reflect their technical prowess and professionalism. A plain text site with the occasional graphic just doesn't cut it anymore for corporate websites. Don't get me wrong... primarily text based sites have their place. After all it's often the content of the site you want, not window dressing. This site for example is fairly minimalistic, but it's enough (in my opinion) for its purpose, primarily text. The Purists would try telling a company that they should forego their fancy graphics, animations and snazzy layout because people with a text-based browser won't be able to see it. It's like telling TV companies to only produce programmes in black and white because people with black and white televisions can't see the colour. As long as the content is available to all browsers, the rest is personal preference. Try telling any of these Purists that and they dismiss you with their magisterial scorn, as if graceful fallbacks are beyond the ability of a modern day web designer. They see any new technology as effrontery to their voluminous knowledge of HTML.

One other trait of the Purist is the opinion that new technologies such as Javascript are evil and should be disabled in any capable browser. These Purists are so paranoid they should live in a Faraday Cage. Javascript for example, can be extremely useful, and save much bandwidth on the busy internet. Input validation is just one example. Have a client-side script validate a forms content before submitting it to a server stops erroneous data being submitted and rejected and resulting in more traffic. Or even just setting the focus on an editbox ready for typing. Things like this make the internet more user friendly, but that doesn't stop the Purists from maligning Javascript as a security risk. At worst, Javascript in malicious hands can be annoying, but you'll only find things like that in the less savoury side of the internet. It's the equivalent to walking down a dark alley where it is a known place for muggers to attack. Don't invite trouble and you probably won't get any.

The Purists complain when websites don't conform to the specs, but they do things like spoof their USER_AGENT headers** to make the server deliver content designed for a different UA, and when it looks like crap they complain. This is hugely hypocritical, as they are breaking the specs because they're afraid someone will detect which browser they are using. Well, big freaking deal... get a life... no-one cares what browser you're using. The website designer is trying to cater for as many browsers as possible and that is it. No malicious intent, just trying to make the visitors experience a good one.

An argument used often by the Purists is that websites that don't display well in Lynx are discriminating against users in some way, as if it is someone’s inalienable right to access your websites content. What about non-English speaking people? Am I discriminating against them because I don't provide translations in many different languages? Of course not. This is a stupid claim made by people stuck in an internet time-warp. Companies I have done web work for couldn't care less if their site looks crap in Lynx. The type of people (the Purists mainly) that use Lynx are not part of their target demographic. They are trying to appeal to your average Joe Public who don't know what Lynx is, what HTML is and what validated markup is... and don't care. If you showed them a site in Lynx, the likely response would be that "Teletext*** is better than that" and "why on earth am I paying for internet access to view sites that look like they're from some 80's TV programme?"

Basically, web design has moved on, whilst the Purists haven’t. They really need to get out more and stop arguing over things like the use of the <blockquote> tag.


* The technical reference for the HTML protocol.
** A User Agent Header is a piece of information containing the type of Browser requesting the webpage. It is part of the specifications and is required data for the www to function properly.
*** A service provided with British TV displaying information on request.