Encouraging Standards-Based Web Development: Roll-out and Reactions

1. Encouraging Standards-Based Web Development:Roll-out and Reactions  Presented by: Shan Osborn and Geoffrey Elliott, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

2. Refresh • Tasked with creating website development standards for our division • 106 staff members in 6 groups • Not all are involved in website development • Focus is on technical issues, documentation • Implemented a peer-review process for early-on in the development process 2

3. Roll-out • Beta testing began in May 2002 • Standards and peer-review process were refined and finalized • Official, division-wide roll-out: February 3, 2003 • Division manager sent out an e-mail message to all division staff announcing the standards were effective immediately • Group managers were asked to set up meetings for us to present an overview of the standards to their staff • Roll-out completed in September 2003 3

4. How staff reacted • Fear • Didn’t understand the technical requirements well enough to comply with the standards • Avoided the standards by trying to circumvent the peer-review process or by handing off web development work to others • Skepticism • Understood the need, but weren’t convinced the standards would work • Questioned cost to clients 4

5. How staff reacted (contd) • “Meh” • Staff to whom these standards aren’t applicable were understandably less than excited • But “good for you” • Enthusiasm • Showed a willingness to learn • Took advantage of training opportunities • Worked to become a peer-reviewer • Used the standards as a marketing tool to clients 5

6. Surprises? • No big ones • Some staff were faster to take up the standards mantle than we anticipated • Some customers were actually quite eager to revisit old websites and redesign them using our standards • Some things out of our control • Discontinuation of standalone Internet Explorer • Official death of Netscape 6

7. What we did right • Researched heavily up front • Standards are based on industry best practice • Tried to anticipate problems and devise solutions • Chose to focus the standards on technical issues • Tied our requirements to the W3C recommendations • Did NOT dictate look/feel 7

8. What we did right (contd) • Stayed out of the way as much as possible • Let developers work with the client just as they have in the past • Don’t steal the work, just provide guidance • Peer Review • Without question product quality is higher • Provides regular opportunities for sharing/education 8

9. What we wish we’d done • Defined a more streamlined roll-out plan • Shorter timeframe • Prepared better for training and support • Trained more peer-reviewers before the roll-out • Had pre-developed brownbags/classes • Better budget planning (more money!) • Required rather than recommended CSS usage 9

10. Where we are now • Vast majority of staff are happy with standards • Benefits to client (and developer sanity) are apparent • Developers are trading solutions, sharing ideas • All sites are passing peer review (and are CSS-based!) • Recognition of web development as a specialty • Some staff members are no longer building websites • Staff only peripherally involved with sites are asking more questions (a Good Thing) • The lab is interested in what we’ve done 10

11. Issues we still face • NOT technical issues • Majority of browsers are standards-compliant now • IE 6 will be around for the foreseeable future • Training • Educate staff about how standards can be better used • Teach staff how to explain these standards to clients • Funding • For updates, evangelism, and education 11

12. Conclusion • Standards are working • If we continue to educate and monitor industry developments, our standards will remain effective 12

13. Questions? Comments? • Shan Osbornshan.osborn@pnl.gov • Geoff Elliottgeoff.elliott@pnl.gov • http://stistandards.pnl.gov/ 13