The two fundamental and opposing views of the Web
In 1995 the Internet made a monumental shift toward commercialization and commoditization with the release of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer version 1.0. Although Netscape Navigator already commanded eighty-percent of the market share, it was clear from Microsoft’s entry into the field, that competition was going to become fierce. Netscape’s vision, to provide a consistent browsing experience across all operating systems, was a clear threat to the success of Microsoft’s Windows OS. Over the next several years the browser wars would rage on, and two fundamental and opposing views evolved that split Internet users into factions that continuously battle over the future of the World Wide Web.
Standardization and interoperability
Tim Berners-Lee, known as the inventor of the Web, has always held a clear view that information exchange should be a process without limitation. These limitations include those introduced by technology devices, as well as the software that runs within a device. The concept is known as interoperability. A brief hint of this view was made apparent to the public for the first time when he responded to a post on the alt.hypertext newsgroup:
“The WWW project was started to allow high energy physicists to share data, news, and documentation. We are very interested in spreading the web to other areas, and having gateway servers for other data. Collaborators welcome!”
Conventional wisdom states that a standardized set of computer communication languages, which every device understands, is a necessary component of interoperability. The most popular of these languages being Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). However, in order for this idea to come to fruition, all hardware and software vendors must come to a consensus on implementation techniques, as well as features and functionality. As the Web continues to grow, and the cost of developing new technology decreases, this becomes increasingly difficult to manage.
In order to support standardization efforts, Berners-Lee founded the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1994, and still serves as Director. According to the consortium’s Web site:
“The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth for the Web.”
The current endeavors of the W3C have been focused on reclaiming a Web that primarily exists as an entertainment and commercial enterprise. This effort has been dubbed the Semantic Web, and it is a reborn Web where standardization is the primer for artificially intelligent personal assistants. These assistants would rely on a common framework, and implied relationships that associate data with real world objects. This was first envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler and Ora Lassila in a paper published by Scientific American.
Not mentioned in the paper, but one of the understated realities by those who support standards, is that perfect adherence to a standard would flood the market with implementors. As the ease of development increases, the level of knowledge required to support communication technologies would decrease. This saturation would slowly diminish pay scales as certain tasks are automated or relegated to less-experienced individuals. Diversity in platforms has actually given developers a heightened level of specialization, which keeps up the demand for this experience.
Web standards
Although the W3C continues to generate interest in academic and technical circles, the rise of standards was given new life by outspoken voices in the Web development community. Initiatives like The Web Standards Project (WaSP), which is a grassroots campaign, continues to fight for equal access rights to Web technologies. Published authors and well-known speakers on the conference circuit also generated a new interest in creating Web sites and Web applications devoid of market fragmentation, and full of promise for all. Development techniques like Hijax, Graceful Degradation and Progressive Enhancement, breathed new life into what was once considered a Utopian ideal.
The most popular proponent of standards, the organization and Web site A List Apart, is edited by individuals such as Aaron Gustafson, who is Technical Editor as well as WaSP Group Manager. Influential developers like Gustafson are trying to balance a system of standards with the commercialized success of the Web, primarily because of (or despite) Internet Explorer.
In a controversial post on A List Apart, Beyond DOCTYPE: Web Standards, Forward Compatibility, and IE8, Gustafson highlights an “end-game” approach for IE8 that attempted to mirror forward thinking Web innovation with standard’s support. The outcry from some hard-liners in the community was an indication of the difficulties the movement is going to face. Most believe rightfully so that market segmentation and standards are mutually exclusive, which will become more evident in the years to follow.
Even though there continues to be widespread support for Web standards, there is still an undercurrent of dissenters who believe that the complexity of an application and the target audience preclude the need for standards. The objections are not often spoken of in the public domain because it is usually perceived as the purposeful exclusion of disabled Internet users. These users typically require a set of standards to be followed so that information can be accessible by assistive devices, such as screen readers.
There are illustrations that support the objections of these dissenters, proving that a corporation can be a financial success without standards in light of public opinion. Netflix enjoys a great deal of success by offering instant online streaming for a number of movies, but the service requires ActiveX controls, Windows Media Player 11 with proprietary DRM, and Internet Explorer. A small subset of the community has complained, but Netflix is committed to this technology.
Entertainment venues are not the only businesses to inherently shun standards support. Social networking Web sites and news outlets often require plugins and custom frameworks, and gleaning information across multiple platforms is rarely possible. A focus on interoperability is usually driven by demand, for instance, making information available to iPhone users. The most visited and influential of these virtual meeting places are adding features that differentiate, and alienate standards in favor of marketability amongst competition.
Stagnation among bureaucrats
Of course, there is nothing erroneous about supporting standards, or belonging to a group that forwards the cause of standardization. This is simply one view of the Web, and how it should be managed.
However, there is the mistaken notion that standards will actually drive innovation, and that a further investment in the endeavor will spark change. This is actually not the case. Even Berners-Lee is aware that in order for standards to be created, updated and maintained, there must be a governing body. These governing bodies are run by committees, and the bureaucratic process is extremely slow. When discussing the governance of top-level domains by the United Nations, Berners-Lee stated:
“I think that the top level domains, it is very important, are run fairly internationally with a fair representation of businesses and consumers worldwide, not just the companies that run the Internet. I think that whenever you have something that represents the whole world, like the United Nations, it becomes bureaucratic and it becomes slow, because it takes a long time to take into account everybody’s point of view. So we should be prepared to put up with some bureaucracy.”
Amid these views, people still incorrectly liken standards to the open-source movement, where contributions by the community facilitate change quickly. Yet, with open-source software, if you disagree with the prevailing opinion, then you can change it by creating your own software while leveraging the core technology. The competition and choice given to those that use the software in all its forms is what encourages modifications, and garners support, which then drives further innovation from contributors. There is no governing body that makes final and binding conclusions. The Mozilla Foundation and Firefox browser is the perfect example of this process at work.
The truth is that the Web already had its most important standards movement more than a decade ago. Establishing a standard system by which all individuals could communicate and share information was the essence of the WWW project. That was just the beginning of another revolution, and whether some like it or not, it was one with capitalist appeal. Most of what has come about today that gives the Web a broad appeal — the change, the innovation, the continued progress, is the result of competition, commercialization and commoditization.
Commercialization and commoditization
Henry Ford introduced the Model T on October 1, 1908, in the throws of the Second Industrial Revolution. Not only was it an automobile that most American workers could afford, but it was the result of a mass production technique known as the moving assembly line. The standardized process of assembling car parts was an instant success, and Ford paid mechanics twice the average daily wage in order to keep turnover low, and also to meet public demand. By 1918, half of all cars in America were Model T’s, but as Ford himself pointed out, this was not without shortcomings:
“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”
Other car manufacturers mimicked the success of the Model T by integrating modern labor practices like the moving assembly line. They also offered more features and color choices, and instituted payment plans that over the long term increased affordability and market reach. Ford was slow to respond, and over the next few decades increasing competition forced the company to explore other makes and models. This competition eventually resulted in an explosion of choice for the consumer, which includes decisions ranging from environmental impact to an option for heated seats.
This brief history of Ford Motor Company is analogous to the Internet in the early days of the World Wide Web. It was standard practices, as well as the implementation of technology specifications to be recognized by computers, which eventually paved the way for companies like AOL and Comcast to provide access for everyone. There is little doubt that we would not have the Web we have today without the initial efforts of Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues. However, it also must be said that the Web we have today is not the end result of Berners-Lee, and those like him.
The Web as a commodity can be difficult to digest, especially if you consider the efforts by broadband providers who would benefit from an Internet that placed additional constraints on how the commodity is used. Early debates about network neutrality highlighted the worst-case scenarios in this enterprise, where large organizations who control majority stakes on the Web could stifle special interest groups by cutting off Internet access. Although this has been the case only in limited situations, there is always the potential that further treating the Web as a commodity trade could destroy the dissemination of important information.
Into the future
That brings the Web to its current form today, where the two opposing views are divided on how to manage the most influential cultural phenomenon to affect a global society. There is a view, which is socially conscious, and continues to believe that information exchange is a given right for those that can get access to the Web. In contrast to that view is the one that states that the Web is a developing enterprise, where economics should determine the outcome of how information is exchanged. For those that desire the Web to move forward, and to progress technologically, competition and market segmentation is a necessity. For those that desire equal accessibility, progress will have to stall while interested parties determine the best outcome technologically.
Proponents on both sides will always state that there can be a middle ground, but given that browsers are the primary agents of change for the Web, it is unlikely that a middle ground can ever be reached. Two or three browsers might implement a standard one-in-the-same, but the browser that provides users with capabilities unlike the others, and useful to many, will win a new war. Striking a balance at this juncture is near impossible, and in most respects letting market trends ebb and flow unimpeded is the best outcome.