Dev rallies against HTML5 confusion

Likens commonplace use of the term 'HTML5' as a brand AND spec to DHTML and Web 2.0

Dev rallies against continued HTML5 brand/specification confusion
Adrian Roselli believes continued usage of HTML5 as a brand could cause problems in the future

Senior usability engineer at Algonquin Studios Adrian Roselli has, in a blog post, rallied against continued usage of HTML5 as a global means of talking about modern web standards, arguing it's beginning to confuse people within the industry, including educators and tech writers: "When I talk to another developer about a feature, I want to know that when one of us says 'HTML5' we are both talking about that particular specification. When we use terms like 'WOFF' or 'WebGL' I have comfort knowing the developer has a particular set of technical standards in mind, but when one of us says 'HTML5' we each have to pause to consider what related specification the other might actually mean."

Roselli's comments were motivated by the recently unveiled HTML5Please website adding and then later removing a short disclaimer, noting that it "discusses features beyond the HTML5 specification, coming from CSS, SVG and the greater Open Web Platform umbrella". The justification for doing so, according to a bug/issue report, was that "HTML5 represents an umbrella term for all new technologies (as is inferred from platform.html5.org)". Roselli admits the ship has sailed when trying to communicate the fact HTML5 is a specification in and of itself, but he thinks development websites siding with this do "a disservice to not remind [visitors] that HTML5 means a very particular specification".

On speaking to .net, Roselli said that HTML5 "as a brand versus the name of the version of a particular specification" already causes confusion, not only with clients but also developers. "I suffered through this with DHTML and Web 2.0, and those weren't even real specifications. I expect to continue to deal with it with HTML5." He told us that new developers may not even be taught the differences, partly because the educators themselves don't know." As these devs come into the workforce and get direction from clients or non-technical supervisors to lean on HTML5 for a project, they may not understand that the marketing term 'HTML5' is just the latest variation on 'DHTML' or 'Web 2.0' and presume they are being directed to use one specification. They may spend far too much time rebuilding capability in script, or perhaps just failing at trying to address it, when a related specification already exists."

Roselli also told us this could hinder the web over the coming years: "As we see HTML5 continue to evolve – since the spec isn't slated to be complete until 2014 – other devs may be reticent to lean on any of the final related specifications, or specifications that are far more close to being final, because they don't understand the distinction."

What are your thoughts on HTML5's use as a 'brand'? Do you think developers and development websites should do more to ensure the differentiation between 'brand' and 'specification' is obvious? Let us know in the comments.

7 comments

Comment: 1

Well put, and obviously I agree. The argument that 'people already use HTML5 as an umbrella term' doesn't hold any water with me; HTML5Please.us is a site by developers, for developers, and as such we should be using (broadly) correct terminology with each other, even if there is a general public misunderstanding of what HTML5 really is.

Comment: 2

As one of the people who initially pushed to have a disclaimer added, naturally I agree wholeheartedly with this piece. And just because "that ship has sailed" doesn't mean that we should stop pushing the correct terminologies.

Developers/people new to HTML5 will arrive at sites like HTML5 Please and quite understandably expect the information to be correct. If such sites fail to make the distinction, then these people will be mis-informed. Hardly ideal.

Comment: 3

Yes! This is a deep frustration for any technologist who understands that HTML5 is in fact a version of a specification. We, as Mobile Web specialists were frustrated for quite sometime when we started to hear the term used as a buzzword in the context of mobile web - a kind of clever way of distinguishing modern mobile web publishing for Smartphones from the negative association with 'WAP'. Also a way of creating a new term that could cover the shame that some people hold for shouting out that the future of mobile was only in Apps and not WAP or Mobile Web.

So, as marketers we have put to one side any pride or arrogance we have in our knowledge and speak to our consumers in a language they understand but as technologists this makes us feel slightly dirty, right?

Comment: 4

I agree! But I do consider HTML5 to be more than just the spec that the W3C validator checks your document against. Part of HTML5 involves standards for bolt on technology including web workers, CSS3, server sent events, etc. that are going to (I hope) revolutionize the web and do away with the need for 3rd party browser plugins.

Your document does not need to be HTML5 to use those additional technologies, nor does an HTML5 document need to use any of them (most of mine don't and probably never will) but a web browser that supports HTML5 should support those technologies in the same manner that the W3C working groups specify for them, thus allowing the development of rich (hopefully accessible) web applications that need minimum amount of additional development effort to "just work" in any HTML5 browser.

The amount of code needed to test clients for what they support and then providing alternate code for different browsers etc. is hopefully coming to end.

With respect to Web 2.0 - I personally want nothing to do with it. I do however enjoy rich web applications and want them without needing flash or Java or QuickTime or (etc.) installed.

Comment: 6

Hi brandon - from that blog-

"Sometimes we just need a word to rally behind. And put in job descriptions. And claim we 'support' (another word that is mostly meaningless). It’s a language thing and a human psychology thing.

So be pedantic about the semantics of 'html5' if you want, but don’t be surprised if no one really listens."

Words need clarity of definition. When HTML5 has clarity of definition, then the word 'support' is most certainly NOT meaningless.

When you put html5 in a job description and I apply only to find out the job is just another web 2.0 hack job that wants everything done with an overload of JavaScript, flash, facebook/twitter buttons everywhere, and it doesn't give a crap about semantic markup or web standards - you just wasted my time in applying for the job and your time in reviewing my resume.
August issue on sale now!

The Week in Web Design

Sign up to our 'Week in Web Design' newsletter!

Hosting Directory
.net digital edition
Treat yourself to our geeky merchandise!
site stat collection