Yeah. This has basically zero effect on actual day-to-day harmful practices of powerful organizations. Nice of them to write it down, at least… but imagine a world in which these kinds of things actually have teeth. If that seems like too much of a stretch, ask a member of a real engineering discipline. https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/
Refers to html design principles, which I always found a great moral compass and we’ll put
Quoting my favorite section
3.2. Priority of Constituencies:
In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once
.
The ship has already sailed on most of these, as far as the mainstream web goes. Doubly so now that the W3C has surrendered its claim on the web platform to WHATWG.
Imagine taking ethics advice from an organization that promotes DRM.
I couldn’t help but chuckle at that disclaimer. If there’s no normative content, how exactly can we take its ethical principles seriously?
Yeah. This has basically zero effect on actual day-to-day harmful practices of powerful organizations. Nice of them to write it down, at least… but imagine a world in which these kinds of things actually have teeth. If that seems like too much of a stretch, ask a member of a real engineering discipline. https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/
Refers to html design principles, which I always found a great moral compass and we’ll put Quoting my favorite section
The ship has already sailed on most of these, as far as the mainstream web goes. Doubly so now that the W3C has surrendered its claim on the web platform to WHATWG.