<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BBC News site: too wide, too tabular</title>
	<atom:link href="http://puffbox.com/2008/04/17/bbc-news-table-screen-widt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://puffbox.com/2008/04/17/bbc-news-table-screen-widt/</link>
	<description>Adventures in government, politics and open source. Mostly WordPress-related.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:55:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul canning</title>
		<link>http://puffbox.com/2008/04/17/bbc-news-table-screen-widt/comment-page-1/#comment-281</link>
		<dc:creator>paul canning</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://puffbox.com/?p=129#comment-281</guid>
		<description>Gerry McGovern is a bit of a guru and has much to say on the &#039;redesign&#039; imperative here http://newsweaver.ie/gerrymcgovern/e_article001049896.cfm

&quot;Redesign is classic organization-centric thinking. It rarely has much to do with making things better for the customer.&quot;

I think a lot of the &#039;customer-centricity&#039; got lost in the process. so the problem is the process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gerry McGovern is a bit of a guru and has much to say on the 'redesign' imperative here <a href="http://newsweaver.ie/gerrymcgovern/e_article001049896.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://newsweaver.ie/gerrymcgovern/e_article001049896.cfm</a></p>
<p>"Redesign is classic organization-centric thinking. It rarely has much to do with making things better for the customer."</p>
<p>I think a lot of the 'customer-centricity' got lost in the process. so the problem is the process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://puffbox.com/2008/04/17/bbc-news-table-screen-widt/comment-page-1/#comment-280</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://puffbox.com/?p=129#comment-280</guid>
		<description>I agree Simon, although it&#039;s worth noting the newer parts of the Telegraph site - the blogs, my.telegraph and the newly-relaunched Travel section - are all properly marked up.

At least the DT separate content from presentation, viewing older BBC News articles brings up a bewildering array of old, new and broken designs as the static pages are published in one format and then ignored!

I&#039;m afraid, like most things to do with web standards, its a case of personal pride.  I love creating nice, standards-compliant, accessible, gracefully degrading pages, at least until I test them in Internet Explorer.  Serving two masters - the emerging standards and the latent implementations of old ones, and what &quot;should be&quot; done versus what &quot;can be&quot; done - will always end up with developers pulled in two different directions.

Personally, I think the marginal effort needed to make pages semantically correct is negligible and, from a business perspective, creates vastly more value, in terms of wider audience catch and improved Google rankings, than they consume in developer hours.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree Simon, although it's worth noting the newer parts of the Telegraph site - the blogs, my.telegraph and the newly-relaunched Travel section - are all properly marked up.</p>
<p>At least the DT separate content from presentation, viewing older BBC News articles brings up a bewildering array of old, new and broken designs as the static pages are published in one format and then ignored!</p>
<p>I'm afraid, like most things to do with web standards, its a case of personal pride.  I love creating nice, standards-compliant, accessible, gracefully degrading pages, at least until I test them in Internet Explorer.  Serving two masters - the emerging standards and the latent implementations of old ones, and what "should be" done versus what "can be" done - will always end up with developers pulled in two different directions.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the marginal effort needed to make pages semantically correct is negligible and, from a business perspective, creates vastly more value, in terms of wider audience catch and improved Google rankings, than they consume in developer hours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

