Helen Kennedy - Self Regulation Internet Policy
The successful self-regulation of web designers
Helen Kennedy
(Ephemera: theory & politics in organization, forthcoming)
ABSTRACT
In the absence of a professional body, code of ethics, or any other successful form of regulation, web designers deploy a range of strategies to self-regulate their own professional practices. These include the web standards movement and initiatives relating to web accessibility for users with disabilities. Indeed, with regard to accessibility, self-regulation has arguably been more effective than limited attempts to regulate web accessibility which have their origins outside the collective selves of web designers. The success of these self-regulatory strategies calls into question some of the negative readings of self-regulation in the growing body of literature about the cultural industries. What’s more, the ethical foundations of web designers’ self-regulation in relation to standards and accessibility suggest that, in this context, self-blaming (as one form of self-regulation) does not represent an absence of social critique, as has been suggested. Rather, self-blame is social critique.
INTRODUCTION
Web design has come a long way since its early anarchic days. It has undergone a process of professionalisation (Kennedy, 2010) which has seen the emergence of recognizable job titles, core skills, and standards. Web designers themselves are concerned about this process, and express this concern through debate about their own professionalism on the blogs of the industry’s gurus and of lesser known web workers. This debate takes place in the absence of a professional body, a code of ethics or any other successful form of regulation. In place of external regulation, web designers deploy a range of strategies in order to self-regulate. These include the Web Standards Project (WaSP), a grassroots coalition fighting for standardization in web design and development, and a commitment to accessibility, or the inclusion of people
Helen Kennedy
(Ephemera: theory & politics in organization, forthcoming)
ABSTRACT
In the absence of a professional body, code of ethics, or any other successful form of regulation, web designers deploy a range of strategies to self-regulate their own professional practices. These include the web standards movement and initiatives relating to web accessibility for users with disabilities. Indeed, with regard to accessibility, self-regulation has arguably been more effective than limited attempts to regulate web accessibility which have their origins outside the collective selves of web designers. The success of these self-regulatory strategies calls into question some of the negative readings of self-regulation in the growing body of literature about the cultural industries. What’s more, the ethical foundations of web designers’ self-regulation in relation to standards and accessibility suggest that, in this context, self-blaming (as one form of self-regulation) does not represent an absence of social critique, as has been suggested. Rather, self-blame is social critique.
INTRODUCTION
Web design has come a long way since its early anarchic days. It has undergone a process of professionalisation (Kennedy, 2010) which has seen the emergence of recognizable job titles, core skills, and standards. Web designers themselves are concerned about this process, and express this concern through debate about their own professionalism on the blogs of the industry’s gurus and of lesser known web workers. This debate takes place in the absence of a professional body, a code of ethics or any other successful form of regulation. In place of external regulation, web designers deploy a range of strategies in order to self-regulate. These include the Web Standards Project (WaSP), a grassroots coalition fighting for standardization in web design and development, and a commitment to accessibility, or the inclusion of people
References: Adam, A. and D. Kreps (2006) ‘Enabling or disabling technologies? A critical approach to web accessibility’, Information Technology and People, 19(3): 203-218. Banks, M. (2007) The Politics of Cultural Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Brothercake (2007) ‘Technology is the last, best hope for accessibility’, March 13 2007, http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/hope/, visited October 2009. Bruns, A. (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: from production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang. Budd, A. (2005) ‘Accessibility and the law’, Blogography, 16 June 2005, http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2005/06/accessibility_and_the_law/, visited October 2009. Clark, J. (2002) Building Accessible Websites. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Clark, J. (2006) ‘To Hell with WCAG 2.0’, AListApart, May 23 2006, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2, visited June 2007. Clark, J. (2008) ‘This is how the web gets regulated’, AListApart, 18 November 2008, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/thisishowthewebgetsregulated, visited May 2009. Clarke, A. (2005) ‘Accessibility and a society of control’, Stuff and Nonsense, June 2005, http://stuffandnonsense.co.uk/blog/about/accessibility_and_a_society_of_control/, visited October 2009. Clarke, A. (2006) Transcending CSS: The Fine Art of Web Design. Berkeley, CS: New Riders. Coyne, K. and J. Nielsen (2001) Beyond ALT text: making the web easy to use for users with disabilities. Fremont, CA: Nielsen Norman Group. Deuze, M. (2007) Media Work. Cambridge: Polity Press. du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage. Florida, R. (2003) The Rise of the Creative Class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Kelly, B. (2002) ‘An accessibility analysis Of UK university entry points.’ Ariadne Issue 33. Lawton Henry, S Lazar, J., A. Dudley-Sponaugle and K.D. Greenidge (2004) ‘Improving Web Accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions’, Computers in Human Behaviour, 20(2): 269-288. Leadbetter, C. (1999) Living on Thin Air: The New Economy. Harmondsworth: Viking. McRobbie, A. (1999) In The Culture Society. London and New York: Routledge. McRobbie, A. (2002a) ‘Clubs to Companies: notes on the decline of political culture in speeded up creative worlds’, Cultural Studies 16(4): 516-531. McRobbie, A. (2002b) ‘From Holloway to Hollywood: happiness at work in the new cultural economy?’ in du Guy, P. and Pryke, M. (eds) Cultural Economy. London: Sage. Meyer, E. (2000) CSS: The Definitive Guide. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Moore, P. and P.A. Taylor (2009) ‘Exploitation of the self in community-based software production: Workers’ freedoms or firm foundations?’, Capital and Class 97: 99-119. Moss, T. (2006) ‘WCAG 2.0: The new W3C accessibility guidelines evaluated’, Webcredible, September 2006, http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/wcag-guidelines-20.shtml, visited June 2009. Rose, N. (1999a) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Free Association. Rose, N. (1999b) ‘Inventiveness in politics’, Economy and Society, 28(3): 467-493. Ross, A. (2003) No-Collar: the humane workplace and its hidden costs. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Sampson-Wild, G. (2007) ‘Testability Costs Too Much’, AListApart, June 26 2007, http://www.alistapart.com/articles/testability, visited June 2007. Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. Norton & Co: New York and London. Terranova, T. (2000) ‘Free labor: producing culture for the digital economy’. Social Text 18(2): 33-57, http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0004/msg00013.html, visited October 2001. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) (2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/, visited on various dates. Web Standards Group (2005) ‘Ten questions for Patrick Lauke’, October 11 2005, http://webstandardsgroup.org/features/patrick-lauke.cfm, visited October 2009. Wittel, A. (2001) ‘Toward a Network Sociality’. Theory, Culture and Society 18(6): 51-76.