I’ve returned from @media ajax a few days ago, a fantastic event I hope to be able to visit next year. This post is not about what happened there. There are better summaries published, easily accessible by search engine of your choice. Well, good ones anyhow. Besides, I have a cold so I’m even less coherent than usual, so those who’ll continue, beware.

I was however reminded again of a premise I’ve been thinking about every since Andy Clarke’s talk at @media 2006. Should websites look and behave the same way in all mainstream browsers or not?

I’ve been flipping my opinion on this through time, but it seems to me striving for same experience everywhere is not only tiresome, time consuming but also strategically counter-productive.

If a site works the same in all browsers, what incentives do browser laggards have to upgrade their browser?

Not many if any. I think same experience for everyone approach has other downsides as well. New features should be tested before they can be standardized and by tested I mean used. Otherwise we’re left to perpetually build to the lower common denominator. Just like we do now and it simply sucks.

There are arguments in favor of same experience everywhere. In my opinion most sensible one is that a significantly different experience between browsers can be confusing to users. I do, however, think this is not worth worrying about. In my experience, which is what I use when lacking better source of data, people in general don’t use multiple browsers. Those who do, will cope by either sticking to one browser per site or adjusting to differences. We’re not as dumb as we behave.

I used to despise “best seen on” or “optimized for” signs on websites and I still do when they mean they only work with a specified browser. I don’t think there’s anything wrong if website doesn’t shut out anyone, but it’s a bit nicer to some. In fact it’s what we already profess and do. We certainly don’t test all browsers that we used to even though there are still people using them. Not only don’t we test, we KNOW our sites don’t work the same in them. And if we already know and do this, why not also promote a better choice if we think there is one?

So what I’m trying to say without getting too deep into why is that I’ll try to build sites open to users of all browsers, but won’t be too timid to offer improved features when consistency is too difficult or impossible.

I’ve recently read couple of posts that left an impression on me. First one was Brad Neuberg’s about personal research agenda . I haven’t completed list of my problems yet, but I came far enough to know I’m not working on any of them.

The other one was about Blog 2.0 . I’m more interested in content manipulation than social interactions as Pownce and Marela are only two social networking applications I use. Still, ideas contained are intriguing and couple of days before Data Sharing Summit is the right time to shamelessly pimp my views.

Build a social application and you will likely, sooner or later, encounter a dilemma in what your members will be building. Are their creations mainly personal, an expression of their creativity, or are they more of a place where people meet and engage?

Most websites don’t fall squarely into one or the other. My blog feels personal not only because I picked the look and topics, but also because my voice is elevated above others. I doubt I would feel the same if comments could look like my posts. I like my place and freedom it offers me.

That’s why I don’t care all that much about most networks and degrees of their openness. Really open social network would be interwoven into the fabric of web. I already have my page, I don’t need yet another one. If buddy list is desired, I can use FOAF. Sharing of my stuff? Feeds. Same answer for getting other people’s stuff. Starting a new network would mean creating a widget or a few that can be easily integrated in our sites, maybe some sort of a pinging service if expediency is important and offering a space for personal page for those, who don’t have it yet.

It’s amazing how little would need to be changed to implement ideas in Blog 2.0. Basic technology is already here, it’s just not used widely enough yet. Sure there are a few issues that need to be thought through, mainly to do with handling privacy correctly, but they are neither big nor really technological. And price for all this?

Maybe a bit less expediency in content propagation and a bit more work for network operators, who might need to learn to live with the same limitations that search engine developers do already. And I’m not even sure that is really necessary.

Update: Thinking a bit more about this I would be happy enough if social network were just more inclusive. It’s fine that you can create an account and be busy on their platform, but it would be better if you could join and interact with a social network with your own node for as long as that met your needs.

My long term observation: “If you’re looking forward to weekends, then your job might not be right for you.”