On Guilds and Certifications
Last month Peter-Paul Koch wrote about a Dutch Guild of Front-End Programmers he is starting. Its purpose is to further professionalise the front-end programming discipline within the Netherlands
and improve web design education. The primary means of doing this is by forming a certification body which will certify individual front-end programmers in the fields of HTML, CSS, JavaScript and possibly Flash. Clients can hire certified developers, which will then improve the quality of their websites.
I believe this is misguided certification is the wrong way of achieving this goal.
In the software field, certifications are typically provided by technology vendors, such as Microsoft and Sun. These certifications are a proof of your skills as an individual engineer, for a particular technology. As Microsoft puts it:
The practical expertise that is gained through the certification process provides individuals with the kind of know-how that gets recognized—on the job, among peers, and by future employers.
(Emphasis mine)
Key here is future employers. Like a formal CS education, a Microsoft-issued certificate helps you land a job. It’s the employers looking for the certification, not the employers’ clients. The certification process acts as an early filter for potential hires. I believe the same will happen to the Guild’s certification process.
Peter-Paul wrote in his introduction to the Guild:
(…) Dutch government recently decided that all national ministry sites will have to comply with the Web Guidelines before the end of 2010. Although they have no requirement to do so, quite a few Dutch governmental bodies on all levels have decided or will decide in the near future to comply with the Guidelines.
They have one huge problem: finding standards-aware front-end programmers.
During an April meeting in The Hague, with various stakeholders of the Web Guidelines present, I heard this complaint not once but three times—and every time most attendees nodded wisely bud sadly. I saw this problem coming back in September 2004, so I wasn’t particularly surprised. In fact, I started to see a possible solution: certification.
There are some very knowledgeable and standards-aware groups within branches of the Dutch government (…) Now suppose that these people would, quite unofficially, advise government branches who want to implement the Guidelines to work only with certified front-end programmers? That would give a certificate considerable value.
In fact, if this strategy succeeds it might mean that web companies that work for the government will employ only certified web developers in three or four years time. Government sites would be created only by people who actually know the web standards. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
When you read the above citations closely, you’ll note that a) the government branches are expected to hire web companies who employ certified programmers, and b) that Peter-Paul expects an underground pressure on these branches to only work with such companies. As the French might put it, coup d’etat.
Of course, government websites will eventually have to comply with the guidelines. They will have to work with web companies that can build compliant sites, and these sites themselves will have to be certified with regards to the guidelines. Hiring a Guild-certified programmer, or more precisely the company which employs the programmer, is no guarantee. When I asked him about this at last Thursday’s Guild meeting, Peter-Paul admitted as much.
The advantage of obtaining the certificate for individuals is better chances at employement. For the employer there is easier filtering of job applicants and a marginal advantage in project pitches. Certification does not increase the quality of Dutch web design education, nor does it necessarily improve the quality of websites. Unlike vendor driven certification programmes, the programme that Peter-Paul is proposing requires membership of an organisation. And since there is no certification in the use of a vendor’s technologies, but in open standards whose proper use is continually under debate, the objectiveness of the certification is unclear.
I do believe there’s a need for a professional web designer’s organisation. Pressure needs to be excerted, and a helping hand extended, to improve the quality of (Dutch) web design and education systems. For the reasons outlined above, I do not believe certification should be part of this.
As Peter-Paul wrote, last October:
The main problem with any kind of Web development certification (as well as Web education) is that the industry is moving too fast for official institutions (with their unavoidable bureaucracy) to keep up. Suppose that today we’d set up certification criteria that all experts would agree to be good; before they’re actually implemented by an official body they’d already be outdated. Even if the official body would somehow move with lightning speed, our certification criteria would still be outdated within a year or so.
I wonder what made him change his mind.
I think companies with certified employees will take care of it. Placing a button on the site or in e-mail conversations et cetera.
Also, as far as I know there will be a part in the certification where you’ll be tested in how far you keep up with new techniques etc. Plus, your certificate will expire within one or two years.
I agree with you there is need for some fast-forward in the web design and development world. I hope I can help by contributing on the education work group within the Guild.
Arjan Eising | 26 August 2007, 19:03 | link
Hi Mark!
It’s interesting that the Dutch government has problems finding web developers that are know and use open standards, but I guess some kind of certification process would still be a good idea.
As for the outdatedness of these certifications, I think this is not that much of a problem. If there is a new standard, it needs a few years until a major part of the browsers supports it. (Although I expect MS to develop the IE to use more open standards more quickly, especially new ones, because they don’t break with older sites, so it might be easier.) So, if this certification organization needs a year to decide on a new certificate, this is more than enough and no problem.
The problem is, how these certificates could be enforced. There’s the governments, which can be forced to use open standards, but what about the vast majority of sites that is developed by private web designers that have no interest in getting a certificate, because they work for their own, anyway. Also, don’t expect that companies that employ certified developers would post buttons on their web sites or e-mail signatures, like Arjan Eising said.
Microsoft or Sun are in a different situation here: They have very special technology that, if used incorrectly, can cause a lot of problems. What problems does a wrongly developed website cause? In the best case none, in the worst case they look ugly, but most of the time the site doesn’t look THAT good.
The challenge is to get companies to use and accept this certification. For that, you need a widely accepted organization that issues the certifications, and good marketing.
Anyway, I wish you all the best with that. :)
Sebastian Moser | 26 August 2007, 19:17 | link
What exactly do you think is misguided? This possibility and conclusion you’ve drawn yourself?
Nope, but that’s not a goal of the guild. It’s something you’ve attached to it in your first paragraph.
Which makes the front-end a more known and accepted discipline, which is part of professionalizing it, which is a main goal. It looks like you perfectly understand what’s happening here.
Your last line is interesting though. I wondered about the same thing when ppk started all this. From that same post:
I think this is the most important part for you (and more Q42 people), Tino Zijdel, and probably some other brilliant people as well. Totally understandable. Now, please try totally understanding why not so brilliant people (who perhaps respect ppk for doing what he does, not necessarily how he does it) and companies do like it.
Krijn Hoetmer | 27 August 2007, 08:57 | link
Krijn: So your point is that only non-brilliant companies are joining the guild? Lost Boys? Fabrique? Mangrove? These companies constitute non-brilliance? Or just the employees representing them?
I don’t think the point is about brilliance or lack thereof. The point is that fundamentally, the approach planned by this guild is not going to alter the key elements that need altering in order to improve what needs to be improved (that is, the young work force entering the industry from educational institutions, as well as current companies that the government must work with who purportedly have a sub-optimal understanding of the requirements for a government project, such as web standards).
What those of us who don’t support the guild are trying to say is that the direction of the current plans is going to lead to an elitist organisation that merely serves to pat itself on the back and not to benefit clients or the industry as a whole in any meaningful way. And perhaps the type of people signing up for the guild at the moment are representative of an unhealthy direction in the industry brought on by this “web standards” obsession… I would say we should be trying to understand how that movement is possible and what to do to educate those people better than how many points you get on your certificate sheet for being able to construct a tableless webpage. Case in point: PPK posting about the need to “get rid of semi-professionals”.
After all, working with the government is only as difficult as you make it.
Rahul | 27 August 2007, 11:58 | link
I’ve got an addition to my previous comment. If the GFE starts to work together with KEMA for the certification, it will be much easier for employers to promote they have certified employees. KEMA is not only well known, but also you have some guaranty the certification is up to date and also the exam will be more objective (since also someone from KEMA will be there).
Yes, but that has nothing to do with ‘good’ and ‘bad’ front enders. It is more about the online community. In the web standards world (blogs, mailinglists) there is a movement to GeenStijl quality of the comments, like this (not the comments at Anne’s blog, but the link to the article at Digg).
Arjan Eising | 27 August 2007, 12:26 | link
My point still stands — “semi-professionals” may be a probem, but certification and creating a guild isn’t the solution. In fact, it compounds the problem we helped to introduce (which is that people now consider web standards to be a rule to follow, rather than a recommendation, and complain when you don’t quote your attributes, for instance, even though it’s valid — we forged this environment when we submerged the online community in our drivel about CSS and XHTML 4 years ago).
The only way to solve this problem is to educate convincingly in a style common to how Shea’s csszengarden, Zeldman, Bowman, Meyer, Cederholm etc. did it back then. And that didn’t need some kind of certificate-based organisation of “masters” to get the job done.
Rahul | 27 August 2007, 13:04 | link
No, I said not so brilliant, not non-brilliant :) But it wasn’t about joining the guild anyway.
Perhaps, but the goal you outline is a step further than what the guild tries to achieve. That goal is to make the front-end of a website an accepted, professional discipline. Of course at Q42 you’re already beyond that, but I think you agree with me that you’re an exception (which makes you guys react elitist as well sometimes, which is pretty logical and in my opinion acceptable :)
I’m not really trying to convert anybody to some other believe here, so sorry if you readers think I am ;)
Krijn Hoetmer | 27 August 2007, 13:06 | link
Yeah, the original goal is good, in theory. I just don’t agree with the details and execution.
By the way, don’t consider my comments as being representative of all of Q42. I’m speaking my own mind here. ;-)
Rahul | 27 August 2007, 13:15 | link
Arjan wrote:
How would placing a button take care of “it”? We’re talking about a marginal marketing edge, and easier hiring of employees. I understand that’s an advantage, but is that really the best way to improve web design?
Sebastian, good to hear from you! Guidelines and certifications on web technologies are always going to be behind the times, since the technology is in constant flux. If we pay too much attention to “certified technologies”, early adopters won’t get anywhere. This does limit innovation. This is likely a different topic though. I’m mostly worried about different interpretations of best practices. I don’t really care about the validator services for instance. As Paul Sowden (now of Meebo) once said, We comply, but we do not conform.
Krijn wrote:
I phrased that improperly. Changed it now.
Krijn also wrote:
It is what I took away from the meeting though. Also, I’d like to point out that I’m presenting my personal views here on this website. And as I pointed out, certification does provide certain advantages to companies, it makes sense from a business point of view. I just wonder whether it’s all necessary.
I’m replying to the comments in-order, so back to Arjan:
Yes, a slight marketing advantage. Roughly comparable to pitching that the website will follow the guidelines and they’re are totally committed to having the site certified. Which, of course, is the only guarantee of getting a website following the guidelines. Again, why bother with certification?
At the end of the day, I too want better web design education, and most of all, better websites. Certification just seems like a roundabout way of accomplishing this.
Mark Wubben | 27 August 2007, 21:06 | link
Don’t know if this kind of commentary is welcome in this discussion, but the things I recently read on quirksmode seem baroque, so I’ll get nasty. The statements made should have put any standardista to shame (the whole semi-professionals vs. elitists story). To me it seems officially sick to attach standards work in a particular country (the whereabouts of which we shall not disclose) to some kind of certificate, monthly fees or (god forbid) “trusted employment” practices.
What the certain individual ultimately proposes (this is a translation from PR-speak in style of Daring Fireball) is that anyone who wants to do web-standards and advertises himself as doing web standards in the country of unknown whereabouts, has to join a union/trust body, with meager chance of appealing to any medium/large sized employer without having done so.
What will be “recommended practice” after that? A certified CSS IDE? A certified JavaScript framework? A certified DTD? Or maybe a certified operating system which the certified web developer is obliged to use?
This story ultimately shows that an individual can go to great lengths in his quest for earning more money, and, ultimately, more control by creating a mix between a syndicate and trust for that purpose. The thought that you won’t be able to touch a text editor in the country of unknown whereabouts without some entity approving your being makes me shudder. Let the only certifying body be the W3 validator for now mmkay?
As for education, ask PPK why he stopped giving lessons at the HKU.
Anonymous admirer with limited interest in the matter | 5 September 2007, 07:00 | link
Well, I think the W3 validator is quite broken as is.
Mark Wubben | 5 September 2007, 07:28 | link
Certainly. As well as many other small things such as the deembedment of the objects (how’bout they tackle that instead of form repetition?), but you get my point :-)
The same admirer | 5 September 2007, 07:33 | link
Excellent post Mark, and great discussion to boot. If you want to know how i look at it, ask Lon ;)
Hayo Bethlehem | 12 October 2007, 10:25 | link