RSS: Web 2.0’s Table Element
A recent interview at Daily Blog Tips showcased the thoughts of Coding Horror’s Jeff Atwood on RSS. It was an interesting viewpoint, and one that got me thinking.
RSS is a technology; it should be completely invisible to the average user. When it isn’t, you get stuff like Oprah redefining RSS as “Ready for Some Stories”. We should no sooner have RSS icons than we have HTTP icons.
The question I come to is: How necessary is it to display an RSS icon on a website? I’ve never really thought about it in depth before. After all, so many blogs and websites do it. It seems natural. And with the pros leaning that direction, what other example do we have to follow?
Practically the source of classy, relevant web tips and practice on the web, A List Apart features a link to their RSS feed in their main menu.
Easily the #1 model for thousands of bloggers, ProBlogger has a link to subscribe to their content displayed prominently above the fold.
The Feed Reader (no, the human kind)
At first glance, it seems there are two type of readers when it comes to RSS:
- Those who use it, and therefore don’t really need the icons and
- Those who don’t use RSS and don’t really care that there’s an icon on the page.
Granted, there are gray areas on the spectrum. There are those who use feeds but need to be reminded of their availability (though I don’t know why), as well as those who don’t use feeds but will after enough visual training.
Honestly, the whole issue makes me think of those Valid CSS and Valid XHTML buttons that I used to see every once and a while. I always think those are silly and unnecessary. Now I’m beginning to see feed icons in the same light.
Standard Technology and Non-standard Visuals
I recognize that an RSS icon standard does exist, to an extent, but there is still a lot of creative liberty taken across the web. As Atwood alludes to in his quote above, at some point this showing off of different versions of the icon becomes just that—showboating. How necessary is it?
Everyone does it—heck, I do it—so I can’t really talk. But at one point that was the case with table elements. So what excuses do we really have? And, more importantly, how long before this fad fades out, just like the rest have?
Related reading:
Feed icons is userfull to quicklink the subscription of just a category of updates/news/topics in a website, like a subforum in a bulletin board.
Icon will be superfluous in a few years, but only if there is only a main feedline (no tags feeds, no category feeds, no comments feeds, etc.).
By Niccolò Zamborlini on August 22, 2007 2:38 am
The icon is most useful as just an easy visual clue when someone wants to subscribe. It’s much easier to find the familiar icon than it is to find text on a page. I’m sure you’re right in thinking its use will fade in time, but it is at least a bit more useful than a “Valid XHTML” button.
By Randa Clay on August 22, 2007 6:37 am
I’ve noticed they’re quite useful to people who are just discovering RSS. Plus, you can copy the link location and paste it into your feed reader manually if you don’t want to use your browser’s default reader. In Safari I have to do that because I use Google Reader, and (as far as I know) the only options it gives me are Safari itself or choose an application.
By katy lavallee on August 22, 2007 8:16 am
Comparing RSS icons to table layouts is …. absurd. Totally different.
Big superfluous RSS icons are not comparable to table-layout fiascos (BTW you just say “table elements” not “table layouts” there’s a difference!) they’re more comparable to say, animated gifs. It’s a small indulgence on part of the designer.
By cameron on August 22, 2007 9:18 am
@Niccolo: I’m not sure there needs to be only one feed. Many feedreading clients can detect multiple feeds and allow you to pick which one you’d like to subscribe to.
@Randa: I suppose it is more useful, but I’m not sure that it’s much better than “Valid” buttons, like you say. Valid buttons lead you to a W3C Validator screen, showing you that there are no errors (and hopefully no warnings). But that’s not something you need the button for, it’s just a shortcut. It’s also informational, concerning the technology behind the site, and not all that useful to the reader. While RSS is useful to readers, as it does allow them to interface with the site, I’m not sure a shortcut to the RSS is much better than a shortcut to an XHTML Validation page.
@Katy: I’m sure the icons do increase widespread knowledge of RSS. But is that enough to justify displaying them everywhere?
@Cameron: I don’t know, Cameron. They both may be, as Atwood said, abusing a technology. Table designs were abusive to the purpose of tables, perhaps displaying RSS icons is abusing the technology of RSS feeds. As far as saying “element” instead of “layout” — I guess I just assumed Wisdump readers would make the connection. Sorry.
By Ryan Imel on August 22, 2007 11:24 am
@Ryan
“I don’t know” ?
You don’t what comparison you were making? Why were you making a comparison if you don’t know what it is? Why make the comparison at all?
By cameron on August 22, 2007 9:09 pm
>While RSS is useful to readers, as it does allow them to interface with the site, I’m not sure a shortcut to the RSS is much better than a shortcut to an XHTML Validation page.
That’s like suggesting some-random-percentage of hyper-linking, say 90%, is pointless because it’s a ’shortcut’. Of course it is. Linking to content saves your readers (some of whom will have lost brain cells reading your article, no offence) effort.
Suggesting RSS is at best ‘useful’, is to minoritize the majority of wisdump readers.
>As far as saying “element” instead of “layout” — I guess I just assumed Wisdump readers would make the connection.
What? Your article tries to draw parallels that don’t exist. It’s not possible to make a connection when you don’t actually provide good cause.
RSS icons that follow the standard, make it easier for folks to find feeds. If folks deviate away from that, then fine, but that doesn’t automatically make the standard itself irrelvant.
What validity do w3c standards have, if they’re rendered invalid by someone not following them? That’s ultimately equivalent to the question you ask.
Surely you understand that’s illogical.
Standards exist for a reason - they aren’t negated by someone not following them.
And you’ve still not clearly covered what any of that has to do with table ‘abuse’, given tables were never standardised by the w3c at any time.
They were a useful element when CSS centric design was still in it’s infancy. Heavy usage does not equate 1:1 with abuse.
I’m honestly not at all sure what your article is trying to say, other than you hate seeing orange RSS icons?
By Brendan on August 23, 2007 7:17 pm