Responding to more Web Literacy Standard RFC feedback

I’ve already responded to some of the great feedback we’ve received on the Web Literacy Standard RFC release. Below are my responses to some more. You can give your feedback by following the link near the bottom of the landing page.

These are the things I think are great #

Clouds in eyes

I appreciate the way different organizations will be encouraged to interpret the standard for their own contexts.

Awesome. :-)

I like the PNG over view

And I like the drill down nature of the standard structure.

I’d like to see the png created as a menu structure.
If for example I wanted to learn more about exploring>search I could just click the image.

Absolutely! In fact we’re working on exactly that - it’s just that we want a ‘code freeze’ on the competencies and skills before implementing it.

The concept and the structure. The fact that it’s going to get standardized. The way it came to be, e.g. through collaboration in open discussions and with lots of feedback. These are the things I think are awesome.

Cool. The open discussion and feedback loops are important to us. :-)

Just three strands gives it a great overview.

Thanks. We’re trying to make it as definitive as possible while easy-to-access/understand.

These are the things I’m unsure about #

Manga eyes

If I understand what you’re going for - a definition for a web professional - then I think you shouldn’t call it “Literacy”. Web or “digital literacy” tends to apply to common users of computers and the web, not web developers.

Indeed, and the Web Literacy Standard is aimed at everyone, not just those who earn their living on the Web! Literacy implies a universal entitlement.

1) Now that we’ve rejiggered the Building strand, I sort of have to wonder why Remixing is considered separate from Composing for the web?

There’s going to be some overlap and fine distinctions in places but at the moment we’ve got:

Composing for the Web - creating content and making use of technologies for the Web

Remixing - modifying existing Web resources to create something new

I think there’s enough conceptual clear water between these to keep them as they are. Perhaps we should revisit on an upcoming community call?

2) With this change I’m also wondering about the order of Building: should Coding/Scripting move closer to Composing for the web? Does order matter?

Initially we had some implicit ordering of the competencies within the strands. That is to say we thought one competency might be a precursor to a slightly harder one. I’m not so sure we’ve kept with that.

I see where you’re coming from in terms of Coding/Scripting moving closer to Composing for the Web, it’s just that I suppose we don’t want the latter to, in effect, turn into the whole ‘Building’ strand. I’ll have a think.

Are the subitems of “equal size”, eg co-creating web resources and tracking changes of co-created web resources. One seems like it should be subsidiary (or maybe clarification) of the other.

Good spot. There’s going to be some overlap, but we’ve tried where possible to keep competencies the same conceptual size (e.g. by moving HTML and CSS to skills).

These are the things I think need work #

My Little Pony eyes

In you mistake URLs, IP addresses and how DNS works.

(I followed up the detailed and precise feedback given by this individual in an extremely useful email conversation. We’ll act on their suggestions.)

We still need to have some touchpoint for Identity built into our discussion.

Agreed, but identity is a difficult one. It seems at first blush to be part of literacy but, I think, Web literacy is a subset of digital identity. That said, they’re so closely aligned in people’s minds that I think we need at least a statement accompanying the Standard when we get to v1.0.

Is there enough here about personal information/knowledge management.

There is search (on finding information) and sharing (on sharing resources with others) but is something needed about setting up personal systems for information streams/bookmarking/tagging/retrieval of notes/resources/?

I see where you’re coming from - and I think we need to revisit ‘Web Mechanics’ - but one of the skills under that competency is currently: ‘Keeping up-to-date with sources of information on the Web’ and for that the examples we’ve got are:

I agree that shouldn’t be limited to RSS feeds.

Under Building, I definitely would not demote HTML & CSS. They are the fundamental building blocks of the web. While I agree they are also part of composing & design and there are many tools out there that allow you to compose & design without knowing anything about HTML & CSS, to be truly web literate you should understand and recognize that these building blocks exist. One of the purposes of this grid should be to demystify technology and peel back the layers, not add more.

I agree, but part of the issue here is that we currently feature the competency grid on the [landing wiki page](http:/ for the Web Literacy Standard. That’s mainly because it’s currently the most colourful and instantly-understandable graphic.

As we get closer to releasing v1.0 of the standard at the Mozilla Festival I’ll be working closely with Chris Appleton and the Comms team to help tell the story around the Web Literacy Standard. Something I envisage is a graphic that’s front-and-centre that explains the Standard better than the competency grid by itself.

Misc. #


Would it perhaps be possible to set up a community call in the Australian timezone, Doug, in which you present work so far, and then we can take questions? I’m happy to help organize/promote?

Sounds great. Let’s do it!

Thanks to everyone who has submitted their feedback so far. If you want to get yours in so we can act on it before the code freeze at the end of September, let us have it soon!

The rest of the feedback we’ve received through the form can be found here:

Feedback mechanisms

Contact details:


Now read this

In which I over-analyse the ‘Yo’ app

If you haven’t seen it yet, the Yo app (iOS only) is an app that allows you to do one thing, and one thing only: send a message saying ‘Yo’ to people you’ve added to your contacts. Here’s a quick 1-minute overview, including Colbert’s,... Continue →