W3 Validation is a scam

W3 Validation is a scam (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Microsoft FrontPage Help

Message

Minix -> W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 22:21:36)
I've looked into this and I can say that you don't have to be influenced by the whole validation process. Your web site will work, regardless of the elitist point of view that these standard bearers propose. Some people just need to feel important. And self-serving!

slbergh -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 22:42:20)
quote: Your web site will work You're right. It will. And you can also just use the spacebar instead of setting tab stops in a Word document. Just because it works, doesn't make it right.

Charles W Davis -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 22:59:58)
Minix, Where would we be with no standards? Henry Ford was plagued when starting assembly line production with out standard parts. His biggest contribution to the auto industry was the development of standards so that there could be interchangeable parts. The Internet itself would not exist without standards. The modem that you use is also based on standards. The W3 standards help ensure that those with physical disabilities can use your web site. I have no idea how old you are, but there are many in my community that depend on their computers having accessibility for them. For these folks, your web site might not be available to them. If you are selling, you may be eliminating a significant portion of your business. Scam? I think not!

BobbyDouglas -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:15:32)
Doesn't seem like a scam, it is just a place for people to code from standards. To be honest I almost never use it to validate documents, there are just too many things it does not like that I do. Btw, did you figure out how to get the remote internet at BOB? I checked around and nobody really said it could be done.. Other than the use of a cell phone connected to the laptop that is.

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:22:15)
Chuck, I think you miss my point. There are standards in all aspects of life. Standards that are written and standards that are assumed. The internet has evolved from an educational tool into a commercial tool. Once it became a commercial tool, different standards come into play. Explain to me why the internet needs standards that all must adhere - to consider the "disabled" as you call them, bu the rest of the media society does not. Explain to me why every newspaper printed doesn't have standards that allows the visually impaired to have equal access to the content via Braille incorporated into every edition. Explain to me why every magazine published in the US doesn't have an accepted standard so that the visually impaired can pick up a copy and be assured that the content is Braille friendly. Expalin to me why every restaraunt in America doesn't have to adhere to a standard that every menu that they print is "impaired friendly" so that they can sell to everybody. I can start a society and make up standards......Jim Jones did it with Kool-Aid.

Peppergal -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:24:05)
quote: Some people just need to feel important. And self-serving! Self serving? What in the world are you talking about? sounds like you've gotten way frustrated with the validation process.

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:24:26)
quote: ORIGINAL: BobbyDouglas Doesn't seem like a scam, it is just a place for people to code from standards. To be honest I almost never use it to validate documents, there are just too many things it does not like that I do. Btw, did you figure out how to get the remote internet at BOB? I checked around and nobody really said it could be done.. Other than the use of a cell phone connected to the laptop that is. Bobby, My client has it now - they pay $400 a month for it at BOB. They want an alternative.

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:26:37)
I acquiesce......scam is the wrong term

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:31:08)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peppergal quote: Some people just need to feel important. And self-serving! Self serving? What in the world are you talking about? sounds like you've gotten way frustrated with the validation process. W3 standards are geek driven rules for the anal retentive programmers who are afraid of people like me. People with some creativity. Not frustrated with the validation process at all .... scoff at it's rigidness.

Peppergal -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:32:59)
quote: Expalin to me why every restaraunt in America doesn't have to adhere to a standard that every menu that they print is "impaired friendly" so that they can sell to everybody. well, I believe that every new place of business is now required to be handicapped accessible, and a lot of existing places are required to comply as well. Landlords are required to make their apartments handicapped accessible if they participate in the housing program. Even stupid places, like difficult hiking trails for experienced hikers...there in the parking lot were the obligatory two blue parking spaces with a wheelchair painted on the pavement. (this was no picnic area, just the trailhead) Newspapers and magazines seek to make their papers as readable as possible - they don't use tiny tiny characters that are difficult to see; their layouts are similar and familiar and follow a reasonable pattern, they use ink colors that will be most easily read.... Many, many, many restaurants offer braille versions of their menus. Movie and tv producers put closed captioning on their shows and all new tvs are enabled to receive closed captioning signals.

Peppergal -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:39:40)
And furthermore...the standards are optional, I suppose. You can choose to ignore a portion of the population if you want. I really doubt that art museums worry too much about putting out braille tour pamplets since going to an art museum would hardly be what a blind person would choose to do. If you're selling a product that has no appeal to blind people, then I'd not worry about it, you know? For instance, I really doubt that many blind people are going to be looking at a real estate site, that is driven by images, so I don't worry about that too much. I can't picture a web reader saying "The house is smallish with brown T-1-11 siding and has a dilapitated deck partway around...." Since I also doubt that any of my visitors use NN4.7, I don't worry about that too much either. In the past year, the only NN4.7 instances visiting my site were MY OWN, checking it in the browser.

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:41:59)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peppergal quote: Expalin to me why every restaraunt in America doesn't have to adhere to a standard that every menu that they print is "impaired friendly" so that they can sell to everybody. well, I believe that every new place of business is now required to be handicapped accessible, and a lot of existing places are required to comply as well. Landlords are required to make their apartments handicapped accessible if they participate in the housing program. Even stupid places, like difficult hiking trails for experienced hikers...there in the parking lot were the obligatory two blue parking spaces with a wheelchair painted on the pavement. (this was no picnic area, just the trailhead) Newspapers and magazines seek to make their papers as readable as possible - they don't use tiny tiny characters that are difficult to see; their layouts are similar and familiar and follow a reasonable pattern, they use ink colors that will be most easily read.... Many, many, many restaurants offer braille versions of their menus. Movie and tv producers put closed captioning on their shows and all new tvs are enabled to receive closed captioning signals. Your first paragraph adressess motor-physical handicaps and that's not where I'm going with this. So that's not a point to debate. Your second paragraph supports my contention that there are NO standards in those media and they seem to allow the market to dictate if and when they need to adhere to any edicts. Hey... why not any W3 validation for newspapers....why not any W3 validation for every magazine printed.....why not W3 validation for every TV show that comes on....why not W3 validation for ....for ... for forum posting....?

Peppergal -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/21/2004 23:53:22)
Well, I still don't understand what you're so huffy about. A site does not have to be W3C valid to go on the web. People who want to make their sites accessible to the broadest audience possible adhere to the standards. People who don't care or are not interested in doing so, don't do nor do they have to. If the New York Times wanted to make sure that blind people could read it, then it would publish a braille version of its paper. It does all go back to you, the owner, in the end. It does go back to the market. If your market does not include blind people, to heck with it. But your market may include COLOR blind people...and they CAN read newspapers and magazines...but they may not be able to read your web page. Don't you want to cater to them? If not...then who cares?

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 0:00:11)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peppergal Well, I still don't understand what you're so huffy about. A site does not have to be W3C valid to go on the web. People who want to make their sites accessible to the broadest audience possible adhere to the standards. People who don't care or are not interested in doing so, don't do nor do they have to. If the New York Times wanted to make sure that blind people could read it, then it would publish a braille version of its paper. It does all go back to you, the owner, in the end. It does go back to the market. If your market does not include blind people, to heck with it. But your market may include COLOR blind people...and they CAN read newspapers and magazines...but they may not be able to read your web page. Don't you want to cater to them? If not...then who cares? Actually, I wasn't being huffy....maybe I needed one of these [8D]....to get that point across. For the huffy impaired.

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 0:07:09)
OK, here's my irritation... Most times somebody posts a site up here for review or comment, the two main issues that "the experts" always contribute is ..... you really need to use CSS ...and you really need to validate your site using W3.... Bogus..... both of those trite, over-used comments. They do a dis-service to the novice who's looking for a more tangent response. Something practical.

Spooky -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 0:16:02)
quote: Explain to me why the internet needs standards that all must adhere There isnt actually anything that makes you adhere to those standards - they are optional. quote: and you really need to validate your site using W3 This is a typical troubleshooting approach - if a visual problem is not easily solved, then its often html thats invalid. Trying to validate the code sometimes gives pointers where that code may have gone wrong. We arent saying you need to correct every aspect of the code, but get pointers about where it may have failed. In general, some pretty bad coding will show in most browsers, so you dont have to meet the standards 'imposed' Im all for standards, but sometimes creativity falls outside of them - they shouldnt serve as a restriction. As far as basic validation goes, you only have to look at the sites that were made totally unreadable in early NN browsers due to missing table or closing html tags to see why some validation against standards is a good idea [;)]

jaybee -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:01:50)
OK, as you obviously couldn't give a damn about people with visual impairment having the same right to look around the internet as anyone else, lets see what's in it for you when using CSS. I have a web site with a load of table driven pages with events and dates on them. These were built in FrontPage with a theme and the usual FP formatting. Average page size 135Kb. I have just started converting them over to css due to the download time. The first one was completed and uploaded last night. Page size 17Kb Style sheet 1Kb Contains the same info, looks identical. Downloads in less than 20 seconds on a 28.8 modem, instant on broadband. As far as newspapers go, W3 doesn't apply. It stands for World Wide Web. Many restaurants have braille menus and if they don't are more than happy to read to the customer. Newspapers are made available in braille and in speech format. As are books etc etc. Visually impaired people know where to get these from and do. They have no alternative with the web unless you provide it.

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:10:51)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaybee OK, as you obviously couldn't give a damn about people with visual impairment having the same right to look around the internet as anyone else, lets see what's in it for you when using CSS. I have a web site with a load of table driven pages with events and dates on them. These were built in FrontPage with a theme and the usual FP formatting. Average page size 135Kb. I have just started converting them over to css due to the download time. The first one was completed and uploaded last night. Page size 17Kb Style sheet 1Kb Contains the same info, looks identical. Downloads in less than 20 seconds on a 28.8 modem, instant on broadband. As far as newspapers go, W3 doesn't apply. It stands for World Wide Web. Many restaurants have braille menus and if they don't are more than happy to read to the customer. Newspapers are made available in braille and in speech format. As are books etc etc. Visually impaired people know where to get these from and do. They have no alternative with the web unless you provide it. Here's a point for you . since you missed the original one intended with this topic.

Giomanach -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:13:33)
Totally not my argument, prolly alrady been screamed on here somewhere, but, isn't validation there to allow you to target ALL browsers. If the coding is valid, then won't all browsers display te page correctly?? </$0.02>

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:20:26)
quote: ORIGINAL: Giomanach If the coding is valid, then won't all browsers display te page correctly?? </$0.02> No, they won't.

Giomanach -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:21:56)
OK so IE is the odd one out

c1sissy -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:25:49)
quote: you really need to use CSS ...and you really need to validate your site using W3.... My opnion on this is that CSS is great for reducing bandwidth, easy to use, easy to learn. Validation is important as I find that it is a learning tool. If tags aren't closed properly it shows this and helps you to pay more attention to detail. The decision is really up to each person that the advice is given to. People come here for advice. They have the right to take it or leave it. No one is forcing you to do what you feel is not in your best interests to do. You wish to learn css and use it, up to you. You decide to validate your pages or not, up to you. But don't come down on people who think that to them it is important. Or the people who feel that validation is important to them. So, whats the big deal? Most people agree with standards, and some people agree that css is *Their way to go.* Personally, I agree with the standards. I like the standards and working with css. That is my choice. I love to hand code things. My choice.[;)]

jaybee -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:28:46)
quote: OK, here's my irritation... Most times somebody posts a site up here for review or comment, the two main issues that "the experts" always contribute is ..... you really need to use CSS ...and you really need to validate your site using W3.... Bogus..... both of those trite, over-used comments. They do a dis-service to the novice who's looking for a more tangent response. Something practical. Was this the point I missed?

Giomanach -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 9:37:20)
After my quick visit to this convo, I am going to leave it to you lot, I feel the "He's only a kid, what does he know?" coming on Dan

Peppergal -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 10:10:41)
quote: Here's a point for you . since you missed the original one intended with this topic. I thought you weren't huffy? Why the rude sarcasm?

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 10:41:45)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peppergal quote: Here's a point for you . since you missed the original one intended with this topic. I thought you weren't huffy? Why the rude sarcasm? She accused me of being insensitive to visually impaired and that's a rude ASSumption to make public in the context of what this thread was all about. Maybe some people need written standards before they'll accomodate the impaired. I don't. I'll do it on principle.

c1sissy -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 10:51:52)
quote: Maybe some people need written standards before they'll accomodate the impaired. Maybe it isn't the fact that they need the standards to do this. But more that the standards provide guidance on how to do things.

Peppergal -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 10:59:13)
quote: I'll do it on principle. And how, pray tell, can you do it if you don't know what the standards are?

Minix -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 11:13:00)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peppergal quote: I'll do it on principle. And how, pray tell, can you do it if you don't know what the standards are? Are you telling me that there was no way to accomodate the visually impaired on the internet until somebody wrote the standards?

hzarabet -> RE: W3 Validation is a scam (4/22/2004 11:16:14)
It's topics like this that make you miss Gil Harvey...[sm=angel.gif]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.09375