|
| |
|
[Poll]
|
Are You Valid?
|
| Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional |
|
| Valid HTML 4.01 Strict |
|
| Valid HTML 4.01 Frameset |
|
| Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional |
|
| Valid XHMTL 1.0 Strict |
|
| Valid XHTML 1.0 Frameset |
|
| Valid XHMTL 1.1 Strict |
|
| Valid CSS with Warnings |
|
| Valid CSS with No Warnings |
|
| No Validation |
|
Total Votes : 26
|
(last vote on : 2/16/2005 17:41:04)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
 |
Are You Valid? - 12/5/2004 22:02:38
Quick poll, how many of you are writing valid HTML/XHTML? If so, why? If not, why?
Topics related to validation are welcome. Depending on the nature of the topic, they could be split off and spawn their own discussion. There is much to cover and I'm anxious to see how many of you are at least thinking about validation. And, to those of you who are valid, Kudos to you!
For those who are not, don't worry, there is hope. Let's see if we can assist you in at least cleaning up most of your common HTML errors while understanding and acting upon the W3C validation results.
< Message edited by pageoneresults -- 12/5/2004 23:40:51 >
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
|
|
|
|
caz
Posts: 3520
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 6:35:11
Interesting topic and I look forward to see the profile of the group develop.
One thing, can we not get into the right/wrong debate again because that is pretty fruitless. ( Much like the 'Which html editor/handcoding?' threads. )
I'd rather see the reasons why people code as they do, without the evangelising.
Cheers
Carol
_____________________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard.
Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk
I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic.
| |
|
|
|
Mojo
Posts: 2431
From: Chicago
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 11:01:54
I am only valid in the hopes that I get a slight SERP boost. I have not noticed a difference, but hey, were playing percentages here.
_____________________________
Split Testing
Chicago Order Fulfillment
Emergency Kits
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 11:41:15
Wow! I didn't realize there were so many of you. It really excites me to see my favorite FP community digging into this stuff.
I see someone indicated that their CSS validated but with warnings. You can easily eliminate the warnings as it usually means you've not declared something or there is a conflict somewhere. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to take a shot at helping you validate with no warnings.
For those of you following this topic who are not valid, please do jump in and let us know why? Don't worry, it doesn't make you a bad person. It just means that validation is not a concern. Those who are not concerned about validation represent 95%+ of the web design community. But, as the Internet evolves, validation will become even more important, particularly to those who are required under law to seek accessibility for their web properties. Part of accessibility includes understanding HTML/XHTML/CSS validation.
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4087
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: England (but live in Finland now)
Status: online
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 12:24:02
btw my quick reply button doesn't seem to work in this newest firefox?! ....
I aim for html strict and the only things that seem to cause probs are external bits (e.g. i have a bravenet guestbook on one hobby-ish site and a few minor errors that i should get round to fixing. )
i wonder whether html strict is 'better' to aim for than xhtml trans?? (well i think i know my answer;)
i always go for valid css, errors mean things won't work right. as for warnings such as the setting of all background colours whenever foreground is set i don't always bother.
validation is part of the requirement of accessibility (can't remember what level...)
i think for hobbyist sites it's better to aim *towards* validation - at least to incorporate as many users as possible but obvsiously it may be beyind the full understanding/resources of such authors. at least checking it in a couple of browsers helps as to whether it is usable!
for other sites - business/educational/etc i think they should be at least valid transitional - whether html or xhtml - and preferably strict, as basically transitional has far too much deprecated stuff in it.
quote:
Those who are not concerned about validation represent 95%+ of the web design community. really, so many?????
i think maybe a couple of years ago many 'normal' web designers either were blissfully unaware or ignorant of such standards, at least i was. the same for accessibility (at least beyond basic alt tags and the like). i don't think it's like now, at least it shouldn't be :)
also was reading a bit of this the other day re XHTML:
http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
but it's arguments are beyond my immediate understanding so you can make of it what you will :)
i always strive for the standards (well i have been doing more recently) and i think as professionals we should validate - and aim towards the best and most robust code we can whilst balancing the needs of the client and ourselves. otherwise we have to go through self flagellation over trying to insert seemingly simple elements such as Flash movies. (Flash satay anyone?!).
on the other hand.. what reason is there for writing invalid code? ;)
_____________________________
David Prescott
Gekko web design
| |
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4087
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: England (but live in Finland now)
Status: online
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 12:39:05
incidentally i answered html strict in the poll which is what i usually use, but my homepage is XHTML strict. for whatever reason.
i noticed that too taz, how many sites, inclusing web devolpers/designers who have sites with no doctype, deprecated code, font tags...
_____________________________
David Prescott
Gekko web design
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 13:22:28
quote:
Can we get away with charging more for a HTML Valid site?
I wouldn't put it that way. You would not be getting away with anything. Think of it as adding value to the client's web property. And yes, you can sell it as a value added service. Your clients would be paying for your hard earned knowledge in matters related to validation. Not many offer that in their portfolio of development services.
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 13:24:24
quote:
These guys made Adidas's website! (Which has over 100 errors!)
Keep in mind that the site could have been valid when it was turned over to the client. Once it leaves the developers hands, it is up to the client's assigns to maintain due diligence in the validation routine.
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 13:47:00
quote:
I have been putting the logos on the sites as they are valid when I ship them out but should I be taking them off if the client then maintains them?
Yes, they should be removed. Unless of course you have offered the value added service of training their in-house team of dealing with validation and how to address any errors that may occur during their tenure of maintenance.
If those icons are on a website and it does not validate, it goes against the guidelines the W3C have in place for their use.
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4087
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: England (but live in Finland now)
Status: online
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 13:57:07
i had a great deal of frustration with mine when i had used the prologue - took it out after reading gorilla's post on it and hey - validation, and a centred page in all browsers. yeah it is a bit of a simple page at the moment but as it gets done it will continue to be valid.
_____________________________
David Prescott
Gekko web design
| |
|
|
|
Giomanach
Posts: 6091
Joined: 11/19/2003
From: England
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 14:27:05
Fast reply is dead here too...
For valid coding on the sites I do, I tend to put small text links at the bottom in the footer to state they are valid by the W3C standards. I alos insist that the client lets me do all the maintenance of the site, to keep it that way, but if the client wants to do it themselves, then I will skip adding the links.
@POR - When I decide to redesign giomanach.com, I may use that to state that it is Valid etc, b'cos right now...it's far from it, and is in need of a coding clear out, I just have a lot of client work to do, and my web comes last, unfortunatley.
@ Everyone:
Heeding the advice of the oh so furry one, has done me the world of good on web design etc. Back when I decided to start in '02, I spoke to the web designer at school about it, and he told be that plain HTML was the way forward, along with JS, I then spent till late '03 (when I joined here) studying HTML 4.0 and JS 1.2, totally oblivious to the fact that none of it was valid, and didn't abide by any accessibility rules.
When I found here...I read through the CSS forum, to see if it was the waste of time the "web designer" at school had said it was...now I know he was talking nothing but BS (scuse the french).
Using the Validator hsa been a big step in learning HTML, XHTML and CSS, it's not just there to help get the webs up to standard, it's also there to help you understand the coding more, and learn it better.
My next step is XHTML Strict, but I'll stick with XHTML trans for now
Ok...thats my $0.02 for now...
_____________________________
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 14:42:53
quote:
My next step is XHTML Strict, but I'll stick with XHTML trans for now.
Usually if a person has gone to the level of XHTML Transitional, making the switch to XHMTL Strict is fairly simple. There may be a few items you are using that are not allowed in Strict but for the most part they are very similar in nature.
I've also found out that you don't want to go to the level of XHTML 1.1 Strict as it is usually not required and there are some distinct differences between 1.0 and 1.1. At this point, the highest level most of us would go is XHMTL 1.0 Strict.
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 15:02:02
quote:
plain HTML was the way forward, along with JS, I then spent till late '03 (when I joined here) studying HTML 4.0 and JS 1.2, totally oblivious to the fact that none of it was valid, and didn't abide by any accessibility rules. ah, brother, but it was "valid" in its day wasnt it? Im a great believer in knowing the history - learning that gave you a very solid foundation on which to build and was totally worth it!!!
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Giomanach
Posts: 6091
Joined: 11/19/2003
From: England
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 15:06:36
In '02, I hadn't heard of valid coding!
Only since I joined here in Nov '03 have I learnt of the wonderous thing called valid coding and CSS
It was worth it to learn it totally the wrong way...as I'm now a pretty good hand coder, and rarely make mistakes (just with getting ASP and PHP right :S)
I learn as I go, and validation, these fora have given more than just me the way forward. I was once the learner, I'm now a teacher, as well as a learner.
I'm not a coding purist, but I do like my webs to validate...
_____________________________
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 15:06:57
quote:
I regard compliance as a selling point and if trying to make a living, thats what its all about. Frankly, I cannot charge the same price for a cobbled together wysiwyg site vs. a css/standards compliant site and at this point, cant turn away work. Therefore, when asked the difference in price, I try to seel but the customer is thinking "what exactly do I get out of the extra money?" The idea that blind people surf the net and could be customers is a shocker to many and doesnt get me anywhere. I have had limited success with these 3 points:
1. it may help your SE ranking.
2. Easier and thus cheaper to modify/maintain in the future
3. will still work in the future as browsers adapt to standards while older methods may not.
Limited.....some just want best price and could care less. I cannot afford to be a zealot at this stage.
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
) 
