|
| |
|
[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: -- )
|
|
|
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2830
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Nambucca / Kempsey, Australia
Status: offline
 |
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 15:11:54
Okay,
Quite simply, i had no idea websites should comply with any standards like WCS until a few weeks ago when someone put one of my sites through it and gave me all the page errors. So, while i've made attempts to bring some of my pages in line with these standards, i'm still too young at this to be able to spend a lot of time learning another aspect in great detail.
A few observations though:
- Someone said that 95% of web designers are unaware of WCS standards? Whether this is true or not, i would hazard a guess that this is because web design is an easy occupation to "do on the side", or "help a friend's business out" etc. I'd say a very high percentage of people are operating with no formal training, and don't even run it as a registered business.
- I'd also assume that because of this, any standards or change in standards, or government directives on web design standards are simply being missed because "most" of the web designers in the world are not part of any industry body where such information can be distributed.
- If a small business site is successfully sued by someone who couldn't view the site correctly, would this be beneficial to web designers who are WC3 savvy, to maybe point more business our way, or would it impact negatively by cutting back on the amount of small business who are "scared off" by such an event? Would it even create business for people who could make a living of re-coding websites that don't comply?
- Upon discovering these standards here at Outfront, i contacted AGIMO (The Australian Government Information Management Office) and asked them by email, then a week later by phone, to send me copies of their "Best Practice" standards and checklists. This was about 2 months ago, and i'm still yet to receive them.
Nicole
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 16:03:48
excellent point, Spooky. A programmer has to compile his/her programs and the compiler will reject and catch many syntactical errors ( though not logic as we all learn). HTML (and javascript) are not compiled and thus there is no such check. sometimes, it will baffle the browser into doing something wierd and unrelated which makes finding the error difficult. Other times, the browser will adapt to the error and life goes on..until something changes in that browser or a user views with a different browser or the seasons change or.........
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 16:19:40
One important point that has not been discussed yet is FP2003 and its ability to produce valid, accessbile pages. I've not really worked with it as closely as I do FP2002 (due to system configurations), but, I did run it through a few tests and it seems to perform without fail on my tests.
I'm going to be dusting off my version of FP2003 over the holidays and moving everything over to that environment. I also have a copy of AccVerify that I purchased a while back and never used. Since I've been producing valid and accessible pages for quite a few years now, the tools are not really required anymore. Although I do like to spot check myself every now and then.
In regards to sporting the W3C icons on your sites. I usually put them in a footer include using the referer link syntax. This allows me to validate my pages on the fly by browsing to them.
HTML/XHTML Validation
http://validator.w3.org/check/referer
CSS Validation
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer
Just assign those links to the images and you can now validate by page at the browser level.
One important point about using the referrer links. There are certain errors that you will not see if you validate file URIs directly. For example, if you were validating your CSS file directly instead of validating it on the page. The validator will catch other errors that are in the HTML that will conflict with the CSS validation. I think this only occurs with XHTML validation, not sure though.
P.S. If you click the above referer links, you will see that this topic fails HTML 4.01 Transitional. The CSS does validate but there are warnings. When it comes to communities like this and the stuff that makes them work, validation is a little more difficult to achieve and maintain as you have users doing all sorts of stuff with their posts.
< Message edited by pageoneresults -- 12/6/2004 16:25:09 >
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
caz
Posts: 3518
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 18:12:52
quote:
some just want best price and could care less. I cannot afford to be a zealot at this stage.
When promoting the benefits to clients, I usually find that it is the concept of backwards/forwards compatibility that catches their attention. Many are not aware of the various flavours of IE, or indeed any other named browser and saying how poor coding can make or break pages, to the extent of making them unusable often focuses the mind wonderfully because they want their sites to be highly visible. (It's the adjusting and hacking that takes the time in my view, not the original valid coding.  )
In this respect usability is not accessibility, where attempts are made to make pages viewable/workable in specialised browsers for the disabled. Jaybee touched on that aspect above with 508 etc validation, where she gets written instruction from the client, thus absolving herself in any future litigation.
The reason I go with xhtml 1.0 strict is for forward compatiblity, when xml becomes the norm, rather than the baby as it is now.
And I just might be a passable designer by then 
_____________________________
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.
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/6/2004 22:07:44
quote:
But each time there is new updates to the code...
There is a golden opportunity in that statement Spooky. I'll assume that you are referring to the providers of the forum software. Why not work with them to produce valid code from the source and get paid while you are doing it?
Application developers are missing the boat. I've helped a few clients become the benchmark in their industries online by producing valid and semantic driven websites. The same philosophy applies to developers of applications.
Why not make them (the forum software developers) an offer they can't refuse and at the same time really put them on the map? They could easily become the talk of the industry. There are very few application developers out there producing valid and semantically correct HTML/XHTML. Out of all the projects I work on, I think showing a programmer the correct way to do things is the most rewarding. Many of them just need a little guidance and then they run with it!
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
Andy from Spain
Posts: 922
From: Ipswich
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/7/2004 14:40:48
quote:
Application developers are missing the boat. It's something we are just finishing and have it 95% done for our shopping cart software code, along with a 100% CSS templated control panel coming out soon. Great thread / great poll.
Cheers
Andy
| |
|
|
|
Andy from Spain
Posts: 922
From: Ipswich
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/7/2004 17:09:26
I'm referring to the code that makes up the shopping cart and the control panel, not the templates, which would of course be up to the user.
Andy
| |
|
|
|
BobbyDouglas
Posts: 5455
Joined: 5/15/2003
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
RE: Are You Valid? - 12/8/2004 16:27:21
I think it depends a lot on the type of website, and the amount of money/time that is devoted to the site.
For the most part, I won't validate my code, but I will check on other browsers/OS to make sure it displays correctly.
Validating is supposed to ensure that the page displays the same on most computers, but I noticed a lot of times this isn't true. Valid code can still have its problems.
If I know a webiste is going to be getting hits from Win98 using IE 5.5+, I won't bother trying to validate the code for other browsers. There are some companies that only use IE, and their clients only use IE too.
_____________________________
Arizona Web Design - Mr Bobs Web Design in Arizona
The Arizona Web Hosting Challenge
| |
|
 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 
k¥ 
