Are You Valid? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Search Engine Optimization and Web Business

[Poll]

Are You Valid?


Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional
  19% (5)
Valid HTML 4.01 Strict
  7% (2)
Valid HTML 4.01 Frameset
  3% (1)
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional
  15% (4)
Valid XHMTL 1.0 Strict
  15% (4)
Valid XHTML 1.0 Frameset
  0% (0)
Valid XHMTL 1.1 Strict
  0% (0)
Valid CSS with Warnings
  3% (1)
Valid CSS with No Warnings
  19% (5)
No Validation
  15% (4)


Total Votes : 26
(last vote on : 2/16/2005 17:41:04)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

pageoneresults -> 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.



caz -> 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



Giomanach -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 6:49:10)

I'm XHTML 1.0 Trans and Valid CSS No Warnings

Or at least I try to keep it that way[:D]

I know there's a fair few Outfronters that don't care about the valid coding....but who am I to tell them different?[:-]



Taz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 7:59:00)

I been writing to 4.01 Trans for a few months now, basically since I found out about validty & the perks it offers.

Took a few days to get used to creating code that works & validates, but my pages have never looked so good or worked as well before. [8D]



jaybee -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 7:59:32)

I have one site that does not fully validate and I'm intending changing that over Christmas (all 550 pages of it [&o])

Other than that they should all validate HTML Transitional and CSS as a minimum.

One I'm working on at the moment to be accessed by schools, will be those plus 508 and AAA.

Why? Well first off there is no reason why people with disabilites should not be able to access web sites.

Second, there are now laws in the UK and the US to enforce compliance. There have already been court cases against sites that don't comply, probably the highest profile one being the Olympic Games site who had to pay out $20,000 to a blind user.

http://www.contenu.nu/socog-PR.html

The RNIB in the UK are already going after some high profile web sites and there is nothing to stop small commercial sites being sued by individuals. As far as I'm aware the only sites that don't come under the legislation in both the UK and US are hobby sites.

Ignore the legislation at your peril, or rather, that of your client who will foot the bill as site owner.

Yes, it does take longer to develop a site that complies fully with 508 and AAA. I make clients aware of the situation up front and explain the different levels of validation and the implications for development times and costs. If they choose not to have the site validate I get that in writing.



Taz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 8:02:43)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

I have one site that does not fully validate and I'm intending changing that over Christmas (all 550 pages of it [&o])


Yowch! [&:]



jaybee -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 8:11:47)

Yes, I expect I'll see you all sometime in February.

Now if I'd set it up with css in the first place then I could change the whole lot in a couple of hours, but I didn't, I used FP shared borders and a theme. The theme went about a year ago but the borders are for the most part still there.

SSIs and css are going to be my Christmas present to the site. [:D]



Mojo -> 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.



pageoneresults -> 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.



d a v e -> 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? ;)





Taz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 12:34:25)

Fast reply does seem to be stuffed, odd it was working before. [&:]

As for the topic at hand.

I really don't think that the whole validity thing is well known about really. In fact at times it seems like a secret club. One that you stumble upon by mistake. Maybe it's time the general masses were made more aware of it.

Soon as I found out about it & started reading up on it/looking into it I was amazed at some sites that are masive & I would think have highly skilled or pro webmasters & their sites don't validate, in fact some don't even have a doc type. [:-]

That raised my spirits some I can tell you. [:D]



d a v e -> 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...



Taz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 12:41:12)

quote:

ORIGINAL: d a v e

i noticed that too taz, how many sites, inclusing web devolpers/designers who have sites with no doctype, deprecated code, font tags...


It makes you really wonder what some of these people are doing doesn't it?

& also how they can get away with the prices they may be charging...



pageoneresults -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 12:48:31)

To help promote standards, we recently developed an icon to do that and have placed it in the footer include of our pages...

[image]http://www.seoconsultants.com/images/logo-w3c-qa.gif[/image]

Buy standards compliant Web sites

Be sure to read the link provided. I use it all the time to help promote the W3C's initiatives. ;)



Taz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 13:15:39)

This made my day.

These guys made Adidas's website! (Which has over 100 errors!)

I think between us in this thread we could probably clean up if we went poaching. >:E

Can we get away with charging more for a HTML Valid site? [8|]



pageoneresults -> 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.



pageoneresults -> 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.



jaybee -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 13:26:57)

quote:

I see someone indicated that their CSS validated but with warnings


Err that might have been me. I thought I corrected it before submitting but maybe not.

I can write valid code but filling in polls is a whole different ball-game! [:D]



jaybee -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 13:31:01)

quote:

Keep in mind that the site could have been valid when it was turned over to the client


Now that's a good point. 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?




Taz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 13:31:34)

pageoneresults, thanks for the input there, most interesting. [:)]

"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."

I like that, gives an edge or more reason to keep striving to validate.

Cheers.



Taz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 13:35:48)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

quote:

Keep in mind that the site could have been valid when it was turned over to the client


Now that's a good point. 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?




Might be worth having a mooch around at some of your old works, see if they still validate, if not can you say "update fee" to get them valid again. [;)]



jaybee -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 13:41:49)

quote:

but my homepage is XHTML strict.


Dave, if you can't get your homepage to validate XHTML Strict then nothing will! [image]http://tcwozere.co.uk/smileys/tcwozerekeri26.gif[/image]

BTW, my fast reply is kapput as well.



pageoneresults -> 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.



d a v e -> 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.



caz -> RE: Are You Valid? (12/6/2004 14:04:01)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pageoneresults

To help promote standards, we recently developed an icon to do that and have placed it in the footer include of our pages...

[image]http://www.seoconsultants.com/images/logo-w3c-qa.gif[/image]

Buy standards compliant Web sites

Be sure to read the link provided. I use it all the time to help promote the W3C's initiatives. ;)


This is a good idea. A client said to me "Are those logo's necessary?" ( Valid xhtml and Valid CSS), which I have added as each page is validated to remind myself where I am upto more than anything. One site encompassing logo with a link to the WC3 explanation page can explain the benfits better than I can.
Although I doubt many clients would read further than...
"[Standards are] beneficial because it broadens your potential audience and makes it much more usable for everyone — some level of accessibility is also required by law in a growing number of countries;..."

I regard compliance as a selling point and do emphasise the business benefits of being backwards and forwards compatible.
It's a shame that standards don't cover the naffness of wanting "Welcome to..." on the home page. [:@]



Giomanach -> 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 -> 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.



dpf -> 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!!!



Giomanach -> 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 -> 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.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.15625