Validity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> General Web Development



Message

Nicole -> Validity (4/7/2005 22:29:34)

This may seem like a strange question, but in trying to prove one's services as better (compliant with validity and accessibility) than another, is it fair to put a competitors website and their portfolio through the W3C validator and an accessibility checker and state to your potential client that they are not valid or accessible?

I don't mean this ethically, i mean am i missing something if a site doesn't comply with say W3C and Bobby, could they still argue that they comply with something else?

Nicole



Taz -> RE: Validity (4/7/2005 22:45:43)

W3C are the people that set the standard/s, so far as I am concerned they write the gospel, me follow like a good ickle webmaster that I am and stay within guidelines and standards they set.

I got no issues pointing out a sites flaws in that dept, cos simply put if someone else was coding to standards and saw I wasn't they would do it to me.

All is fair in code and webmastery. :p



Nicole -> RE: Validity (4/7/2005 23:02:06)

Hi Taz,

Thanks for that. I was just wondering if doing those 2 simple checks was enough to prove someone's work was invalid or inaccessible, before i launched into a full scale scathing attack on these poor unsuspecting people being the hard nosed bitch that i am (lol).

For instance, often they don't declare a doctype, and i wondered if by doing that the validator wouldn't check it correctly or not.

Nicole



Taz -> RE: Validity (4/7/2005 23:16:21)

Evening (Or morning, umm time differences always catch me out with down under.) to you. (:

W3C won't properly validate a page with no doctype, it's the first error it shows up, heh. Then again, how can it validate without one, it's not psychic is it, it needs to be told what standard you are "aiming for". [:)]

Out of curiosity, have you got the Tidy mini validator extension for Firefox on the go, I find that is an interesting way of fast checking "rival" pages or "other sites", but I still rely on the W3C's set up for validating my work. More often than not it alerts me to "potential" sites that could do with a new webmaster or a re-code to get them upto standards. [8D]

I consider it another weapon for "intel" in my arsenal when I put on my cam cream ready for Webmaster wars.
(Well I can't call meself a hard nosed bitch now can I.)



d a v e -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 0:17:21)

i think that's fair enough - but i wouldn't be *too* scathing if they say had no doctype and a few minor validation errors - just point out how clean your code will be according to the people that have set the standards since the beginning (well since Tim Berners Lee got things going...)
:)



Donkey -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 5:06:03)

IMHO it is bad form to do a total; hatchet job on your competitors; it makes you look a bit shifty and it will ultimately backfire on you. It's too negative, you need to stress your positives and know about the competition's weaknesses but use that knowledge to build your case for your service, not knock the rivals.

Just think of politics and how pathetic it sounds when all they talk about is the other guys failings. The important thing is to convince the customer how good you are not how bad the competition is.




caz -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 5:18:19)

I am with Donkey on this one, knocking copy has a habit of coming back and biting you on the a***. If you want to illustrate bad elements to make your point(s) you could always do your own non-compliant page full of the howlers you are talking about.

Hey, that could be fun [:D]



Nicole -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 5:46:56)

Thanks everyone for you input.

In this case it's not so much that i'm bagging competitors, i'd never blatantly do that, it's that consultant's technical requirements that i'm not happy with and am commenting on.

In that 9 page report he states that this client needs this and this and this, full compliance with W3C and a fully accessible website, in fact he's practically mentioned everything possible in a website and then he's somehow grabbed three sample online quotes, (mind you they're taken directly from 3 web design companies sites without any official enquiry on his part, sites that say things like for $2000 you can get 50 pages, 5 graphics, 1 form etc.)

What i'm trying to say in my tender is that the sample prices he's supplied in his document are misleading and could give the client false expectations of what a fully complient and accessible website would cost. For example, the web design companies he's included don't comply and aren't accessible.

So i'm not actually slamming anybody here except the consultant who has probably given this group of clients a false idea of what price they should expect to pay.

Nicole



dpf -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 9:06:42)

quote:

What i'm trying to say in my tender is that the sample prices he's supplied in his document are misleading and could give the client false expectations of what a fully complient and accessible website would cost. For example, the web design companies he's included don't comply and aren't accessible.
while i totally support donkey and caz's comments, what you are describing is perfect. he apparently wrote a detailed spec sheet and then is supplying boiler plate quotes that do not meet the spec sheet and thus understate the price - go get em girl..lol



jaybee -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 9:25:55)

You also need to make it clear that getting the site to level 1 compliance is not a problem. Level 2 will cost more and level 3 is almost impossible if they want all the bells and whistles they've specified. They will also have to pay more as the more compliant you go the more work it is.



caz -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 9:27:01)

In that case, go for it Nicole and may the Force be with you.[:D]

Don't you just hate those kind of consultants.



dpf -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 9:28:46)

quote:

Don't you just hate those kind of consultants.
one of the things that happens is that the org has invested money in their "expert" and thus it would be cognitive disonnance to admit the expert was full of crap



caz -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 9:39:42)

Yes, you have summed it up nicely. But
quote:

cognitive disonnance
- swallowed the dictionary, Dan?



Larry M. -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 10:16:16)

quote:

swallowed the dictionary, Dan?


Dan has been doing the profound, reflective Mr. Spock/Professor thing lately. Must be all those graduate level classes at old OU. Anyway, what he said fits:

The theory of cognitive disonnance states

.... there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.



dpf -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 10:29:55)

and to take it a step further, Larry - when there is disonnance between held beliefs and observed reality, humans have a remarkable ability to resolve the disonnance, not but changing their beliefs but by changing their perception of reality to fit their beliefs. this is a theory that has been demonstrated countless time in controlled experiments.



Taz -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 11:45:58)

/isn't ever gonna play Scrabble with you two

Then again, I never get the right letters to spell all the bacteria names I know that would score a few thousand points in one go. [sm=lol.gif]



Donkey -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 11:57:26)

quote:

when there is disonnance between held beliefs and observed reality, humans have a remarkable ability to resolve the disonnance, not but changing their beliefs but by changing their perception of reality to fit their beliefs. this is a theory that has been demonstrated countless time in controlled experiments.
Very profound. I would say that also explains quite precisely why religion is still around.



dpf -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 12:40:13)

indeed it does...
the experiments to demonstrate cognitive disonance are revealing. In one that I participated in designing, we had 50 students who had to attend a one hour training. they were split into 2 groups. group A was told privately (one on one) that the trainer hated students and didnt care if they learned. Group 2 was told the trainer loved students and wanted desperately for them to learn. all 50 attended the same session. Group A averaged 54% on the post test while group B averaged 89%. In addition Group A rated the trainer low - avg ascore 1.7 out of 5 whereas group b rated 4.4 out of 5



Donkey -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 13:01:07)

Cognitive disonance in action?
About a year ago I saw a TV show where the idea was to ridicule a group of sales people by enrolling them in what they thought was a genuine sales improvement course. In fact it was something the producers of the program made up and involved comparing every sales situation with a cabbage. It was quite funny to watch but it was well presented and they all took it seriously. The month after the course all of their sales performances were way over target.



caz -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 13:58:41)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Donkey

quote:

when there is disonnance between held beliefs and observed reality, humans have a remarkable ability to resolve the disonnance, not but changing their beliefs but by changing their perception of reality to fit their beliefs. this is a theory that has been demonstrated countless time in controlled experiments.
Very profound. I would say that also explains quite precisely why religion is still around.


Quite. On a more mudane level it also applies to visual perception when we see recognisable shapes in clouds or, faces in the fire. Art and illusion, by Erich Gombich gives an excellent account of this human trait.
He uses that famous illustration where if you look at the centre of the picture you see a vase, but at sides you see the profiles of two women. Essentially, we make things fit our own world view and if Nicole's committee are locked into this consultant, it will be an uphill climb to change their world view. So don't beat yourself up if you don't get the job.[;)]



dpf -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 14:39:34)

quote:

also applies to visual perception when we see recognisable shapes in clouds or, faces in the fire.
those types of illusions demonstrate empirically that our "vision" is not like a camera - it is distorted by things in our brain. what we think we see may not be what we see - then when you add personal prejudices, expectations emotions etc., you see why two people seeing the same thing do not in fact see the same thing. It is amazing to talk with a lawyer or a cop about comparing crime witness statements imediately after a crime - no way do they seem to be describing the same event.

enough of this seriousness - I want to be class clown



Taz -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 14:43:17)

/paints a red nose on dpf



Nicole -> RE: Validity (4/8/2005 16:04:33)

Thanks Jaybee and Dan,

They're good points Jaybee, I didn't think of that and may include that in my tender also. I won't beat myself up if i don't get the job, as i know the website for this group of organisations is now not as high a priority as originally intentioned. I also feel as if i have to quote for this job, as my current client has really bent over backwards helping me find work lately, and if i didn't quote then she may stop helping.

Here's a sample of what i've written in this tender:

quote:

Costing estimates contained within the technical requirements document provided are misleading. None of the website design companies provided in that document comply with W3C validation guidelines, nor are they producing accessible websites. While I’m not singling these three businesses out in particular, I do feel it was misleading to use these three companies and cost estimates in this document. This is because full compliance with Accessibility guidelines in particular can be a very difficult and time consuming process, and one which can greatly inflate costs. Inclusion of these cost estimates for organisations that require full compliance with Accessibility guidelines can only give the client false expectations, and may lead to a client searching forever for a web design company that can produce these compliant sites for the rates specified. NixDesign agrees with the need for accessible websites in principle though we cannot guarantee that our sites comply fully with these guidelines. In addition, we note that the Department of XXXXXX website is also neither W3C and Accessibility compliant


Department of XXXXXX is their governing body, and on the subject of categorised search feature, message board and chat feaure:

quote:

Comprehensive Categorised Search Feature – It is assumed your website will eventually contain hundreds of services, all servicing or representing different client groups, ages, disabilities etc. With the site initially consisting of 15 services and 35 after 12 months, visitors searching using a comprehensive categorised search feature will possibly be faced with a “No results found” message if their search is too specific. NixDesign recommends a basic search feature until such time as there are enough services to provide a reasonable selection of results for all categories.

Message Board – for similar reasons, a message board is best implemented once there are enough potential users to guarantee the boards will be populated very regularly with new messages. It is very common for new websites to include message boards before they have many members, subsequently the few participants post messages for a little while, but as there aren’t many participants posting new messages daily, the regular contributors drop off, leaving a message board that is even less regularly contributed to. This in essence “kills” the message board idea, as new members view the message board, notice there haven’t been any additions for a while and conclude that it’s not a viable communication option for them or their service. NixDesign recommends that this option be left until stage two, or once enough services (say 50) are included within the site.

Chat Feature – Same reasons as Message Board.



The potential for work coming out of this site is also enormous, another reason why i should quote. The 15 initial services probably have a website already, but i'd be surprised if all 35 by the end of the first year do, and there must be plenty of the 350 in time to come who need a website.

I know my message board reasoning is convoluted at the moment, but i'm working on it.

Nicole



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.125