W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Expression Web Help



Message

fp2003uk -> W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 12:09:05)

Hi all,

I ran my main website through the expression compatability checker and it came up with 8200 errors for 33 pages [sm=yikes.gif]

My trial expired but thankfully ive managed to reinstall it (cant buy it in u.k. yet) and ive started building a new site with no errors and passes validation with w3c. This is great but is it really worth it ?

Will my new compliant site do better in the search engines ?

What are the chances of the w3c validator being updated or changed in the future, in a way that forces me to start all over again ?

Im still using tables and yet the w3c validator passes it ???

Any thoughts ?



dpf -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 12:14:36)

quote:

What are the chances of the w3c validator being updated or changed in the future, in a way that forces me to start all over again ?
thats an excellent point. with billions of sites out there, as the 'standards' progress, is it necessary that every useful and successful site be updated? Personally I dont think so - those 'standards' should be to address future.



womble -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 12:18:43)

Yes, it is worth it. With a valid site you stand a much better chance of your site working as intended in all browsers (at least good ones), and you know that any problems in display are down to the browser, and not your code, and can then find the appropriate fix for it.

The validator validates against whichever doctype you're using unless there isn't one there - in which case it assumes 4.01 transitional. It'll validate to any of the doctypes currently in the specs, so unless you switch to a different doctype it'll always validate to what you're using.

8200 errors might sound like a lot, but often fixing one error has a knock-on effect and fixes a load of others as well.

Tables can be okay, as long as you use them for tabular data and they're appropriately marked-up to make them accessible, but as long as the table code is valid, the validator will be happy with it.




fp2003uk -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 12:23:58)

I can see it happening.

In the not so distant future the w3c will decide that some other sort of tag code will have to be dumped and then we all have to redesign again.

Im new to css and learning slowly, would love to get rid of tables but I just cant get positioning right with css. If tables are considered such a bad thing im really surprised that my 'centered' tables are passing validation with flying colours ?

Many forums claim that tables are bad for seo but many big corporate websites are still using tables and simply not bothering with w3c at all.

Maybe I should be using an seo validator instead of w3c validator !

Anyone using the new google validator ?

Cheers



Tailslide -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 12:26:13)

You're presumably using the standards appropriate to the DOCTYPE you're using to get it to pass validation. Those standards won't change in future.

They will come out with new standards for new flavours of code such as HTML 5 or XHTML 2 for instance but that won't negate in any way correct coding for HTML 4 or XHTML 1.

Is it worth it? It depends who you ask. I think it is. I don't find it that hard to achieve. It helps ensure that the basis the site is built on is correct and therefore helps everything else I do to ensure cross-browser usage and user accessibility.

Please remember though that validation is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Someone who knows more about these things than me told me at the weekend that validation is rather like spell-checking - it's great that you've spelt everything right - but it won't mean that it actually makes any sense.

You need to ask yourself why you're bothering with validation. If it's just to ensure cross-browser compatability then also ensure that your CSS is reasonably valid and that it's applied correctly. If you're interested in standards per se to help ensure compatibility with mobile devices, screen readers etc then you also need to ensure that you're using semantic code (i.e. that headings are in heading tags, lists are marked up as lists).

I'd say that you need to be looking at valid code, semantic markup and accessibility (don't roll your eyes Dan - it's really not much of a problem).

If you ask other "old school" designers then they'll shrug and say "show me the money!" So in the end it depends what YOU want to achieve.



dpf -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 12:31:00)

quote:

You're presumably using the standards appropriate to the DOCTYPE you're using to get it to pass validation. Those standards won't change in future
excellent point which I obviously forgot - my bad



Tailslide -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 12:51:11)

You're bad and naughty. Report for spanking later. [;)]



dpf -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 13:28:37)

do I get to drink out of the silver puppy dish in the corner and go 'woof woof'?



jaybee -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/4/2007 15:11:29)

No, this is punishment, not fun. Now sit!

quote:

many big corporate websites are still using tables and simply not bothering with w3c at all.
I've worked for corporates and believe me, what they do is not to be recommended as the route to follow.

There are many reasons why they don't. There's no will, it involves cash, the big guy at the top doesn't have a clue there's anything wrong so he doesn't push it down the chain of command, the staff aren't really interested in their job it's just a cash cow so they don't bother to keep up with the technology....... it goes on and on, in fact Tailslide and I met a number of this type at the weekend and as long as you leap up and down with glee when they say things like Rails, Ajax or Web 2.0 then you're in. Talk about basic stuff and they don't want to know so they'll always have cutting edge sites that don't actually cut it. OR, as it was very succinctly put by one of the guys at WebDD, they spend all their time doing flashy backends and then present it all to the web in something they've lumped together in 10 minutes flat with no care or thought whatsoever.



fp2003uk -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/6/2007 6:51:05)

Would I be right in saying that whoever invented css positioning had a severe grudge against web designers !

If I cant get my positioning right by the end of today im going back to tables.

Scuse me while I .......................[sm=BangHead.gif]



jaybee -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/6/2007 7:42:20)

[sm=rofl6.gif]Yes that's what we all thought when we did the first one. It gets easier once you've got your head round it, honest it does.

Hint, design for Firefox. If it works in that it'll work in most others, then it's a case of fix it for IE6.



dpf -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/6/2007 7:43:18)

quote:

once you've got your head round it
yes but his is not looking round - the wall is making it flat!!!!



Tailslide -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/6/2007 10:11:00)

You can't expect to learn a whole new system of site design in a few hours. It's complex - as was learning tables in the first place.



mtfm -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/6/2007 10:48:54)

Trust me, CSS once learned is sooooo much better than the alternative----

Or so they tell me, I haven't learned it yet. [:D]


Just kidding. It is much better but it is also an ongoing education. It's like a graphing calculator that can do 97 bazillion different things, if only you could make it work! There's a lot there to expect to be able to pick it up immediately. Learn the basic stuff (how to add, subtract multiply and divide) first before you try the hard stuff (weird calculus stuff), make sure it validates, then move on to more and more complex stuff. It's easy to get caught up in the hype of the cutting edge stuff, but I found it best to ignore that, get the basics down first, then return to the cool cutting edge stuff.

If nothing else, validating your page ensures you're doing it "right"--- you can check your work, make sure it is up to snuff, and once it is move on to bigger and better things.



Avick -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/6/2007 11:54:15)

Personally I thought validation was a complete waste of time.

That was until I started validating my sites and then I seen the benefits. It forces you to write good code and that in its self is worth its weight in gold.
I found myself validating my code long before I sent it to W3C. It gets easer as you use it.

Imagine getting someone to paint your house!
Would you want him to paint right up into the corners and round all the door handles or would you be happy if he just splodged it on the walls and left???

That’s the difference in validating your site and not validating your site.



womble -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/6/2007 12:02:27)

And eventually it all becomes second nature - and the first time you do a page and the validator likes it first time.... [sm=yupi3ti.gif]

I recently did a site that was intentionally invalid, but the trouble was that good habits kept sneaking back in, and I had a hell of a job getting it not to validate! [:D]

Remember though, as others have already said, validation is a means to an end, not an end in itself.



fp2003uk -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 10:20:05)

Thanks for the replies and encouragement.

I have solved a lot of positioning issues but I simply cannot solve the padding issue between IE and Ffox. Even the standard, unmodified EW templates look different in ffox.

I could solve this soooooo easily with a good old fashioned 'bullet proof' table.

I had a site with tables, nested tables, triple nested tables, multi border width's, colours, cells, spacer gifs etc and it viewed spot on ie, ffox, netscape and opera. Obvioulsy it didnt stand a chance with google but my point is this :

W3c standards is a great idea, but its a bit of a lame idea if all the browsers dont follow suit.

Ok, rant mode off.

Does anyone have a quick fix for this "padding war" between ie and ffox ?

Cheers




caz -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 10:30:02)

See if this place helps out with the double vision Explorer exposed! [;)]



jaybee -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 11:13:00)

I assume from all this you're using IE6. IE6 just doesn't get padding, it adds everything up wrong. IE7 is better. So you have two options, 1. tell all your visitors to download IE7 or else, 2. Fix it.

Sometimes you can get round it by using margins instead of padding as IE can add those up. If not, then you'll have to post the link so we can see it as we're not psychic. [:D]



fp2003uk -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 11:54:06)

Im using IE7 and its stripping the padding away !
Content box with top padding shows up with no padding in IE7

Im going to use the following setup:

EW css centered template, strip out the content box and content sidebar and replace with a table.
Im not live on a server with it but it checks out with the EW validator and views spot on in everything.

My nav and links will all be in the original css template and my descriptions, prices and images will all be neatly placed in my bullet proof table. Google has read most of table content in the past (apart from the triple nested site) and also indexed an entire flash site which amazed me because flash text isnt supposed to work with google !

At least im going "half css" instead of "no css" and it will all validate.

My final thoughts are that the positives of pure css coding do not outweigh the negatives, just my opinion based on the time I have spent trying to get multi browser positioning.

Cheers all.



Tailslide -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 12:46:35)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fp2003uk
My final thoughts are that the positives of pure css coding do not outweigh the negatives, just my opinion based on the time I have spent trying to get multi browser positioning.

Cheers all.


I find CSS much easier - it does take time to learn it though. You can't expect to figure it out in a weekend!! You need to give it some time and you'll figure it out. If I can then anyone can!



dpf -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 13:04:18)

quote:

Obvioulsy it didnt stand a chance with google
.. not obvious at all! Standards have their place and purpose but I have yet to see any evidence that they are a factor in Goodle's rankings. Tables rank just as well as non tables. If you abandon tables as a layout tool, be sure of why you are doing it.



rdouglass -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 14:22:10)

One point mentioned above that I will reiterate is to design / build in FF and *not* IE for all the reasons stated above. It is sooooo much easier to do it that way. Most things that work in FF will work in IE but absolutely *not* the other way around.

Another point is the learning curve that was also mentioned. There is one and you won't be a CSS expert in 1 weekend no matter how many "Dummies" books you read.[;)]

I know exactly what you guys are talking about tho. My boss is one of those that has IE 6 and will be hard-pressed to even consider using anything else. If it looks OK in his browser, it's a 'tough sell' to get him to approve any changes.

However, from a purely business standpoint ("show me the money"), it's not a very wise decision to ignore such a large part of the market. Validation aside, it just makes good business sense to do things "properly" (at least IMO). According to w3schools, IE 5 & 6 only have about 45% of the market in Jan 2007:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

and virtually all of those other browsers will experience difficulties with sites that work fine in IE 6 and not others. Look at those numbers again. You'd be potentially missing out on 55% of the market. Can you really ignore that?



dpf -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 14:28:46)

Roger: I agree with everything you are saying. however, the w3c stats are very very biased (read the section beneath the tables) - those stats are of people visiting the w3c schools who by nature are web masters etc and prone to use no IE browsers. AS the article states, many other surverys show 80% or more IE - still far from 100% but the 50 -55 is very misleading and not indicative of overall market share.



rdouglass -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 15:06:49)

quote:

many other surverys show 80% or more IE


That however, is a very argueable number. How many of those are in fact IE 7 which is very, very much *not* IE 6. That is one of the major things to remember when regarding "IE marketshare" in relation to this validation discussion. How many folks just upgraded to IE 7 without even realizing it. And how many of those numbers are biased as well? How many of those surveys are paid for by MS? I am one of the biggest MS supporters on this forum but I suspect those numbers are inaccurate and it is probably somewhere inbetween.

Even if that were in fact accurate, that is still a 20% 'miss' ratio. Would you want to turn away 1 in every 5 customers? Still totally unacceptable to me.



dpf -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/7/2007 15:08:47)

quote:

Would you want to turn away 1 in every 5 customers? Still totally unacceptable to me.
as I said- I totally agree there.



fp2003uk -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/8/2007 9:54:59)

Thanks for all the replies on this.

I have been using one the ew css templates and my biggest problem was getting the main content box to do the following :

Image on right side of box, full height.
Paragraph on left side of box, top half.
Price list on left side of box, bottom half.

Result = total nitemare.

Followed by lots of this ...........[sm=BangHead.gif]

Alternative = slap in a table, chuck content in whilst drinking tea and playing guitar at same time, choose borders etc etc. Job done in 2 minutes, checks out with w3c and ie7 fox2

Until the major corporate sites start to panick and declare war on tables, im not going to change.

Wishlist = w3c validator to say things like "hey dude, this looks great in fox2 and ie7 but those with ie6 and fox1 will have to view monitor sideways and stand on one leg, thankyou for using w3c validator...ta daaaa"

By the way, im too scared to test it in ie6 and fox1.5 !



Tailslide -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/8/2007 11:09:15)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fp2003uk

Thanks for all the replies on this.

I have been using one the ew css templates and my biggest problem was getting the main content box to do the following :

Image on right side of box, full height.
Paragraph on left side of box, top half.
Price list on left side of box, bottom half.

Result = total nitemare.

Followed by lots of this ...........[sm=BangHead.gif]


Until the major corporate sites start to panick and declare war on tables, im not going to change.



What you're asking for isn't hard - you just float the image right, float the content left. There - that's it.

As far as major corporate sites - there's loads of them that use CSS and more and more are changing over - is Microsoft big enough for you?



jaybee -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/8/2007 11:18:02)

quote:

show 80% or more IE
The last time I checked all my client site stats plus my large hobby site, I was averaging less than 75% for IE. One was coming in at just over 50%.



fp2003uk -> RE: W3C Standards, is it worth the hassle ? (2/8/2007 14:02:40)

"What you're asking for isn't hard - you just float the image right, float the content left. There - that's it. "

If it was that easy I would have never mentioned it.
Using the float command was the first thing I thought of, have you tried this with one of the ew templates ? Float = randomly place wherever browser feels like !

I dont post messages on forums until I have bashed my head against the wall a few times.

Thanks for the heads up, unfortunately I have been there and done that already.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.21875