|
| |
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2876
From: So FL
Status: offline
 |
Validators and doc declarations - 8/12/2002 9:58:23
I' ve checked a lot of sites with validators, including big name tech companies, those created by seasoned web designers, and my own. I often get this message:
Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation
We' ve been advised in these forums to use this declaration but I' ve come across few sites that do. Additionally, most of the urls I check return errors...big-time in some cases!
If the biggest and best designed sites return errors, what' s the little guy or gal web designer to do? How important is validation really?
thanks, gail
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
http://validator.w3.org/
< Message edited by _gail -- 8/11/2002 5:14:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2876
From: So FL
Status: offline
|
RE: RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/13/2002 9:47:57
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gil
Well, its really an individual thing - I guess. For me its wanting to be " correct" and also to be sure any and every person who hits one my sites is able to access the content and navigate the site.
Thanks, Gil. I was just so surprised at how few complied, so to speak.
gail
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/13/2002 14:42:53
_gail, there are a select group of individuals who are promoting Web Standards very actively these days. The W3C is the governing organization for Web Standards.
There have been some rather interesting events happening within the past 45-60 in regards to Web Standards. With AOL now beta testing the Netscape Browser with part of its audience, Website Validation is now becoming a major issue.
For all of you who have been putting it off, now is the time to start making the transition and get your sites validated. If you don' t do it now, you' ll be forced to in the next 12 months because your sites won' t work for AOL users!
History took place in the month of July when dmoz.org (ODP - Open Directory Project) made the move to validate. You can follow the progress of this event and the move towards Web Standards here...
[url=" http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/2662.htm" ]Search Engine Validation Results[/url]
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2876
From: So FL
Status: offline
|
RE: RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/13/2002 15:22:52
quote:
ORIGINAL: pageoneresults
For all of you who have been putting it off, now is the time to start making the transition and get your sites validated. If you don' t do it now, you' ll be forced to in the next 12 months because your sites won' t work for AOL users!
Not trying to put it off, just so much to learn. Sure would be nice if Microsoft' s FrontPage would be more cooperative.
btw, pageoneresults, of the sites I checked (about 15) yours was the ONLY one that returned ZERO errors. You figured, didn' t you, that I couldn' t resist checking yours. 
Gee, some of my sites did better than Yahoo! <lol>
Seriously, congratulations! You practice what you preach, are a fine example and, like so many others here, provide lots of good info which is very much appreciated!
gail
< Message edited by _gail -- 8/12/2002 3:24:33 PM >
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/13/2002 16:14:05
> Seriously, congratulations! You practice what you preach, are a fine example and, like so many others here, provide lots of good info which is very much appreciated!
Thanks for the compliments _gail! It can be a tough journey, or an easy one. There are actually two journeys you' ll need to make. One is to convert all of your presentation markup to external css, font tags, color tags, etc...
The next would be to make sure that your tables are nested properly if you are using tables, I use <div>' s 95% of the time and no longer work with tables unless I absolutely have to!
Once you' ve got the css taken care of, now it will much easier to validate your pages. Most of the errors that I see come from presentation markup and improperly nested tables, no closing tags, etc...
For years I was two or three errors away from validating. As soon as I converted to css, my validation problems were gone forever! One of the biggest roadblocks was dealing with the page margins. Because NN used a different set of declarations for this, the validator returned errors.
The other common error that you' ll run in to is the unknown entity error. This one usually comes up when you have a url that looks like this...
http //www domain.com/visitor.cgi?affiliate=15738&action=
You' ll notice that I bolded the ampersand (&). That is where the problem is. The ampersands need to be escaped as they refer to it. That URL should look like this...
http //www domain.com/visitor.cgi?affiliate=15738& a m p ;action=
Now you' ve escaped the ampersand and have eliminated those unknow entity errors. No spaces between the & a m p ;. I had to put them there so it would show in the message.
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
Gil
Posts: 7533
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/13/2002 17:06:00
quote:
_gail
Sure would be nice if Microsoft' s FrontPage would be more cooperative.
LOL - Microsoft has no interest in " cooperating" , as long as the can get away with making their products proprietary and purposely engineer them not to conform, they sell more product. Don' t ever forget: Microsoft (and to a much lesser degree, other software developers) has no desire to conform only to sell products.
_____________________________
Gil Harvey, 1947-2004
| |
|
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2876
From: So FL
Status: offline
|
RE: RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/14/2002 9:30:31
quote:
ORIGINAL: pageoneresults
there are a select group of individuals who are promoting Web Standards very actively these days.
Well, when I played with a validator to check out large, respected tech firms such as Intel or IBM, as I recently have out of curiosity, I' m compelled to ask why they don' t meet the standards?! Even the link you gave elsewhere in this thread shows the major search engines don' t either.
I' m not saying they shouldn' t. I just don' t understand why they have not.
Things bring me back to questions about FrontPage...the main reason I' ve been involved in these forums for about 1 1/2 years.
If FrontPage causes so many problems, for whatever the proprietary reasons of Microsoft...be it monetary gain or an egomaniacal complex...doesn' t matter to me...why should I use it?! Any other programs out there that work better, where it' s dhtml and similar built-in features CAN be recommended and used?!
Please let me know because, if such a program even exists, I want to switch.
thanks, gail
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/14/2002 21:45:19
Start your validation efforts!
America Online has released a new version of its Internet access software designed for Apple Computer' s Mac OS X operating system.
[url=" http://news.com.com/2100-1023-949345.html" ]AOL and Netscape' s Gecko Browser[/url]
Inside Joke: No, not Geico, Gecko!
For those of you who only view your sites in IE, its now time to download NN4.x, NN6.x, Mozilla 1.0 and Opera. What works in IE, a lot of times does not work in the browsers mentioned. There are also about 12 others that I did not list.
Frontpage uses quite a bit of MS proprietary coding which does not function well across browsers. Bill would like to think that its a MS world, it might have been, but that is now changing. With AOL dropping IE in favor of Netscape, the browser wars are starting up again. Not only do we have the browser wars, but now there will be a mad rush to start validating websites.
If you want your site to be viewable to a global audience, generating valid code is now a reality. You know that missing </table> tag that you have? Well, that page will not show in NN or Opera. You know all those improperly nested tables that you have? Well, those won' t work either.
Okay, so now what do you do?
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
mmoore
Posts: 20
Joined: 4/17/2002
From:
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/15/2002 11:05:11
Validation, using <table>s or <div>s isn' t hard if you start simple and know what your editor will do. I wonder if some people don' t do it just because they don' t know about it (I found out about it by accident), which doesn' t explain everything, but...
I' m still using tables for the moment because in my experience and for my experience (I' m still pretty new at this), Netscape support just isn' t there for <div>s right now and I don' t have the time to serve up different style sheets or pages to different browsers. Also, I' m using FP 2002 right now, and since I know that it won' t end tags like <meta>, <br> and <hr>, or has a tendency to create jumbled code, I just create a single page template (with style sheets controlling appearance), get it to validate, and then just work from there, watching my code as I go along to make sure I' m not in error (or if I am in error, at least it works in NN, Opera, and Mozilla). Gil' s right, it is important to get your content out there so the most people can see it - which is a nice " side-effect" of XHTML validation: if your page(s) validate to XHTML Transitional, you' ve also got Section 508 accessibility compliance as well (at least in every page that I' ve tried).
So, that' s just my two cents from a little bit of experience.
| |
|
|
|
bobby
Posts: 11394
Joined: 8/15/1969
From: Seattle WA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/15/2002 12:35:10
quote:
If FrontPage causes so many problems, for whatever the proprietary reasons of Microsoft...be it monetary gain or an egomaniacal complex...doesn' t matter to me...why should I use it?!
<$.02>
IMHO it isn' t that FrontPage causes problems, thought it does render it' s code in an IE specific format.
Take a look at all of those other " big name" sites you mentioned... how many of those were done in FP? My guess is none.
You could make an arguement that NN " causes" problems by not adopting many of the W3C standards, or that net users are the problem because many still refuse to upgrade from v 4!
FrontPage, Dreamweaver, GoLive, etc. are all just tools. Not every tool works for every job. Take a look in your tool box at home, how many screwdrivers do you have? I' m not only talking about phillips head vs. flat - but look at the sizes and shapes of them as well!
Nobody gets all over ANSI' s case about making all screws the same?!?
Okay, so not the best analagy, but you can see what I' m getting at...
Personally, I like Dreamweaver for JavaScript if I can' t find a free-bee to cut and paste... coupled with Fireworks it' s a great tool.
But I prefer FrontPage for the mundane tasks like building tables (even though I tend to modify them afterwards), and setting up formatting tags.
These days I spend more time in html view than anywhere else! I still prefer it to notepad because of the color coding...
For whatever reason, each of the major browsers chooses to interpret and render web code differently. Some are more strict than others, some don' t recognize the same tags that the others will recognize.
IMHO - it seems rediculous that the code is the problem... a browser should browse the same code regardless of who built it. The differences should be in usability, availability, features, asthetics, upgradability, reliability, function, and of course the consumers right to chose for themselves which one they want to use.
Full W3C standardization should be a given for browsers and web designers alike... let' s face it, html is about the most simplistic " programming" language on the planet and really isn' t that tought to use.
Like Gil said, the only tool that works all the time is notepad... but then again, you have to supply the code... and do it properly.
I heard a saying once, can' t remember the source or the context, but it went something like this:
" It is a poor musician who blames his instrument."
I, like most of us, have a long way to go to reach " compliance" - but it' s a journey that' s worth taking, and in the long run it really isn' t that difficult.
We just have to remember that FrontPage is what it is: a basic html editor, and nothing more. It has flaws like everything else.
The rest is up to us as web designers, webmasters, web developers, mouse jockeys, code slingers, programmers, whatever we choose to call ourselves...
Okay, I' m done...
</.02>
_____________________________
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
| |
|
|
|
sljsh
Posts: 76
Joined: 1/30/2002
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/16/2002 9:28:21
If css is the way to go, then where does that leave the FrontPage themes? Should they not be used?
Lisa
| |
|
|
|
Thomas Brunt
Posts: 6109
Joined: 6/6/1998
From: St. Matthews SC USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/16/2002 11:03:25
It' s not an either/or thing. It' s pretty common to use css along with a theme.
I' ve always been interested to see a study on how many handicapped people use the Web. I would think that there are more attractive info gathering alternatives (like the phone) in most cases. I think a lot of people wonder if it' s worth the effort to ready your site for a visitor that may not be out there.
t
| |
|
|
|
Gil
Posts: 7533
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/16/2002 12:39:46
quote:
Thomas:
I' ve always been interested to see a study on how many handicapped people use the Web
Thomas, I don' t know of any such study, but do have a personal experience in this area. I co-owned a ISP a few years ago and we teamed with the local DAV office (of which I happen to be a member) to offer disabled veterans a free trial of Internet access (free for 3 months and a reduced fee after). In an area with a population of only around 150,000 we had a response of over 2,000 the first year. And surprisingly a retention rate of over 90%!
_____________________________
Gil Harvey, 1947-2004
| |
|
|
|
Thomas Brunt
Posts: 6109
Joined: 6/6/1998
From: St. Matthews SC USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/16/2002 15:04:20
Did they all have the kinds of disabilities that these standards address?
When the w3c says " handicapped" don' t they really mean blind? The basis for enforcing standards in this case seems to be an assumption that blind people will use the Web if these standards proliferate. But that' s quite an optimstic assumption. Try surfing a standards compliant site as a blind person would. What does it matter if you comply with the standards and are still (for all practical purposes) incomprehensible to a blind Web surfer? Would they really actually use the site if it were standards compliant?
If you' re serious about making your site accessible to the blind then standards compliance does not matter at all. What matters is usability tests done with blind users. Complying with some bureaucratic standard is just lipservice.
t
| |
|
|
|
pageoneresults
Posts: 1001
From: Orange, CA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/16/2002 15:18:14
Thomas, I' m suprised to hear you downplaying Web Standards! Actually I think we' re drifting back and forth between different topics. Validating your code is not just about reaching users with disabilities, in fact, that is not the main purpose of validation.
The main purpose of validation is to insure that your web site will function as it should across multiple platforms and browsers. There are many forms of standards and the one you are referring to is the [url=" http://www.w3.org/WAI/" ]WAI - Web Accessiblity Initiative[/url]. This goes far beyond users with disabilities.
The role of the [url=" http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity#role" ]W3C and HTML Markup[/url] is just one of many areas that are being addressed by the W3C.
Design Principles of the Web
The Web is an application built on top of the Internet and, as such, has inherited its fundamental design principles.
Interoperability
Specifications for the Web' s languages and protocols must be compatible with one another and allow (any) hardware and software used to access the Web to work together.
Evolution
The Web must be able to accommodate future technologies. Design principles such as simplicity, modularity, and extensibility will increase the chances that the Web will work with emerging technologies such as mobile Web devices and digital television, as well as others to come.
Decentralization
Decentralization is without a doubt the newest principle and most difficult to apply. To allow the Web to " scale" to worldwide proportions while resisting errors and breakdowns, the architecture (like the Internet) must limit or eliminate dependencies on central registries.
_____________________________
SEO Consultants Directory
Find Search Engine Marketing Companies
| |
|
|
|
ed1
Posts: 135
From: Annandale, VA USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/16/2002 16:03:03
>When the w3c says " handicapped" don' t they really mean blind? <
Handicapped goes a lot further than just blind. There are several kinds of color blindness that you should check for as well. Then there is hand motor problems- some users can' t use a mouse- can you navigate your site easily without a mouse? Don' t forget cognitive problems- you navigation logic may not as intuitive as you thought (usability).
Does your site provide a Site Map and a TOC and an Index and a Search feature?
It is estimated that over 80% of the Internet users are handicapped in one way or another, or several. Don' t forget the baby boomers are wearing glasses now, your navigation images don' t expand when they go to larger fonts.
| |
|
|
|
Thomas Brunt
Posts: 6109
Joined: 6/6/1998
From: St. Matthews SC USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/17/2002 8:40:18
I' m definitely not against standards for code form and function assuming the browsers all interpret those standards the same way, and I' m not necessarily against them for accessibility.
I' m just skeptical that compliance to any standard will actually make your site into something that a blind person or a person with no arms will actually choose to use. I think a lot the sites mentioned above that don' t comply are similarly skeptical.
If your goal is accessibility then do a usability test with the kinds of disabled people you want to facilitate. Don' t tell me your site is accessible because it complies with W3C standards. I just can' t imagine that compliance really equals true accessibility.
t
| |
|
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2876
From: So FL
Status: offline
|
RE: RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/17/2002 9:00:36
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thomas Brunt
I' m definitely not against standards for code form and function assuming the browsers all interpret those standards the same way
BINGO!
Tom, imho, you' ve articulated exactly the crux of the issue! To me it is counterproductive, even ludicrous, that all these browsers interpret in whatever way they darn well please. If I' m entirely honest, as a fledging web designer, I kind of resent it!
To all the browser developers of the world: [:' (]
gail
| |
|
|
|
Non-Profit
Posts: 388
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Validators and doc declarations - 8/17/2002 17:19:41
" I just can' t imagine that compliance really equals true accessibility. "
I can agree with that, but it (compliance) does represent a first step. As an individual with a disability who uses the web on a daily basis, I can see compliance as a first step in a long journey towards full accessibility.
Tony
(Sorry if that was kind of corny sounding, but it' s true IMHO.)
< Message edited by Non-Profit -- 8/16/2002 5:21:26 PM >
| |
|
 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 
BTW, that was before there was an IE.
