if they decide they need a new host i will give u a PM! no offence taken, im not complaining about being paid that much!
its going to top of the travelling fund nicely!! 7 months in the sun!!
But don't even get me started on solicitors, the most recent solicitor i went to felt like he got ME to do most of the running around while he charged an arm and a leg for typing up a couple of letters.
I think what's also crazy now is how little solicitors get in some areas of legal work on a legal aid basis vs their private work counterparts doing the same work to similar standards.
but hey 'working smarter rather than harder'.... It's the only way to get on i guess. For as long as there are people there to cough up!!!
The W3C Markup Validation Service says your web page is wrong then it is wrong!
HTML has a (fairly!) simple set of rules and W3C kind of knows what those rules are. What can cause problems is that an error on one line may not be picked up (eg a missing end tag) which makes it look as if it's the next line that's wrong.
The point is that HTML should be parsed by browsers in the same way; if the validator site can't make sense of your page then neither will the browser.
Of course, whether it matters that you're not following the rules is another issue. For a school website I'd hope that valid HTML was used - it makes it more likely that screen readers will work as will the variety of browsers that people could use. For a company intranet you might choose to accept that there are errors because you're going to insist your users work with IE7 and you know that the errors don't matter on that browser.
Just because everyone else doesn't make sure their websites validate properly - that makes it OK?
Last edited by ICT_GUY; 24th February 2010 at 07:34 PM.
Actually, this is (apparently) all down to Oracle and the web systems they supply - if anyone was thinking of buying a web site based on Oracle Portal I'd guess it makes sense to look at their website first - [Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/portal/index.html - W3C Markup Validator with 91 errors and 25 warnings.
Validation for the last website I wrote says ""This document was successfully checked as XHTML 1.0 Strict!""
[Valid] Markup Validation of http://techinfo.cnwl.ac.uk/ - W3C Markup Validator
The rules for constructing HTML are very clear and there are many tools available which will flag errors as you write the code and help to correct them (eg even the free version of MS Web Developer Express - http://www.microsoft.com/express/Web/) and it seems a shame that people say "rules don't matter"
I'd guess ignoring rules like this is just another example of David Cameron's "Broken Britain" :-)
No, he's talking about a general attitude of "I got close, that's good enough", whereas you are pursuing argumentum ad ridiculum.I don't quite see the correlation between HTML standards and Cameron's alleged 'broken Britain' however. Are you suggesting that because a web site I may develop doesn't meet W3C standards, that I am also therefore responsible for the decline of our social communities?
Last edited by powdarrmonkey; 25th February 2010 at 08:42 AM.
Other arguments for standards and validation are accessibility and SEO. (In fact, they go hand in hand: High Accessibility Is Effective Search Engine Optimization.)
Screen readers for visually impared users all 'read' pages in slightly different ways and by providing a standards-compliant page, you increase the probability that it'll read it the way you intended.
SEO benefits from standards and semantic layout, as search engines read your page like a screen reader and will weight your document more accurately if it is easy to understand and laid out logically (main content is obvious, headings and subheadings properly arranged etc).
That's just my 2 pence though. If you're working for a client who doesn't specify they want their pages to validate, and you feel you don't have the time/budget to make it do so, it's up to you whether you want to go to those lengths or not. IMHO, if you keep standards in mind as you code, there's often very little to do to make a page validate.
Last edited by dayzd; 25th February 2010 at 09:17 AM. Reason: Additional SEO point made
I should point out that some of the standards broken I have no intention of fixing.
Links wrapped round some headings for one. It does not meet the standard but it works in all browsers and achieves something that I want. (this accounts for a fair proportion of the errors in fact).
And the clincher?
Even the most high profile American website fairs worse than me. Is it about time to get of that high horse and climb back under the bridge.
Last edited by ICT_GUY; 25th February 2010 at 09:16 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)