+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 79
Web Development Thread, What to charge for web development in Coding and Web Development; Originally Posted by ICT_GUY Neither does CNN.com and their budgets are a lot bigger than mine. And please dont get ...
  1. #31

    glennda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    7,714
    Thank Post
    269
    Thanked 1,116 Times in 1,012 Posts
    Rep Power
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by ICT_GUY View Post
    Neither does CNN.com and their budgets are a lot bigger than mine.

    And please dont get me started on Edugeek 19 errors for my site compared to a whopping 87 errors for edugeek with 28 Warnings !
    the error detectors are rubbish, i was testing mine the other day, and when it was testing it was saying errors on > all over the place, when you looked at them there where correct so showing </script> and it was saying the last > was wrong!

    @Carl

    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!!

  2. #32
    ICT_GUY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Weymouth
    Posts
    2,261
    Thank Post
    646
    Thanked 283 Times in 204 Posts
    Rep Power
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by glennda View Post
    the error detectors are rubbish, i was testing mine the other day, and when it was testing it was saying errors on > all over the place, when you looked at them there where correct so showing </script> and it was saying the last > was wrong!

    @Carl

    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!!
    Yes I checked the code on my site that it was flagging up as wrong. Mainly stuff like clickable headings ect. Centred headings also are not liked.

  3. #33
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by somabc View Post
    The same thing happens in other areas thought take solicitors they often use standard letters just changing the details around but still charge the same as if they prepared everything from scratch.
    absolutely spot on. The rewording thing i've seen done as the solicitor was sitting in front of me....but at that fortunately i wasn't paying

    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!!!

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,144
    Thank Post
    113
    Thanked 518 Times in 447 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by glennda View Post
    the error detectors are rubbish, i was testing mine the other day, and when it was testing it was saying errors on > all over the place, when you looked at them there where correct so showing </script> and it was saying the last > was wrong!
    Not sure what you're using to test but if the validator at 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.

  5. #35
    somabc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,337
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 388 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    Not sure what you're using to test but if the validator at 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.
    Ahem! [Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ - W3C Markup Validator

    148 Errors, 35 warning(s)

  6. #36

    webman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    8,374
    Thank Post
    625
    Thanked 951 Times in 653 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    318
    Just because everyone else doesn't make sure their websites validate properly - that makes it OK?

  7. 2 Thanks to webman:

    bossman (26th February 2010), RingOfFlame (24th February 2010)

  8. #37
    ICT_GUY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Weymouth
    Posts
    2,261
    Thank Post
    646
    Thanked 283 Times in 204 Posts
    Rep Power
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by webman View Post
    Just because everyone else doesn't make sure their websites validate properly - that makes it OK?
    The point that was being made with a sledge hammer was that when RingOfFlame went a trolling by saying that "Your site does not validate. Not a good start." and so inferring my web design skillz were somehow inferior with just 19 errors is that is pretty hard to get a site to validate, so hard in fact that the validation site fails spectacularly with 148 errors.
    Last edited by ICT_GUY; 24th February 2010 at 07:34 PM.

  9. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,144
    Thank Post
    113
    Thanked 518 Times in 447 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by somabc View Post
    I don't write that website - I just moan at the people who do :-)

    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

  10. #39

    glennda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    7,714
    Thank Post
    269
    Thanked 1,116 Times in 1,012 Posts
    Rep Power
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by theeldergeek View Post
    I'm sure he could make it validate, and then he could sell it for twice that amount, I expect.

    W3C is over-rated in my opinion.

    A very high % of web sites that don't validate work completely without any issue at all in the vast majority of browsers. It's a complete waste of time and effort to get 100% validation; nice as it is, it is in actual fact predominantly pointless.

    I've just tested a web site I am 'developing', and it fails on 12 points. However, I have tested the site on EVERY major browser there is, on Windows, Mac and Ubuntu platforms. The site displays flawlessly. The site is also being created in Joomla, and thus far has had no manual input into the code. So, in essence, Joomla has in actual fact failed.

    WTF would I waste time cleaning it up? Because I have a conscience?

    Get real.
    alot of browsers these days correct the code anyway if it finds a problem and can work out what its ment to say, so as long as its not a major error then it should be okay!!

  11. #40

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,144
    Thank Post
    113
    Thanked 518 Times in 447 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by glennda View Post
    a lot of browsers these days correct the code anyway if it finds a problem and can work out what its meant to say, so as long as it's not a major error then it should be okay!!
    The idea ought to be that a good browser will try to cope with anything thrown at it but a good web designer will try and only use good code - you've then got a better chance of the browser rendering what you intended.

    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" :-)

  12. Thanks to srochford from:

    RingOfFlame (26th February 2010)

  13. #41

    powdarrmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alcester, Warwickshire
    Posts
    4,855
    Thank Post
    412
    Thanked 777 Times in 650 Posts
    Rep Power
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by theeldergeek View Post
    I wasn't actually aware that there were "rules" regarding HTML - there may be 'standards', and the W3C consortium publishes guidelines, but there aren't any rules, per se.
    If you mean laws enforced in a court, of course not; if you mean rules, they are part of the standard. When you claim to adhere to the standard, you are asserting that you followed the rules in it, otherwise standards are useless.

    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?
    No, he's talking about a general attitude of "I got close, that's good enough", whereas you are pursuing argumentum ad ridiculum.
    Last edited by powdarrmonkey; 25th February 2010 at 08:42 AM.

  14. #42
    dayzd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In front of computer
    Posts
    396
    Thank Post
    71
    Thanked 59 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    The idea ought to be that a good browser will try to cope with anything thrown at it but a good web designer will try and only use good code - you've then got a better chance of the browser rendering what you intended.
    And (just to throw in my 2 pence - I'm late to this party, as usual) if you stick to the standards and validate as much as possible, you've got a better chance your site will continue to work properly in the future, as browsers update and more devices become web-enabled (like phones and other mobile devices). This saves you going back and reviewing your designs, and also keeps your client(s) happy, as their page won't suddenly 'break' overnight.

    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

  15. Thanks to dayzd from:

    RingOfFlame (26th February 2010)

  16. #43

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,095
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,309 Times in 1,785 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by powdarrmonkey View Post
    If you mean laws enforced in a court, of course not; if you mean rules, they are part of the standard. When you claim to adhere to the standard, you are asserting that you followed the rules in it, otherwise standards are useless.
    Although, technically, if you don't comply with the standards, the organisation and the developer could end up in bother with the disability discrimination laws in the UK.

  17. #44
    ICT_GUY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Weymouth
    Posts
    2,261
    Thank Post
    646
    Thanked 283 Times in 204 Posts
    Rep Power
    103
    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?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/

    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.

  18. #45

    powdarrmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alcester, Warwickshire
    Posts
    4,855
    Thank Post
    412
    Thanked 777 Times in 650 Posts
    Rep Power
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by ICT_GUY View Post
    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.
    "Your honour, you should let me off because him over there, he mugged someone with a gun and I only used a knife."

    Yes, a ridiculous analogy, but that's what you're saying. And since I've made my point, I'm done here.

  19. 2 Thanks to powdarrmonkey:

    bossman (26th February 2010), webman (26th February 2010)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Web Development Basics
    By mike008 in forum Web Development
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 19th January 2010, 01:38 PM
  2. Web Development
    By dannyjay in forum Web Development
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 9th February 2009, 01:17 PM
  3. The best direction for web development?
    By FN-GM in forum Web Development
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 29th March 2008, 05:50 PM
  4. Who's in charge?
    By KWestos in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 20th March 2008, 09:16 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •