SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 58
  1. #26
    100% Windoze-free earther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I get a kick out of coding to standards, plain and simple and want to spread the word! So I have unobtrusive validation links on all the sites that I do. Besides it has a high 'geek factor' which is kind of cool and unexpected. If I were a twenty something who grew up holding a mouse, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal but at my age, bragging rights are in order!!

    I like seeing validation links on other sites too and often check out the code . . . for better or worse.

  2. #27
    ********* Wizard silver trophy Cam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Burpengary, Australia
    Posts
    4,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I like the Dolby example, it'd be nice if things worked out that way *sigh*

  3. #28
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the client doesn't mind what's the harm in helping promote standards awareness? It probably helps educate non-techies about what we are trying to do with the web. It might serve as a reminder that the web is less about creating cool looking eye candy and more about promoting a uniform standard of data delivery and communication that can be relied upon by developers.

    But that's my opinion.
    -ChaCha

  4. #29
    SitePoint Wizard jag5311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in Indiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am applying for a couple web design positions in my local city, and on my resume, for the two examples I use i distinctly discuss my using standards and separating content from presentation. They will probably look at it and think, "what an idiot", because there site doesn't use standards

    I get into a real bad habit of checking out the source code whenever I get a little "curious"

  5. #30
    SitePoint Zealot ComputerBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jag5311
    ...They will probably look at it and think, "what an idiot", because there site doesn't use standards...
    I hope that they look at your examples and think, "Hey, that candidate could help us make our site standards compliant!" Be prepared to patiently and intelligently explain why standards are important to you during your interview (very diplomatically, without putting down those whose sites are not standards-compliant). Good luck!
    ComputerBob - Making Geek-Speak Chic™
    http://www.computerbob.com
    - XHTML 1.0 Strict + CSS Layout
    Ratings | Forums | Software | Polls | Weird | Quotes | Weather
    Guest Articles | Free Greeting Cards | CB Awards | Search

  6. #31
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by firegryphon3207
    So you are saying it might serve a purpose for say your site (assuming you are offering some sort of services as a designer) but not neccessarily on your client's pages? If so, would you say it's important to have it in that context?
    That's exactly what I'm saying. If I sold, say XHTML-compliant templates on my site I'd throw the buttons up on the template site, but if I sold auto parts I probably wouldn't. I'd still write out an accessibility statement and say something like "This site works in as many browsers and devices as possible" on some rarely-accessed page, so it's there for those who need it, but I wouldn't make it a focal point on the site.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Enthusiast tapdig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Norman, OK
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I started a similar thread without seeing this one....
    Here: http://www.sitepointforums.com/showt...?postid=973028
    Here was my post after seeing this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by tapdig
    Quote Originally Posted by ComputerBob
    I've already seen that same question asked at least a few times. Here's one of the newest threads in which people have discussed it:

    http://www.sitepointforums.com/showt...ighlight=valid
    I agree this thread is very similar, even my rant is presented. Thank you for the great link, it was perfect. I see no reason to continue this thread. Next time, I'll look a little harder.

    Just a thought about a ComputerBob post on the referenced thread....

    Maybe those who have read Zeldman carry his valid/usability trumpet chorus whole heartedly? I have avoided all of his writing, so I guess I miss the point. I'm so sick of seeing articles and blogs about usability. I don't like even typing the word. Web hacking is only a hobby for me. It's an artistic expression with a little analytical science mixed in. Just like my main occupations as a photographer and architect. If I had time to worry whether my HTML was valid, then I wouldn't have my day job. I do care if it works, beyond that, why does it matter. If I did perl or PHP everyday, or XML or XHTML at all, I can see why I might be more interested in validating. My minuscule presence on the web is valid by me. If I was webmaster for a major corporation, I would deliver validity. Who needs bumperstickers? If you are a surfer that hits "view source" like I am, I do it because I like something I see or I like something it does. The bumpersticker is irrelevant.

    I attempt to test with the most popular things, but if I recieve any reports of problems with minority browsers, I will fix them as best I can, and if something requires that I break standards to get it to work for the majority of people, I will do it.

    Jeff Lange said on the referenced thread, very eloquently....
    Standards are extremely nice, however, functionality to the end-user is more important.
    There's some good discussion here, thanks everyone.

  8. #33
    SitePoint Wizard jag5311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in Indiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I hope that they look at your examples and think, "Hey, that candidate could help us make our site standards compliant!" Be prepared to patiently and intelligently explain why standards are important to you during your interview (very diplomatically, without putting down those whose sites are not standards-compliant). Good luck!
    I haven't come across ONE site here in Indianapolis that is standards compliant (except for mine of course)

    I have actually felt like a teacher somewhat over at a couple giftbasket forums. I am touting that cleaning up your code, using appropriate h1, h2, title alt, will definitly help their page rankings. People get this feeling that just adding meta tags and spamming certain keywords is enough to increase search engine rankings, and in fact, its true for most of them

  9. #34
    The knight who said ni! RockyShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rockhampton, Australia
    Posts
    699
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't use them 99% of the time, but I wouldn't question anyone who did - it's all about education. True, most users wouldn't have a clue what standards are about, but knowledge is power. If more use them, over time they will become recognised.

    No, they won't help you sell more gift baskets now. It's more of a long term, big picture kind of thing I feel.

  10. #35
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    That's exactly what I'm saying. If I sold, say XHTML-compliant templates on my site I'd throw the buttons up on the template site, but if I sold auto parts I probably wouldn't. I'd still write out an accessibility statement and say something like "This site works in as many browsers and devices as possible" on some rarely-accessed page, so it's there for those who need it, but I wouldn't make it a focal point on the site.
    This is a perfectly valid way of doing things and how it should be if I visit your sites.

    If I visit someone's blog about the latest movies, I could not care less if it is validated or not. However if I visit a blog on Standards compliance, then the buttons make sense.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  11. #36
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RockyShark
    I don't use them 99% of the time, but I wouldn't question anyone who did - it's all about education. True, most users wouldn't have a clue what standards are about, but knowledge is power. If more use them, over time they will become recognised.
    The point is they don't need to be recognized by anyone other than web developers. Do you honestly think someone is going to stop visiting a site that doesn't validate if the content is good? Do you honestly think that web development standards should effect a consumer's daily life? Do following them even offer a consumer any benefit whatsoever?

    The answer to all three is actually NO. If fact for 90% of the consumers out there, following the standards to a tee, will make your website look worse to them instead of better.

    Do you care whether your newest game was programmed in MSVC++ or GCC? Do you ultimately care if they used their own state of the art engine to get 100 FPS or someone else's? Or do you care about how realistic the Grimlock on level 6 is when it rips out your heart?

    When people are shopping for gift baskets they care about two things, value and price. Anything extra like standards compliance propaganda is not worth their trouble. Propaganda is what this boils down to and it isn't necessary except where you are trying to sell the virtues of standards compliance. It isn't necessary on shoe sites, basket sites, news sites, blogs not related to standards compliance or anywhere else.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard jag5311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in Indiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    BUT..

    Is it not true that by making a site more standards compliant, simply by using appropriate tags, cleaning the code, and using keywords IN those tags, that your site will be more optimized and be more search engine friendly.

    If your answer to that is YES, then it is worth talking to people aboutit.

    People in the gift basket world truly only care about business. The more people they can reach, the happier they are. They care mostly about search engine ranks, so anything that can help their search engine rankings will always get them interested

    Am I wrong?

    Thanks
    Bryan

  13. #38
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Luke
    Do following them [web standards] even offer a consumer any benefit whatsoever? The answer [to all three] is actually NO.
    Why, yes they do. It is called interoperability and it is one of the main reasons I get hired over some ******* who saves a document as .html in M$ Word and calls it a 'web site'. I can think of at least ONE benefit they offer, which answers your question and renders your entire argument moot.

    I'm sorry. First you say that it offers ABSOLUTELY NO benefit to the consumer whatsoever to follow accepted web standards. Then you say that for
    90% of the consumers out there, following the standards to a tee, will make your website look worse to them instead of better.
    If I am to take this literally, 10% of those users actually experienced a better LOOKING site through web standards. Now, I know this is not what you meant to say...but you said it. More troubling is your failure to grasp the depth of web standards. What about those users who were able to view the content in alternative browser devices - using a dialect of an XHTML STANDARD. If you want to cling on to some perverted notion of egalitarianism through accommodation of broken, deprecated browsers - go right ahead, but it seems stupid to me to sacrifice web standards (and alternative browser devices) to accomodate the rapidly dwindling past and all it's legacy garbage. Additionally, you can code in standards and accommodate ALL browser devices - including NN4 and friends. Why, with a little ingenuity and server-side transformation you can deliver content to voice, pc web browser, text-only web browser, and mobile devices - all through the magic of web standards. You see, people with bigger problems to solve than "what color should I configure my cms blog site in" appreciate the hard work that so many have contributed in order to make our lives easier.
    -ChaCha

  14. #39
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jag5311
    BUT..

    Is it not true that by making a site more standards compliant, simply by using appropriate tags, cleaning the code, and using keywords IN those tags, that your site will be more optimized and be more search engine friendly.
    good point. if you have ever taken a look at the PageRank algorithm that Google uses to compute relevancy of pages you will see that the child nodes of <h1> tags and <a> tags are considered "special" hits. I think that google places VERY little importance on <meta> tags.
    -ChaCha

  15. #40
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jag5311
    BUT..

    Is it not true that by making a site more standards compliant, simply by using appropriate tags, cleaning the code, and using keywords IN those tags, that your site will be more optimized and be more search engine friendly.

    If your answer to that is YES, then it is worth talking to people aboutit.
    NO! Here's my reasoning: You can have a standards-compliant page that is utter crap as far as code goes (you won't believe what XHTML 1.0 Transitional will let you get away with). A standards-compliant page does not have to be marked up semantically or even use CSS at all for presentation. SEO, accessibility, and semantic markup are totally independent of standards, though loosely related to one another. However, all 4 (SEO, standards, access, semantics) require hard work and a lot of education on the part of designers and developers. I know people who can pull off all 4 effortlessly; I also know people who struggle with one or more of those areas though they may follow standards and use CSS as much as possible. If you are using all 4 well, then good for you and I applaud your efforts. However, it's worth noting that the other three don't come free with standards compliance; you still have to work hard to get all 4 done properly.

  16. #41
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cha Cha,

    Actually this whole topic has nothing to do with using standards. It is more to do with the blatant advertising of them.

    I perfectly get web standards and feel that they should be used when building websites as much as possible. At this time that is XHTML 1.0 and CSS 1.0 compliancy to reach the maximum number of users and devices. I understand that through CSS you can build different stylesheets and change the presentation of the website based on need. I believe in touting web standards to other web developers and if you read the few posts that I have made in this forum you would understand that.

    What I don't understand is the obsessive need for developers to try and shove acceptance of standards down their user's throats by having a button stating compliance on each and every page of their website because it is included in navigation or the footer of the dynamically driven site. That is what this entire topic is about, not whether or not you can or should use standards to build modern websites. Ultimately the consumer doesn't care whether your site validates to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1 or is built entirely out of cheesewiz if it can be viewed in their browser of choice.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  17. #42
    SitePoint Enthusiast tapdig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Norman, OK
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This was my rant:
    And how about all these "bumper stickers" that so many people out there stick all over their blogs? They are so unimportant to me. I don't want to follow a link to W3C's XHTML validator. Your code makes the page render nicely, why do I need a little icon to tell me that it's been validated? Who cares. It's like boy (or girl) scouts, let's see who can get the most tokens of acheivement and then display them all over your cover.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Zealot ComputerBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm very surprised and disappointed by how much genuine anger and resentment is being expressed at those who put "validated" icons on their sites. I would hope that busy webmasters have more important things to rant about.
    ComputerBob - Making Geek-Speak Chic™
    http://www.computerbob.com
    - XHTML 1.0 Strict + CSS Layout
    Ratings | Forums | Software | Polls | Weird | Quotes | Weather
    Guest Articles | Free Greeting Cards | CB Awards | Search

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was going to go through my whole "hallmark of quality" rant again in more detail, but in the middle of it I thought of a big flaw.

    Even if the W3C icons become a hallmark of quality with common people, they are too complex for average browsers to keep track of as new technologies and practices evolve.

    I think to be useful to everyday people, the W3C validation should be a yearly thing. Every year they decide on a few different standards that they will consider "validatable" for the year. Several oldies will be dropped, several new ones will be added. Geeks can still find out that XHTML transitional is being used, they had that power all along.

    So basically, someone can look at the bottom of a page and see that it says "W3C Validated 2003" and know that the site is using current standards, without having to know the difference between HTML 3.0 and XHTML 1.0 Strict. If they click on the validation link, it should take them to a page that spells out the benefits of that technology in plain, non-geek English (or plain, non-geek Spanish, Italian, etc).

    Basically, I think that small, tasteful, "validated" icons have a place on every website that validates. It's like saying that your website uses "Techron", except unlike Techron, web standards aren't a load of made up pooie. Right now those little icons are geek-oriented which is useless for most people. They need to be more simple and understandable to the average browser.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard jag5311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in Indiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On Vgarcia's comment

    You said NO, and I understand your POV and respect it whole heartedly. Thing is, I feel more obligated to follow your believe because you possess much more knowledge in this field then I do.

    BUT...

    what is the point for sites like Alistapart or HappyCog putting out articles discussing the benefits of using Valid Code and SEO. Are they just
    "blowing smoke up our behinds"

    Maybe I read a little too much into your statement, I don't know. Please clarifiy if I did.


    On the validated buttons thing.

    Personally, I don't think it can hurt unless it takes away from the website. If they are small and out of the way, like at the bottom of the page, it shouldn't be a big deal, because if someone see's a site with a button or such, Psychologically, it has the statement of "this sites of some kind of importance, or this site is very professional"

    Its like seeing a VERISIGN symbol, people automatically think their information will be secure or something. This isn't a symbol, but I put on my details page for gift baskets, http://www.somethingspecialgiftbaske...fm?basketID=73 for example, at the bottom right, there is a paypal importance note that I added. I want the customer to recognize that they are going into a secured environment, one that utilizes the HTTPS, not just the HTTP.

    Is it necessary, no, because most of them probably don't look for it anyways, but does it certainly make my site appear more customer concerned and professional, I think so. I am sure some of you disagree

  21. #46
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ComputerBob
    I'm very surprised and disappointed by how much genuine anger and resentment is being expressed at those who put "validated" icons on their sites. I would hope that busy webmasters have more important things to rant about.
    Anger? I have no anger.... put the icons on your site if you so desire. It isn't going to make me visit the site any more and will probably make me visit it less... Pretty much dead weight as far as I am concerned which is why I don't understand why people who do not have sites geared to standards acceptance put them on their sites.

    In my reasoning, sites with vestigial links such as these would be lower in search engines due to link dilution, have a more complicated interface than is needed, and they (the links not the standards) offer the user no benefit. They are for the browbeating of the webmaster and shows a lack of understanding of their target market and what is more important. A workable site or extra links that simply confuse the visitor.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  22. #47
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jag5311
    Its like seeing a VERISIGN symbol, people automatically think their information will be secure or something. This isn't a symbol, but I put on my details page for gift baskets, http://www.somethingspecialgiftbaske...fm?basketID=73 for example, at the bottom right, there is a paypal importance note that I added. I want the customer to recognize that they are going into a secured environment, one that utilizes the HTTPS, not just the HTTP.
    This actually makes sense on your site... What sense would make if it were on every page of this forum though?

    That is the issue I am trying to get at.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  23. #48
    Just Blow It bronze trophy
    DaveMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Posts
    7,294
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Luke
    Anger? I have no anger.... put the icons on your site if you so desire. It isn't going to make me visit the site any more and will probably make me visit it less... Pretty much dead weight as far as I am concerned which is why I don't understand why people who do not have sites geared to standards acceptance put them on their sites.

    In my reasoning, sites with vestigial links such as these would be lower in search engines due to link dilution, have a more complicated interface than is needed, and they (the links not the standards) offer the user no benefit. They are for the browbeating of the webmaster and shows a lack of understanding of their target market and what is more important. A workable site or extra links that simply confuse the visitor.
    Just a question.

    Is it the fact that the site has the validation icons at all, or just that they are on every page that bugs you?

    While working on my personal site, I was thinking about adding the icons to the accessibility page only just for an FYI. Kinda to say "I'm doing what I can to try and make my site more accessible, and this is step one - make sure it validates." I wasn't going to put it on every page.
    Dave Maxwell - Manage Your Site Team Leader
    My favorite YouTube Video! | Star Wars, Dr Suess Style
    Learn how to be ready for The Forums' Move to Discourse

  24. #49
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Having them on one page even if it is the home page is fine... ESPN has a page that explains why they went with standards on their site and I have no problem with that.

    However, they should not be part of the main interface of the entire website, unless that site is promoting Standards Compliance like A List Apart or the CSS Zen Garden. Standards are those sites reason for existance. They are not the reason for most blogs, commerce sites or even content sites.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  25. #50
    SitePoint Wizard jag5311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in Indiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with the aspect of not having to have them on every page, but a couple that explains why you are doing what you are doing.

    what about just having the button (without it linked to anything) just so it gives the page the "idea" of being certified or something of that nature. That is the idea behind the buttons, to say that the page is validated and "special" compared to other sites, right? That is how I accept it. All it is, is like having a MERIT for your site, a sign that you have done something right. That will sit in viewers minds. Doesn't mean they have to study it, all they have to do is let their eyes graze down the page and see it, and they think, "hmm, maybe this site is a little more high quality then I thought"

    What do you think would happen in this scenario

    YOu have two sites, exactly the same, and exactly the same content. Everything is Identitcal except for two buttons at the bottom.

    1 says XHTML validated (or whatever), the other says CSS validated.

    Put them side to side and have viewers look at it, then give them a poll that says

    "which site appeared to be of higher quality"?

    I would guess that the largest % would lean toward the ones with the buttons. That is my opinion of it


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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