SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 180
  1. #101
    SitePoint Enthusiast magnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Browsers will eventually not support html anymore. Face it. it doesn't matter whos first. Think of it as good practice now. I enjoy having valid code, I don't know what ya'lls problem is. firefox 2 is set to come out soon and so is the new IE and all the others.. there will be changes.. lots of changes.. in about two more years the new new IE will probrally be taking away alot of html features. so Will Firefox. I think you should start validating your sites now.

    &
    dreamweaver works perfectly well with xhtml code..(if thats what u mean by rich text editor)

  2. #102
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy
    beley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    LaGrange, Georgia
    Posts
    6,117
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    magnus, HTML will validate perfectly fine. What does HTML/XHTML have to do with validation? Granted, XHTML is the future but I think we're going to have HTML for some time to come...

    Still, I would recommend using HTML Strict doctypes if you are going to use HTML. For many practical applications, XHTML just doesn't make sense (yet). When browsers do come out that support XHTML (IE does not - at all) most XHTML compliant sites out now won't validate anyway from what I've read.

  3. #103
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OfficeOfTheLaw
    Of course, no one is forcing you to do things "the right way". If you want to use <marque>, if you want to use tags for formatting like <font> and such, and most importantly feel that nesting 20 tables is the best way to layout a site, by all means go ahead, no one is stopping you.
    This is what annoys me. (sorry nothing personal) Standards enthusiasts who draw unrealistic comparisons between themselves and other developers who aren't as enthusiastic about standards. Many times we aren't as enthusiastic because we have work to do that is geared toward generating revenue for our companies. Making HTML "compliant" does not result in increased revenue. NO it does not. You may BS your clients into believing they'll make more money through standards. (they won't). It's a load of nonsense.

    Just because we're not consumed with HTML that validates over at w3c... does not mean we use deprecated tags such as <font> and <marquee>. We use CSS, We try to use clean javascript, we try to make pages sleek and (oh that frickin buzz word) "SEMANTIC". We just don't sit around wasting time going through the validator 80 times till all the "errors" are gone.

    If you do, You're either a hobbiest or your boss doesn't know what you're wasting your time on. Time is money. w3c validation is NOT money, it's patting yourself on the back for nothing. I make validated pages for fun on my own time. I'd get fired if I sat around doing that on company time.

    Sometimes, I correct my superviser for using deprecated HTML because he hasn't thought about it in years. He says "oh, OK" and that's it... Once in a while he asks me about some client side stuff. It's not important.

    Beyond that, it's a non-issue. This discussion is a non-issue. (yet again)

  4. #104
    ~unplugged Ainslie X11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Langley, Virginia
    Posts
    1,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, what your saying is; creating code to w3 validation standards is a waste of time ?


    working hard is hard work

  5. #105
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cringer
    We just don't sit around wasting time going through the validator 80 times till all the "errors" are gone.
    You don't fix the errors to get the validation medal. You fix the errors because they are errors. The idea is that the rules you follow to validate exist because they make sense.

    If you think that you can't build a website that validates at any current doctype because of flaws within the W3C standards, then that is certainly an argument that you can present, although I think folks would appreciate specifics on that.

    I figure you are either making that argument or the one Ainslie X11 is suggesting, it's kind of ambiguous.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  6. #106
    SitePoint Wizard megamanXplosion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,099
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While they may spit out code that the validator would let slip by, most of the elements they create have no semantic meaning (which degrades accessibility and general usability on different devices.) The validator does not know if the text is supposed to be a list or a definition list; tabular data or not tabular data; etc. The validators would need some hefty artificial intelligence to pull that off, that's why it is so easy to pass the validation tests. Richtext editors do NOT create "valid" mark-up; they are close, I'll give that much to them, but they do not do it right yet.

    And work with usability in a team environment and think again? What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Do you think that not following standards improves usability? Any decent content management system will allow several designers to work together to not only improve the look of the site, but also the usability, accessibility, etc. - and yes, they can follow standards if you create the templates that way. I'm totally failing to see your point about how usability would be an issue in a team environment that follows standards compared to one that doesn't follow standards.

    Many times we aren't as enthusiastic because we have work to do that is geared toward generating revenue for our companies.
    So, you believe that standards-based web sites cost more to create than non-compliant sites? I'm sorry, but that is a fallacy; if you're used to standards-based designs and try to create a table-based design or something then it would be frustrating, if you're coming from table-based designs and try to work to standards-based web sites then it would be frustrating, the lack of knowledge is the problem you're describing.

    I generally don't understand that attitude either. "I'm too busy trying to make money, I have no time to learn how the industry I work in is changing!" That is what you said, it is a funny thing to say

    We use CSS, We try to use clean javascript, we try to make pages sleek and (oh that frickin buzz word) "SEMANTIC".
    Semantics are not a buzz word, you obviously do not understand what semantics are all about. I've been designing all of my pages with semantics in mind for the last 3 years - it's nothing new and isn't a buzz word by any stretch of the imagination.

    We just don't sit around wasting time going through the validator 80 times till all the "errors" are gone.
    The validator is a learning tool. Use it as one and you'll never need to visit it again. Learn why it is giving you the errors, what it is suggesting to fix it, etc. and eventually you'll spot errors before you even start typing the next (X)HTML tag. These are not suggestions, they are errors that should be fixed (and avoided in the future.) This is basically the same thing I pointed out on your first quote, you're supposedly too busy to learn how the industry you work in is changing. It is sad, to say the least.

  7. #107
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by megamanXplosion
    The validator does not know if the text is supposed to be a list or a definition list; tabular data or not tabular data; etc. The validators would need some hefty artificial intelligence to pull that off, that's why it is so easy to pass the validation tests. Richtext editors do NOT create "valid" mark-up; they are close, I'll give that much to them, but they do not do it right yet.
    It seems to me that it would be pretty easy (relatively speaking) to create a rich text editor that REALLY validated. You'd just give people choices based upon the type of data they had to enter, then (maybe) present them with design options based around available styles.

    There's no rich text editor that does that?
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  8. #108
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can't believe there are people here arguing against standards use. I can appreciate the argument of not always having the time to make sure everything is by the book. I also appreciate that there are hobbyists that want just to publish, and not to learn everything required. However I can't understand how a professional web designer (if that's what they call themselves), can have the cheek to state standards are irrelevant.

    I guess to that one I hope you are caught short with someone checking 508 or DDA.

  9. #109
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD Australia
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    samsm - that assumes the end user knows the difference. They'll pick what they want purely on how it gets displayed - "I want the phone number to stand out so I'll make it Heading 1", "I don't want bullets so I'll just do this list by hitting enter at the end of each line".

    No amount of checks & measures is going to be able to identify the nature of the content entered, which means validation is impossible to sustain without some pretty expensive, time consuming hand holding.

    Personally I've got better things to do than manage sites I've developed CMS's for ... and I'd hate to be saying to a client, "Whenever you edit a page or create a new page you'll need to give me a call so I can go through it for you to ensure it meets standards you've never heard of and then bill you for that, on top of what I just billed you for the cms which you thought gave you control over the site."

  10. #110
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ben
    Although automated checks are limited in what they can and cannot check on they would be a useful first line. It's something we have built into our tool, but there are external paid for tools such as SiteMorse and Bobby, or even free tools like webxact.

  11. #111
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD Australia
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are you Red Ant as in the UK guys?

  12. #112
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That sounded a loaded question ;-)

    Yes, I'm part of the development team over here.

  13. #113
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD Australia
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's not a loaded question, I've been a fan of your work for ages. I know one of your guys.

    I even pilfered (the features anyway) your main sites accessibility settings for a project I'm working on too

  14. #114
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice to get good feedback. As per the accessibility settings pilfer away - although we're due to launch the new site soon and you might want to pilfer again ;-)

  15. #115
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD Australia
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It took half a day to implement the colour scheme / font settings / etc, I don't think I could handle anymore.

  16. #116
    ☆★☆★ 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 samsm
    It seems to me that it would be pretty easy (relatively speaking) to create a rich text editor that REALLY validated. You'd just give people choices based upon the type of data they had to enter, then (maybe) present them with design options based around available styles.

    There's no rich text editor that does that?
    XStandard lets the developer define their own styles and can restrict what users are allowed to enter. For the most part it does a good job if you configure it correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by benlowry
    No amount of checks & measures is going to be able to identify the nature of the content entered, which means validation is impossible to sustain without some pretty expensive, time consuming hand holding.

    Personally I've got better things to do than manage sites I've developed CMS's for ... and I'd hate to be saying to a client, "Whenever you edit a page or create a new page you'll need to give me a call so I can go through it for you to ensure it meets standards you've never heard of and then bill you for that, on top of what I just billed you for the cms which you thought gave you control over the site."
    So it's mostly a problem of user education? Why are you arguing against standards then?

  17. #117
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    XStandard is a really good tool. I just wish it were JavaScript rather than ActiveX.

  18. #118
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As an aside the options thing we were talking about can be found:

    http://www.redantdesign.com/accessib...ty_options.asp

  19. #119
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD Australia
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    vgarcia - of course it's a matter of user education, but what employee has a day or two to learn about proper use of html tags? Their site's going to work whether it's ul, ol, or just a pile of line breaks, so how do they justify giving Fred a half week off to learn about the difference?

    I'm not really against standards, I'm against people who discovered them last week and proceed to shove them down other peoples throats for wrong reasons like "browser compatibility", "professionalism", "more efficient code" etc, and proclaim anyone who doesn't worship them with equal fervour as inferior / amateur / hobbyist which is a mindset that I find offensive.

    Most of my work validates (at least at some stage in its life).

  20. #120
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by benlowry
    vgarcia - of course it's a matter of user education, but what employee has a day or two to learn about proper use of html tags?
    We've taken the following route to try and cage users in:

    http://www.thinkcolony.com/whatiscolony/benefits.asp

    It's under enforced accessibility, about half way down the page.

  21. #121
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD Australia
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's at the cost of end-user functionality though. You satisfy standards but risk not satisfying the client.

    Clients love tacky things like changing the colour of words/sentences/paragraphs, underlining, and especially copy & pasting their carefully planned article direct from Word along with the 5 fonts and 16 formatting variations they've carefully applied.

    What's their reaction like when their page gets converted into an accessible, standards-abiding page minus all their special little bits of fuglified formatting and how successful is it at stripping out non-standard / illogical tags without damaging the page it creates?

  22. #122
    SitePoint Addict Richard Conyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ben,
    I guess we're lucky with our client range that they tend to have corporate styles that they have to work to and we can integrate with. So in effect we're just making it easier for them to follow their styles.

    The tag strippers do a good job, and they do loose the formating placed their by word. With WYSIWYG and preview clients can see what is going to go live before it goes live.

    I think that authors get a little frustrated, but web admins and editors love having the extra control. After all getting the site designed cost money, to have it trashed by an author that likes playing with different fonts etc. frustrates them even more.

  23. #123
    ☆★☆★ 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 benlowry
    Clients love tacky things like changing the colour of words/sentences/paragraphs, underlining, and especially copy & pasting their carefully planned article direct from Word along with the 5 fonts and 16 formatting variations they've carefully applied.
    What kind of clients do you have? Most of the people I work for value consistency sitewide, and the less they have to think about it the better. If I can enforce consistency by only allowing the user to select certain styles, I've kept the site looking professional, and the reduced number of options forces the user to think about their content and not how it looks since it's already done. Another plus: less options = less confusion for the user.

  24. #124
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD Australia
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My clients range from small to corporate, but regardless of size there's usually only a single person or small group of people maintaining the content 'in their spare time'.

    The smaller businesses are the worst offenders for varying (or wanting/trying to) from the standard formatting in my experience, but they're the quicky jobs that pay the rent.

    I don't provide 'do-it-yourself formatting' with the rich text editor I use (Cameron Adams' WidgEditor - http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/widgEditor/), there's a stylesheet and any spans/fonts they enter get removed.

  25. #125
    ~unplugged Ainslie X11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Langley, Virginia
    Posts
    1,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by benlowry
    Clients love tacky things like changing the colour of words/sentences/paragraphs, underlining, and especially copy & pasting their carefully planned article direct from Word along with the 5 fonts and 16 formatting variations they've carefully applied.



    Sad, but so true. Even more sad, once they've done that they race-off and change their job title to "web publisher" or "creative director", or even more distressing "web designer"


    working hard is hard work


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
  •