W3C Compliance Logos: Should You Display Them On Your Site?

[ro0bear]

A number of sitepointers thought a poll asking about W3C validation would be interesting.

ro0bear

[JimmyP]

IMHO there is no argument to be had here... option 2 is the only sensible one.

[ro0bear]

IMHO there is no argument to be had here... option 2 is the only sensible one.

People asked for a poll.... so i made one.

will be interesting to see what people vote for

ro0bear

[JimmyP]

I am also interested to see what people vote.

It was a good idea to start this poll ro0bear...

[AlienDev]

Option 2 hands down. Option 3 is just ludicrous - please tell me you were joking to even consider that?

[ro0bear]

Option 2 hands down. Option 3 is just ludicrous - please tell me you were joking to even consider that?

Believe it or not, I have heard designers say "as long as it works in IE, thats all that matters".

ro0bear

[Stormrider]

Option 2, of course

I'd be interested to see who votes for 3 :P I've seen websites that flat out don't work in firefox (one served the site as an 'application/octet-stream' for some unknown reason, which worked in IE and Opera, but not in Firefox - just asked to save a file - unbelievable!)

[felgall]

IE users make up less than 50% of my visitors so catering only to them would be to ignore the majority which would be stupid.

Equivalent poll to the one above.
1. I clean my teeth every morning and wear a sandwich board all day to let everyone know.
2. I clean my teeth every morning but don't bother telling people.
3. I can't be bothered cleaning my teeth, I can suck soup through a straw and that's all that matters.

[ro0bear]

IE users make up less than 50% of my visitors so catering only to them would be to ignore the majority which would be stupid.

Equivalent poll to the one above.
1. I clean my teeth every morning and wear a sandwich board all day to let everyone know.
2. I clean my teeth every morning but don't bother telling people.
3. I can't be bothered cleaning my teeth, I can suck soup through a straw and that's all that matters.

Lol, a little off topic, but you just reminded me of this mitchell and webb sketch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSlRyQfho4

ro0bear

[trishacupra]

Where's the "As long as it displays properly in the top four major browsers, with a couple of hacks, that's what really matters" option?

[ro0bear]

Where's the "As long as it displays properly in the top four major browsers, with a couple of hacks, that's what really matters" option?

Well I couldn't put every eventuality lol. Maybe 3 should have just been "I dont bother validating my code".

ro0bear

[AutisticCuckoo]

Validating is important, no matter how experienced you are, since every human being makes mistakes.

Whether or not to show the badges is a matter of taste (or perhaps lack thereof). I personally don't feel it's necessary any more than it would be necessary to state that I'm not a paedophile. Some things should just go without saying.

[Black Max]

Rarefied Sitepoint Developer Viewpoint: "Come on mates, we all validate our code, it goes without saying, those of us who don't are feeble-minded gits. To brag about it with a logo is n00bish."

Great Unwashed Proletariat Viewpoint: "As long as the naked girlies come up when I push the button, I don't give a d_mn what else is going on. That logo is ugly."

Somewhere in the Center: Most people don't know what it means because they don't do code of any kind. Of those who do, only a relatively small number will bother with viewing your source unless they have reason to do so -- they're at your site to put it to use, not to critique your design and code skills. The W3C logos don't mean anything except to those who know, a relatively small number, and of those who do, some appreciate the hard work and effort that goes into (legitimately) displaying it, and some take it as oafish bragging. Ultimately, it doesn't mean much except to the designer. In the case of the first site that I beat into compliance, I was thrilled to put the logo on -- it was a symbol of my personal achievement. But after a while, when designing for validation becomes the norm and not something extraordinary, the urge to wave your validation flag becomes less intense.

Conclusion: If someone's earned the right to display the logo, let 'em do it without being all condescending and superior about it, especially if they're an amateur designer. They'll eventually get over it and quit flying their validation flag for the world to see. It will just become part and parcel of their design and not something to brag about.

The poll should have had a fourth option: You should always validate your code, but displaying the logo is a matter of personal choice, and ultimately not a particularly important one. If you just absolutely must display a logo, the "tiny badges" linked to by Simsim on the companion thread are a good alternative:

http://www.zwahlendesign.ch/en/node/19

[W2ttsy]

when I've needed to display something, I've just put a small text link in the footer with the words "XHTML Valid" and "CSS Valid". Links then go to the same link the ugly badges go.

W2ttsy

[Kevin Boss]

comedy option 3

[felgall]

Validating your code and displaying the logo = amateur/newbie
Validating the code and not displaying the logo = professional
Not validating your code = why use a screwdriver when a hammer puts screws in faster and doesn't always cause the wood to split.

[Timbothecat]

Option 4:

If my client knows enough about web design to get himself into trouble but not enough to know that the logo is pointless, and asks for it to be displayed.

[locking]

I think it is good to show it, than you also have one link out to a trusted site, that can't hurt.

[Stormrider]

Anyone can link to a 'trusted site'. It's getting those sites to link back to you that helps :P