2.1 or 3.0?

[2012]

Hi,

So I'm hiring someone to do website coding for me & I don't know what the norm is now. I read somewhere that some people don't want to switch to 3.0, so when they give me sites they have coded, should I be expecting 2.1 or 3.0 or a combination of both?

Thanks


Michelle

[ralph.m]

If you mean CSS3, then it's only in draft form at the moment, meaning it's got a long way to go before being ready. And 3 is just an extension of 2, so 2 will never be out of date, as such. There are some little bits of 3 that are being used now—such as rounded corners—but they don't work in all browsers, so you have to live with a slightly different look from browser to browser (unless some kind of JavaScript fix is used).

[2012]

k, thanks


Michelle

[ralph.m]

BTW, the same applies to HTML5 (more so, indeed) ... so also beware if someone tries to seduce you with too much of that.

[TehYoyo]

I would classify HTML5 as a tad bit more unstable than CSS3. This said because if an HTML5 tag doesn't work, then it will break. But if a CSS3 property such as, say, rounded corners isn't supported, there'll be a straight corner as normal.

I would ask the designer/developer for a mix of 2.1 and 3.0.

~TehYoyo

[RyanReese]

I would classify HTML5 as a tad bit more unstable than CSS3. This said because if an HTML5 tag doesn't work, then it will break. But if a CSS3 property such as, say, rounded corners isn't supported, there'll be a straight corner as normal.

I would ask the designer/developer for a mix of 2.1 and 3.0.

~TehYoyo

I'd put CSS3 as more unstable. HTML5 is only unstable for IE, although that's known due to IE8 and below not supporting HTML5. Markup generally never has an issue with stability. What's been unstable for you in HTML5 TehYoyo?

In IE, if it sees an HTML5 element (or element it doesn't recognize) it mimics what you describe happens to CSS, and it ignores it.

[TehYoyo]

I'd put CSS3 as more unstable. HTML5 is only unstable for IE, although that's known due to IE8 and below not supporting HTML5. Markup generally never has an issue with stability. What's been unstable for you in HTML5 TehYoyo?

I mean, your point is valid. I say that CSS3 is stable because if it doesn't work, then it just makes a normal element. If the transition effect on hover doesn't work, then it just skips straight to the end result - which is what we want the user to see, even if there's no "cool" transition. We don't have to create fallbacks, etc. that take the place for unsupporting browsers. With HTML5, if we don't use the JavaScript shiv or the user doesn't enable JS in their browser or blocks it from working in IE, then the layout doesn't necessarily break, but it doesn't work as we want. Plain and simple. Or we provide fallbacks that take place.

~TehYoyo

[2012]

So I have a couple of additional questions...

1. In my hiring ad I say I'm looking for W4C valid & semantic sites. That's correct how I'm phrasing it, right?
2. What would you say if a so called "website coder" told you the reason his sites aren't valid is b/c the client didn't ask for it?

Thanks


Michelle

[ralph.m]

In my hiring ad I say I'm looking for W4C valid & semantic sites. That's correct how I'm phrasing it, right?

No, not quite right. The W4C is currently only in draft mode, and won't truly exist for many years ... though some people who love to be cutting edge are pretending there is one.

Actually, I'm joking. The organization you are referring to is the W3C. What you are looking for is a web designer who understands and cares about valid and semantic code.

What would you say if a so called "website coder" told you the reason his sites aren't valid is b/c the client didn't ask for it?

Well, image a car mechanic standing before a judge, saying—"Well, your Honor, I didn't screw his wheel nuts on because he didn't ask me to, so it's not my fault he's dead."

Just because someone doesn't ask you to do your job properly is not an excuse not to do it.

[RyanReese]

So I have a couple of additional questions...

1. In my hiring ad I say I'm looking for W4C valid & semantic sites. That's correct how I'm phrasing it, right?

I wouldn't go all out asking for this one. With CSS, a lot of times, it's impossible to have a valid site due to vendor extensions or any IE specific hacks.

2. What would you say if a so called "website coder" told you the reason his sites aren't valid is b/c the client didn't ask for it?

Thanks


Michelle

I'd say it's time to find a new coder. It's not hard to keep a website valid, and even if asked, it should take ~5 minutes to fix any and all errors.

[2012]

I would classify HTML5 as a tad bit more unstable than CSS3. This said because if an HTML5 tag doesn't work, then it will break. But if a CSS3 property such as, say, rounded corners isn't supported, there'll be a straight corner as normal.

I would ask the designer/developer for a mix of 2.1 and 3.0.

~TehYoyo

Sorry for the delay.

Well these guys aren't even bothering to tell me what they wrote it in & someone gave me a 3.0 site which didn't validate in the validator & so then I got really confused. I didn't even know there were 2 validators LOL

And he's telling me 3 is out.


Michelle

[kohoutek]

Your HTML documents should be valid, unless your developer/designer uses html5. The latter is still in draft modus, so it won't validate either as it's not the current standard recommendation.

If your developer/designer uses CSS3, your stylesheet will NOT validate because CSS3 is not yet a standard either (draft). It's progressive and most CSS3 features don't work yet. A developer/designer can, however, take advantage of some CSS3 features that are implemented in some browsers (not all). This will instantly invalidate the stylesheet, however, which isn't a big deal, really.

CSS3 is just an extension of CSS2.1, has a few more properties to choose from, but it's still CSS and CSS3 pages do not exist, only stylesheets that utilize CSS3 features along with current standards (CSS2.1 is the current standard).

[2012]

No, not quite right. The W4C is currently only in draft mode, and won't truly exist for many years ... though some people who love to be cutting edge are pretending there is one.

Actually, I'm joking. The organization you are referring to is the W3C. What you are looking for is a web designer who understands and cares about valid and semantic code.



Well, image a car mechanic standing before a judge, saying—"Well, your Honor, I didn't screw his wheel nuts on because he didn't ask me to, so it's not my fault he's dead."

Just because someone doesn't ask you to do your job properly is not an excuse not to do it.

Yeh I was like... WTH LOL, where did that come from. I must have been REALLY tired when I wrote that, & look at that, I even guessed the next era of writing proper code LMAO. Thanks for that, I needed that laugh.

I figured someone would say what I was thinking (it's not my fault), I just thought I'd ask b/c they all say the customer wants the sites done fast.

I had to laugh even more when you used the "he didn't ask me to" bit b/c here where I'm living now in Latin America, the locals in many countries use this as their favorite line along with the "it's not my fault."

I'm never quite sure if this is laziness or just sheer stupidity (I'm positive it's more the latter) & I'm beginning to see a pattern that many foreigners in many countries think this way as I have hired many who think this way & they aren't anywhere near LA.

Scary!!


Michelle

[2012]

I wouldn't go all out asking for this one. With CSS, a lot of times, it's impossible to have a valid site due to vendor extensions or any IE specific hacks.

Yes I heard this one too, the plugins on WP did it.

I'd say it's time to find a new coder. It's not hard to keep a website valid, and even if asked, it should take ~5 minutes to fix any and all errors.

I'll have to disagree.

I've had soooo many people work on my site over the years, that I'm now finding out the CSS file is sooo bad, no one can go in & fix anything. It pisses me off, as I hired each person based on them telling me they knew how to write clean valid code.

I'll repeat what I've been saying for years now. Someone needs to start a screening service to screen both website coders & programmers re: their code.

Us companies (even large ones) don't know a thing about code & are often duped into hiring people just based on their sales pitches, not their actual skill.

Then you normally don't find out there is a problem until years later when the NEXT website coder or programmer tells you there's a problem.


Michelle

[ralph.m]

I've had soooo many people work on my site over the years, that I'm now finding out the CSS file is sooo bad

I find that if someone asks me for a lot of updates on a site that I built myself, the CSS can end up a mess. This happened on one site where the client kept asking for radically different designs over time—menus moving all over the place, individual page layouts changing and so on. Nowadays, I wouldn't work that way. I'd say—You want a new design, we start from scratch.

[xhtmlcoder]

Yes, Mich a lot of them are cowboys for certain with smooth talk. To be brutally honest I wouldn't go anywhere near some with a bargepole regarding their coding skills. HTML5 is pretty much a large non normative joke at the moment and mostly pointless as far as markup goes.

You can actually write valid code and it be poor as far as semantics are concerned. Though if those potential candidates could not even tell you what standards they were working with it's a sure sign they might be lacking in grey matter.

[Paul O'B]

2. What would you say if a so called "website coder" told you the reason his sites aren't valid is b/c the client didn't ask for it?

The right answer would have been to say that the sites don't validate but for valid reasons. (e.g. vendor extensions and ie hacks etc which cater for known deficiencies but don't compromise the layout).

Validation is not a badge to be worn but a means to an end. Just because a site doesn't validate doesn't mean that the coder hasn't taking a lot of care with it. On the other hand someone who takes shortcuts with code just because they don't think the client will know should be avoided.

[2012]

I find that if someone asks me for a lot of updates on a site that I built myself, the CSS can end up a mess. This happened on one site where the client kept asking for radically different designs over time—menus moving all over the place, individual page layouts changing and so on. Nowadays, I wouldn't work that way. I'd say—You want a new design, we start from scratch.

Nope, never asked for a new design, just fixes or changes to the pages.

[2012]

The right answer would have been to say that the sites don't validate but for valid reasons. (e.g. vendor extensions and ie hacks etc which cater for known deficiencies but don't compromise the layout).

Validation is not a badge to be worn but a means to an end. Just because a site doesn't validate doesn't mean that the coder hasn't taking a lot of care with it. On the other hand someone who takes shortcuts with code just because they don't think the client will know should be avoided.

Yes, but clients will never know whether this is the case, b/c we aren't website coders.


Michelle

[2012]

You can actually write valid code and it be poor as far as semantics are concerned. Though if those potential candidates could not even tell you what standards they were working with it's a sure sign they might be lacking in grey matter.

Well I don't think they think anyone is going to check their site for validation. I have yet to see one coder tell me what version of html/CSS they coded the sites with & some even give me sites that are down LOL


Michelle

[Paul O'B]

Yes, but clients will never know whether this is the case, b/c we aren't website coders.
Michelle

Yes I realise that but the point I was making was that from the answer you received you could gleam that the coder wasn't proud of their work otherwise they would have qualified with the reasons why the site wasn't valid - other than the client didn't ask

[xhtmlcoder]

That is a lame excuse "the client didn't ask" more like; the coder wasn't aware or didn't care.

[Stomme poes]

Welcome to the Lemon Market!

It's like buying a used car without being yourself a mechanic. You have no idea how good or bad a state the car is in. Someone can sell you a lemon and you'd never know (well, until later when it breaks down all the time).

I'll repeat what I've been saying for years now. Someone needs to start a screening service to screen both website coders & programmers re: their code.

Us companies (even large ones) don't know a thing about code & are often duped into hiring people just based on their sales pitches, not their actual skill.

Yeah, there has been a huge discussion about this at Fronteers (a Dutch professional group for front-end developers). The problems that came up were huge (who decides what the criteria are? And who watches the watchmen?) and ultimately people were more against the idea than for it.

Partially because we've all seen "certification" (think Microsoft products certs) that don't mean anything, or you went to a class. Partially because we rely very much on our networks as developers to let clients know both things like where we are on the price range and whether we are good or not.

What would be really helpful for you right now is to have a trusted front-ender who knows what's what who you don't hire and doesn't write code for you, but simply explains what your possible hires are doing and whether it's retarded or not. Kinda like finding a mechanic friend to bring with you when you're looking for a used car. I've seen a LOT of invalid code and often brittle or strange (but valid) techniques and usually I try to guess why the developer did it. Very often it seems to be something that was popular a few years ago (or a decade ago) as an idea and has diffused through the developer community, and when later it either turned out to be bad or cause some problem (like with accessiblity for example) that information spreads much slower. I see it with settings of font sizes, image replacement techniques and float enclosing/clearing.

[Sega]

So I'm hiring someone to do website coding for me & I don't know what the norm is now. I read somewhere that some people don't want to switch to 3.0, so when they give me sites they have coded, should I be expecting 2.1 or 3.0 or a combination of both?

Some use HTML5, and many don't. I've seen many new sites using it. I feel in a year or so we'd probably be there with HTML5 *open to criticism*. CSS3 on the other hand can be used today. I use CSS3 pretty much all the time. For rounded corners and drop shadows. I don't go overboard with it because there are still some rendering issues which make your browser run slow.

DOCTYPES are important, but it's pretty easy to start using one DOCTYPE to another. My preference is xHTML STRICT. It's valid, clean and easy to use. There are no issue with xHTML and pretty much all the open-source CMS's still work as if they are working with xHTML.

Well I don't think they think anyone is going to check their site for validation. I have yet to see one coder tell me what version of html/CSS they coded the sites with & some even give me sites that are down LOL

Not many check if code is validated. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, all have invalid code. It's more important for them to have the websites displayed properly on browsers than having valid code. My templates are valid, but once they become Wordpressed, they become invalid. Guess it's something we have to live with.

The best thing to do is send them a design and ask them to come up with a proposal breaking down what they will do and for what price. From there on out, you'd be set. If you're hiring somebody on-board to your company then you'd probably not have a clue what to do. Recently I designed a website for a client and they wanted somebody internal, but it did not work out for them as they had little clue on what to look for.

It might be worth asking a company specialized in hiring, like a recruitment agency to help. There are plenty of online services which convert designs to code for you, so depending on what is it you're going to do it might be worth going for an online service.

Hope this helps, and good luck.

[oddz]

I've seen a LOT of invalid code and often brittle or strange (but valid) techniques and usually I try to guess why the developer did it. Very often it seems to be something that was popular a few years ago (or a decade ago) as an idea and has diffused through the developer community, and when later it either turned out to be bad or cause some problem (like with accessiblity for example) that information spreads much slower. I see it with settings of font sizes, image replacement techniques and float enclosing/clearing.

In the cases of many CMSs that make it possible to provide web services to people on low budgets the advantages far out weigh imperfections client side. I'm not saying I agree with them but there is a reason for less than ideal mark-up. Like if you using Drupal you need to understand that your sacrificing client side perfection for flexibility without programming. WP much of the same though not early as powerful but a more business refined admin. I haven't done much work with Joomla or Magento but I would guess much of the same.

Whether you like it or not these systems make it possible to provide services without charging tens of thousands of dollars on custom development for medium to large projects. The reason(s) they output poor HTML by default may be debatable but there are reasons. Most of time reasons which provide more flexibility clients-side without needing to change any programming by providing wrappers(hook points) for just about any element that needs to be targeted by CSS or JS. Again not saying it is right but you can't simply discredit people who use these things and take on their inherit failures because in many cases it a question of budget.

Of course someone is going to come along and say this is what is inherently wrong with web development but I beg to differ. Considering it is solutions like that of Drupal, Magento, Joomla, etc that make it possible to provide web services to many people that they could otherwise not afford.

Good is really a relative term that is be based on a combination of budget, experience but most importantly balancing the negatives and positives of any solutions to deliver something that achieves the set business goals. Yeah… there are things technologically that *shouldn't be done but when/if those things get in the way it is then that a judgement call needs to made to whether something can be sacrificed (though maybe not ideal) to achieve the goals on a given budget. In some cases technical things can be sacrificed (though maybe not look as good in ones portfolio… so what) and in other cases they simply can't because of performance or some other other factor. It is all about balance and making the *right sacrifices to deliver a product that achieves *most of the intended business goals on the allocated budget.

Now if your developing sites as a hobby or tinkering in your basement that is another story…