You need a <title>
And besides, a real man wouldn’t use a transitional DTD 
Could you please explain the DTD part of your post ?
…and yes…he needs a <title>, but he can’t declare a <title> without a <head>
Authors should use the Strict DTD unless they need the
presentation control for user agents that don't (adequately)
support style sheets.
Straight from the Transitional DTD. (Well from the HTML4.01 DTD, but the XHTML1.0 DTD says “This is the same as HTML 4 Transitional except for changes due to the differences between XML and SGML.”)
Unless you’re using frames and need target attributes, I can’t think of a good reason to use the transitional DTD.
What are you trying to say?
Are you using HTML 2.0 ?
What I’m trying to say is that a professional should use a strict DTD. Transitional DTDs were designed for legacy documents, not new documents.
That’s a pretty idiotic way to eliminate a lot of really great web developers
-
Most of the js written is never going to be “error free”. If it doesn’t pass jslint, then it’s crap. If it does pass jsLint, you can ignore everything else because they probably know what they’re doing.
-
Validators are going to complain about attributes like “autocomplete” and “rel” being “non-standard”. Guess what? They’re necessary in many situations.
-
warnings or errors in the CSS? Christ, I hope you never have to support IE. If a web developer doesn’t know the easiest way to fix 99% of IE problems (using the non-standard zoom: property), then you shouldn’t be hiring them. But this will make their CSS fail to validate.
Personnally, I’d separate the graphics from the (dynamic) code. I wouldn’t expect a web developper to be both a graphics genius and a code wizard (by code I mean dynamic stuff like PHP, ASP, Perl, JS etc.). The reason is fairly simple: They’re two completely different fields, and usually (!) a tech freak is not a very visual person, and a graphics freak doesn’t like the dryness of coding. At least according to my experience. If I (designer) get a request for a quote, I first ask a bunch of programmers I know how much they would charge, then I’d design the web site (includin html and CSS) and the programmer does all the MySQL and PHP mumbo jumbo. I just can’t stand programming 
My 0.02 €
I agree completely. If you have a techie do your website, you’ll end up with a website that looks like a techie did it. A web design is exactly that, a “design”. If money is not an issue I would suggest that you find a professional graphic designer (they usually have a nice portfolio that you can look over) and have them design for you that perfect website. Then when that’s done you can find a techie with a super duper techie degree with reference to prove and have him/her code the site for you and turn it into a working website.
The simple pages of google are not an accident. They were thought out and designed by visual pros.
Hi All,
I’m new to the forum.
I would have to agree with csswiz on this (and disagree with feros - many posts ago), as I believe that if you are a proficient developer, the whole coding / validation / css should be good too.
Going back to the original web development qualifications; it should be fairly obvious that when visiting the personal site of a developer - assuming they have one, as so many do - that they have either taken pride in what they have done, or not.
From my experience this theory tends to hold true.
Regards,
Matt
So if two people are working together on a webite, what does the techie’ do while the designer is busy designing? He’ll probably sit around for a while waiting for a site to code, wasting your money. Vice versa, what does a designer do when the site is designed?
If you can hire Web Developers who can design AND code then I definately would. This would allow for a smaller team that would understand a website from all aspects. This way a smaller team of designers/developers could probably design the graphics and page, code the frontend and the backend easily and more efficiently.
In the software industry nowadays (apparently, from what I heard from a speaker who came into uni to address working in industry), a lot of companies are using much smaller teams of people who are skilled in everything. This allows for analysis, design, development, testing and everything else to be done quicker and time to be spent more efficiently. If this is so, why can’t it be used in Web Design/Development?
I’m assuming he meant <html /> to be a joke. In XHTML a tag like that is self closing (it serves as the opening and closing tag) and is used for tags like <br /> to pass validation. The joke was that he’s not going to write out everything inside the HTML tag, since we all know what’s in there anyways. (Like title tags, etc…)
I think the post was referring to a previous one that said it should be a requirement to belt out a doctype from memory. (I’m kind of impressed if he did, because I sure as hell can’t!)
Hire someone with passion and a brain. If they have the drive and the “talent” (ability to grow and take input) then that is who I would hire. Having passion is a tall order. I’ve known many developers and some just don’t have the heart to care about what they are producing. I would rather pay for a self motivated individual then someone with all the knowledge and/or official degrees but no goals on how they are going to make what they are doing better or new each time.
Hi there,
I was hoping for a reply like this, because I want to clarify a few things about how the designer/developper co-operation can work.
I am a freelance web designer. People contact me and want a quote. So what goes in that quote? Only time actually spent working on the project. Wich means that the company who hires me doesn’t have to worry about a bored coder, because they won’t even know about it. And anyway: In every single web site project I have done so far, my coders were never bored, because we work together on the project, not in turns, at least 85% of the time.
My experience is just that the all-in-one design/code developper guru genius is a very, very rare species, and if you find one, they’re very expensive. Often a lot more expensive and sometimes even less productive than a graphics/code-team. Why? Because I can only work for 4 hours/day on one single client, because otherwise I get sloppy and bored of the project. So even if I could technically code, I wouldn’t do it because I’d just lose my “drive” and my concentration. Two people could work on the project full time at maximum efficiency. It’s a bit like the Ford model, the assembly line model. Just a bit though. Split up the work for higher efficiency. Don’t make people do jobs they can technically do but secretely hate.
And please keep in mind that the client only pays for working time, not for coffee/lunch/boredom-time.
Many college and university majors (as well as courses) play to the desire, not the need. As impressive as AS or BS degrees in computer science may be, many graduates of those degree programs are “unemployable” (which may be why the field has taken a nose dive in enrollments in the past few years).
Similarly, the “graphics” side of the fence seems to be as bad; many of the “skills” taught seem impressive in the classroom, but much less so in the real world. The comments are not intended to demean the instruction as much as give fair warning to both prospective students and prospective employers–many “appropriately titled” degree programs have content that is almost pure fluff. While that may be annoying to employers who cannot use degrees as a hiring filter, it is disastrous to students who spend tens of thousands of dollars for an education they believe will prepare them for employment in a good paying technical field, only to find after graduation that they lack the skills to hold even entry-level positions in their field of choice.
(Opinions based on experience. I have several of those “appropriately titled” degrees.)
I don’t think that is totally accurate that they would need a degree in Computer Science. I have an applied degree in Digital Media from a tech institute that is well known and respected in this area. Why would that not be acceptable?
I think that educational qualifications should vary depending on youre geographical region (for the reason stated above). Also, around here, there is a Digital Media Association, that web designers and developers can join. Check your local area for a similar group, and ask them for reccomendations. Our DMA will suggest qualifications to look for in web designers/developers.
I can’t quite keep up with all of the responses but I remember the Microsoft certification years ago being a fiasco. So many ended up being “paper” certified. We used to call them some name but I can’t remember anymore. So I am not so sure “certifications” are the answer.
Ultimately it comes down to experience, an eye for design, how you treat your client/customer relationships, and having a passion for it. If you don’t have what it takes, it seems to me people would not pay you money to do it. Obviously there is more to it than that but you get my drift 
It was a generalization, nothing more. Besides, frankly, I prefer raw talent and the ability to learn independantly (as in being self-taught) far more than any college’s useless piece of toilet paper called a degree anyway.
Paper MCSE. Demand for the certification dropped in direct proportion to the number of holders. A similar thing happened to (the previusly well-paid) CCNA Cisco certification. Junior colleges took up the banner and began churning out “Cisco Technology” and “Microsoft Technology” majors at an alarming rate (for anyone already in the field). Average compensation for CCNAs dropped from low sixties into the low thirties in a couple of years. From one of the best-paid mid-range vendor certifications, it became one of the lowest, with holders typically earning less than entry-level A+ computer technicians.
Dan,
I am a web rookie and still learning on my own right now. I really want to master XHTML, CSS, Javascript, Actionscript, etc. but so far, i have not even digged too deep into the surface.
Earlier in the post you have mentioned to let the person go if they did not have a valid CSS. However, I had that problem with a test site I am currently experimenting on and people have told me that its not a big deal:
The important part is the HTML markup or am I wrong?
I really do like your attitude of showing people the door if they dont have the right coding down because I believe that clean valid coding is very important.
I am still learning and hope to develop into a successful web developer. What do you recommend? I know that you have mentioned that school is a waste of money. I am currently debating if I should go to school to get a web certificate or not. Of course, you already answered that and mentioned that it is a “useless” piece of paper.
What do you recommend then?
thanks,
jason