|
 |
| Home | Demo | Services | Features | Help | User Forum | Blog | About | |
|
#1
03-31-2006, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Validation
Mentioned on another thread but maybe worthy of a new thread.....
We relative beginners are told that our sites should validate. I have just checked the following for validation at..... http://validator.w3.org/ Google doesn't validate.... 45 errors. Aol has 241 errors. Lycos has 250 errors. Amazon has over 1000 errors!! NASA failed USAtoday has 75 errors. Stacounter has 42 Yahoo has 304. My own homepage has 29, so I'm the best of a bad bunch...... .....any comments on all this? As a relative beginner I am more confused and puzzled that ever. 
|
|
#2
03-31-2006, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Albert, I raised this very question a few weeks ago when I drew everyones attention to the royal web site. I think everyones view on validation was clearly stated then. Just because some large companies choose to ignore this issue does not mean it is right. We each have to decide for ourselves how much 'quality' we wish to inject in our sites. For some, we want it as good as we can get it. For others, anything will do as long as it sort of works. I know which group I am in.
__________________
... John ... .gif)
|
|
#3
03-31-2006, 03:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 When valuating the amount of errors on sites, there is a need to understand the reason for a large number of errors, e.g. compared to yours. But in the "bottom" it's bad coding (of the database and/or templates) and it's sad big companies like Amazon, AOL and Yahoo have people in charge of their site that can't do better. The reason for a lot of errors I belive is that the sites are missing the doctype declaration in the top of the pages. The validator then points out things that is an error because of that. The errors would probably be less with the right doctype added for that particular page. Large sites like Amazon are data base driven sites and the link query strings on the pages is full of the ampersand "&" signs insted of the "&" entity. Every ampersand "produce" several errors, and there is a huge number of them on every page. I'll guess it would not be difficult to fix that in the data base, if somebody on the company would care about it. |
|
#4
03-31-2006, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is a third group. One to which I belong. Those who believe validation is important - within reason. I won't spend valuable time trying to fix a validation error that has no affect on any visitors, however I will use the validator to identify serious errors.
For instance, I won't put an alt tag in for a transparent spacer image that has no meaning for any visitor - vision impaired or otherwise. If I do anything with those I just put in alt="". On the other hand, an important content image must have an alt tag with text if you want to make the site usable for anyone with vision problems. The same holds true for audio files that will be inaccessible for the hearing impaired or graphics used as links. Then there are the errors that are not really errors, like the way the validator handles scripts. I once spent two hours fixing all of the scripts on one of my sites just to satisfy the validator. I realized that I had wasted time that could have been spent creating new content. Never again. There are other reported errors that must be fixed, like improperly nested tags. These are the kinds of errors I use the validator to find. I suppose the best way to work with the validator is to validate the first page of a new design and then build the rest of the pages from this valid page. That way each new page should only have a very few, minor errors. In the end it all depends on how well you understand the seriousness of the reported errors and what type of personality you have. People who have never ignored a "Stay off the grass" sign or never cross even an empty road until the light changes to green probably fix even the most insignificant error. Others might say, "well enough". I'm in the latter group. Last edited by jonra01; 04-01-2006 at 06:32 AM. |
|
#5
03-31-2006, 03:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't know the answer and don't want to google it, but I wonder how long the WC3 standards has been. I would hazard a guess that the majority of the software writing companies made hay while the sunshined, made their pots of money. And now that don't want to be bothered to update with the times, after all time is money.
__________________
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference. |
|
#6
03-31-2006, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I would hazard a guess that the majority of the software writing companies made hay while the sunshined, made their pots of money. And now that don't want to be bothered to update with the times, after all time is money."
Can't agree with you there, Sharron. As you know, I use Serif and major updates come through at least once a year. As I said in the other thread, not only are the facilities improved but the coding is improved each time. Companies that don't keep updating like that would soon fall by the wayside. Alan. |
|
#7
03-31-2006, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, I've deliberately steered clear of this debate for a couple of days, but can no longer resist. So here's my thinking:
1. Commercial organisations are driven by profit. If their "invalid" code makes them the same or more profit as they would get after paying to create "perfect" code, then they will stick with "invalid" code. 2. The only reasons for them to change their economically rational behaviour are: a) If laws are passed that make "invalid" code illegal; or b) Browsers and search engines start penalising the "invalid" code in some way that is sufficiently significant to make it economical to meet the standards exactly (eg by displaying horrible looking pages or dropping search engine rankings) 3. There are indeed disability/access laws in place in some jurisdictions, and it is usually in companies' interests to comply with these - but that still does not require "perfect" code. 4. None of this means that there is anything "wrong" or "bad" about someone who gets a kick out of creating things that comply perfectly with a set of rules propounded by someone else (in this case the W3C standard setters). People generally like a challenge, and this one is just as valid as deciding to run a marathon, climb a mountain, or do Su Doku. 5. But nor is it "wrong" or "bad" of someone else (big company, small company, hobbiest or whatever) to decide they don't need perfect code to achieve what they want to achieve with their site. |
|
#9
03-31-2006, 04:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes, but how do they know a better coding would not give them more profits if they don't try it out? There is a lot of commersial sites, where it is very difficult (if not impossible) to use one or more of the other browsers. Mostly however it's the ordering and payment procedure that fails, even if I can browse the pages. I could go to the site with IE if I really need to. But I have yet to find that need for any of those sites. I choose to go someware else Well, in time they will get into troubble with their sites because of the errors, as the development of web coding and browsers goes further into standards. 5. But nor is it "wrong" or "bad" of someone else (big company, small company, hobbiest or whatever) to decide they don't need perfect code to achieve what they want to achieve with their site. I would agree, if it was not for the reason a lot of people keeps asking and wondering why their pages don't look similar in different browsers. Some are dissatisfied even with minor differences 
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
