standards

01-26-2004

Two questions:
Any ideas on how many U.S. sites are complient with web standards and are
using CSS?

And - if there is a push by state and federal agencies to make them
compliment - why are other commercial sites and non-profit not joining in by
remaking their sites?

I have gone to a few non-profit sites and have found that their sites were -
or are - still using tables for layout and not the <style> [form] / <body>
[content] format.

If the user resizes the screen the layout gets lopped off.

Any URL's would be helpful.
Thank you.
TR

01-26-2004

its only law if you operate a venture where accessibility is a requirement
of your bricks and mortar business...

as for deadlines, i believe it was back in 1999!

mark

"_ritter_" <tony@gonefishing_NO_guideservice_SPAM_.com> wrote in message
news:40156047$...
> Two questions:
> Any ideas on how many U.S. sites are complient with web standards and are
> using CSS?
>
> And - if there is a push by state and federal agencies to make them
> compliment - why are other commercial sites and non-profit not joining in
by
> remaking their sites?
>
> I have gone to a few non-profit sites and have found that their sites
were -
> or are - still using tables for layout and not the <style> [form] / <body>
> [content] format.
>
> If the user resizes the screen the layout gets lopped off.
>
> Any URL's would be helpful.
> Thank you.
> TR
>
>

01-26-2004

_ritter_ schrieb:
>
> Two questions:
> Any ideas on how many U.S. sites are complient with web standards and are
> using CSS?

Two or three, give or take a few.

> And - if there is a push by state and federal agencies to make them
> compliment - why are other commercial sites and non-profit not joining in by
> remaking their sites?

a) It costs time, money, and effort
b) The people in charge don't want to spend the time and the money or
make the effort because they can't figure out the benefits.

> Any URL's would be helpful.

URLs about what, precisely?

Matthias

01-26-2004

In article <40156047$>,
tony@gonefishing_NO_guideservice_SPAM_.com says...
> Two questions:
> Any ideas on how many U.S. sites are complient with web standards and are
> using CSS?

18.

> And - if there is a push by state and federal agencies to make them
> compliment - why are other commercial sites and non-profit not joining in by
> remaking their sites?

Cost. If it works, don't fix it.

> I have gone to a few non-profit sites and have found that their sites were -
> or are - still using tables for layout and not the <style> [form] / <body>
> [content] format.

Tut-tut.

> If the user resizes the screen the layout gets lopped off.

That isn't necessarily solved by converting to a CSS-based layout.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php

01-28-2004

_ritter_ wrote:
> Two questions:
> Any ideas on how many U.S. sites are complient with web standards and are
> using CSS?
>

Sites using CSS might be as high as 50%, maybe more.
Sites having valid (validated with W3C validator) markup code: maybe 2%.
Sites with their CSS code valid: maybe 4%.
Sites having valid markup code and valid CSS code: 1%. W3C estimate at
1% too.

> And - if there is a push by state and federal agencies to make them
> compliment - why are other commercial sites and non-profit not joining in by
> remaking their sites?
>

First of all, revamping and improving a whole site costs time and
requires competent and skilled web developers. Who are site owners going
to turn to? Normally, for such work, they would turn to their own
website employees or website contractors but since the invalid site is
what they produce to begin with, you can then draw 2 consequences from this:
1- they do not have the skills to redesign and upgrade the site,
otherwise they would have done so at their first trial. In most cases,
their training was done with DreamWeaver 3 or DreamWeaver 4 and a few
years of copy-N-paste done anywhere/everywhere and they were trained to
do a quick job which looks good. They were not trained to do a good job
based on solid understanding and grasp of concepts.

2- they would themselves need to convince their website owners of the
need to upgrade and improve the site. Since they don't have the
competence, how could you expect them to document, to substantiate the
need to upgrade the site? In a sense, you would expect them to explain
to their bosses that they did a lousy job because they were incompetent.

You may think I'm exaggerating here but I assure that the
"if it looks good on this machine with this browser, then everything
is/should be ok"
is a powerful (and hard to combat) myth regarding the web. You can say
that this is the Peters principle applied to the WYSIWYG feature.

DU

> I have gone to a few non-profit sites and have found that their sites were -
> or are - still using tables for layout and not the <style> [form] / <body>
> [content] format.
>
> If the user resizes the screen the layout gets lopped off.
>
> Any URL's would be helpful.
> Thank you.
> TR
>
>

01-29-2004

In article <bv9i37$coa$>,
says...
> > Two questions:
> > Any ideas on how many U.S. sites are complient with web standards and are
> > using CSS?
> Sites using CSS might be as high as 50%, maybe more.
> Sites having valid (validated with W3C validator) markup code: maybe 2%.
> Sites with their CSS code valid: maybe 4%.
> Sites having valid markup code and valid CSS code: 1%. W3C estimate at
> 1% too.

Based on these figures it appears that the "standards" and not really
"standards"

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

01-29-2004

Whitecrest wrote:

> In article <bv9i37$coa$>,
> says...
>
>>>Two questions:
>>>Any ideas on how many U.S. sites are complient with web standards and are
>>>using CSS?
>>
>>Sites using CSS might be as high as 50%, maybe more.
>>Sites having valid (validated with W3C validator) markup code: maybe 2%.
>>Sites with their CSS code valid: maybe 4%.
>>Sites having valid markup code and valid CSS code: 1%. W3C estimate at
>>1% too.
>
>
> Based on these figures it appears that the "standards" and not really
> "standards"
>
>

The only current, "de facto" standards which massively impose itselves
are web developer incompetence and the generalization of WYSIWYG.

DU

01-29-2004

In article <bvb9vo$qh9$>,
says...
> > Based on these figures it appears that the "standards" and not really
> > "standards"
> The only current, "de facto" standards which massively impose itselves
> are web developer incompetence and the generalization of WYSIWYG.

Yea, I guess what ever you want to believe...

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FRS standards / Atchitecture Design of a System	SMG	ASP .Net	0	07-28-2004 05:19 AM
Evolving Web App Standards and ASP.NET	=?Utf-8?B?bWtsYXBw?=	ASP .Net	4	07-20-2004 07:52 AM
asp.net and Web Accessibility Standards	Paul G	ASP .Net	1	02-26-2004 10:26 PM
coding standards	Jim Culver	ASP .Net	4	09-18-2003 02:59 AM
coding standards	shbgupta	ASP .Net	2	06-27-2003 08:48 AM