Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > standards

Reply
Thread Tools

standards

 
 
_ritter_
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mark | r
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      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$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matthias Gutfeldt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hywel Jenkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2004
In article <40156047$(E-Mail Removed)>,
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
DU
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      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
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Whitecrest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2004
In article <bv9i37$coa$(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
DU
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2004
Whitecrest wrote:

> In article <bv9i37$coa$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whitecrest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2004
In article <bvb9vo$qh9$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


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



Advertisments