Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Is W3c validation woth the money?

Reply
Thread Tools

Is W3c validation woth the money?

 
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> Well written HTML and CSS are done by people who are well versed in
> writing the two. The majority of the stuff on the web is done by people
> with a bare knowledge of DW or other graphic page generators.


I disagree (if you are commenting on commercial sites) I think the
overwhelming majority of professional web developers have the knowledge
and completely understand validation issues, but choose to (or are
forced to) ignore them to please marketing types.

Which may or may not be wrong, but that is a totally different argument.


--
-=tn=-
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leonard Blaisdell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
In article <xxLre.189$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Travis Newbury <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> > Well written HTML and CSS are done by people who are well versed in
> > writing the two. The majority of the stuff on the web is done by people
> > with a bare knowledge of DW or other graphic page generators.

>
> I disagree (if you are commenting on commercial sites)


I am.

> I think the
> overwhelming majority of professional web developers have the knowledge
> and completely understand validation issues, but choose to (or are
> forced to) ignore them to please marketing types.


Style over substance? Perhaps, but I think that substance could be well
argued over marketing style by a competent web professional.

> Which may or may not be wrong, but that is a totally different argument.


I think it's the difference between a good argument and a better one.
I'm not saying that marketing is defeated by the argument. That would be
self defeating to the company. I'm saying that marketing shouldn't be
given the last word on web design. Usability should. It benefits
marketing immensely, after all. It should be easy to sell.
To get back to the OP, validation is a powerful tool in getting there.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Adrienne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Travis Newbury
<(E-Mail Removed)> writing in news:ccIre.589$(E-Mail Removed):

> Simon wrote:
>> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows
>> the rules given by W3c.
>> But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I
>> automatically reject them if their site does not validate?
>> Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

>
> You should evaluate them on the ability to get the job done the way you
> need it to be done. If every site they have ever worked on validates
> or not is completely irrelevant. Can they make the site that you need
> them to make? If so, then they are a candidate for the position.
>


I have to disagree with you there. You can buy a brand new car, but it
turns out to be a lemon because no one looked under the hood. Same thing
with a site. The site may look great, but the underlying markup, and/or
server side coding could be a mess. Making changes to it in the future
could be costly in terms of time and money.

Trust me, I know. Nothing like nested tables and nested includes with no
commenting.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
 
Reply With Quote
 
neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
Without quill or qualm, simon quothed:

> All I was doing was ask a few questions in the hope to have a mature
> conversation about validation(s).


Well, there's standards and there's standards. There's the standard kind
of standards such as the w3c standards and then there's the not-so-
standard standards which came into standard usage in the more or less
standard way. The w3c is "The Standard" so to speak, but some of "The
Standard"'s standards aren't as standard as many of the more standard
though officially-unstandarized standards standardly purveyed by
Microsoft and other standard browser makers. Nevertheless, standard
wisdom dictates employing the standardized standards over the
unstandarized standards because a standarized standard is not
standardedly considered the equal of an unstandardized standard except in
a non-standard situation.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
neredbojias wrote:

> Without quill or qualm, simon quothed:
>
>> All I was doing was ask a few questions in the hope to have a mature
>> conversation about validation(s).

>
> Well, there's standards and there's standards. There's the standard kind
> of standards such as the w3c standards and then there's the not-so-
> standard standards which came into standard usage in the more or less
> standard way. The w3c is "The Standard" so to speak, but some of "The
> Standard"'s standards aren't as standard as many of the more standard
> though officially-unstandarized standards standardly purveyed by
> Microsoft and other standard browser makers. Nevertheless, standard
> wisdom dictates employing the standardized standards over the
> unstandarized standards because a standarized standard is not
> standardedly considered the equal of an unstandardized standard except in
> a non-standard situation.


Can I quote you on that?
(I'll correct the one typo )

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:04:26 +0100, "simon" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I am not sure I follow,


Web design is frequently a team effort. We already have to deal with
people of limited graphical ability, either through talent or through
disability. If you have someone with application-relevant experience and
good graphic abilities, then it's not too much trouble to have them work
on the earlier stages of the code, whilst another team player handles
validity.

Read Brooks' "Mythical Man Month" and his concept of the "language
lawyer" in a software team.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:52 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Style over substance? Perhaps, but I think that substance could be well
>argued over marketing style by a competent web professional.


I very much doubt it. In several years of working on web development,
with either large or small projects, I don't think I've ever seen this
happen successfully.

Much of this is because of timing. Hype comes before implementation, and
once hyped, it's hard to reverse or change any decision. You may also
have the usual sub-contractor issue: the main contractor is always
right, not the subbie - even though the subbie was asked specifically
because of their knowledge.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Well, there's standards and there's standards.


Surely. One man's standard is another man's kludge.

> There's the
> standard kind of standards such as the w3c standards


Nope, they never saw a standard, really. Not even an Internet standard.
This becomes obvious if you read some W3C recommendations _and_ some
standards issued by ISO, IEC, CEN, or other standards bodies.
Even the ISO HTML standard, itself an exercise in worse than futility,
is much more rigorous than the W3C recommendation it builds upon.

A standards body would hardly tolerate a situation like the one we have
in the CSS field: the official recommendation is CSS 2.0, but the W3C
itself does not even mention it on its CSS pages and instead
effectively propagates the CSS 2.1 draft as standard, although it
itself says that it is subject to change without notice and that it is
inappropriate to cite it as other than work in progress. The "Errata"
practice of W3C (making some fuzzy statements that range from typo
corrections to obscure notes on something being wrong, and declaring
this as official "Errata" to a specification) would be unimaginable in
real standardization.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> > I disagree (if you are commenting on commercial sites)

> Style over substance? Perhaps, but I think that substance could be well
> argued over marketing style by a competent web professional.


Sometime a developer that does know better hasn't got the choice. Not
everyone can just say "Well, I will stick to my morals even if my kids
starve."

> > Which may or may not be wrong, but that is a totally different argument.


> I'm saying that marketing shouldn't be
> given the last word on web design. Usability should.


Usibility and validating are two different issues. But I give
marketing a little more credit. They study what makes people buy. And
(disagreably) the web to many is nothing more than an extension of TV
or printed media.

If a non validating site (even one that is unusable to some) brings in
greater profits than a validating one, which is better for the company?

I look at it like this... (boring analogy coming) We all know that
smoking is bad for you. So I own a bar. And I think I will save my
customers from the hell of second hand smoke by banning smoking in the
bar.

Now we all know that is the right thing to do. But it is only better
for the bar (i.e. my income, and the income of my employees) if the non
smoking customers make up the money lost by the smokers I just kicked
out. If I can make just as much money, then it was a good decision.
If not, then I need to invite the smokers back.

--
-=tn=-

 
Reply With Quote
 
Blinky the Shark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2005
Els wrote:
> neredbojias wrote:


>> Without quill or qualm, simon quothed:


>>> All I was doing was ask a few questions in the hope to have a mature
>>> conversation about validation(s).


Well, there's standards and there's standards. There's the standard kind
of standards such as the w3c standards and then there's the not-so-
standard standards which came into standard usage in the more or less
standard way. The w3c is "The Standard" so to speak, but some of "The
Standard"'s standards aren't as standard as many of the more standard
though officially-unstandarized standards standardly purveyed by
Microsoft and other standard browser makers. Nevertheless, standard
wisdom dictates employing the standardized standards over the
unstandarized standards because a standarized standard is not
standardedly considered the equal of an unstandardized standard except in
a non-standard situation.

> Can I quote you on that?
> (I'll correct the one typo )


There are multiple instances of: [un]standarized instead of
[un]standardized.

Because of the nature of the post, I'll give him the creation of
"standardedly", but don't know if that was *really* done for humor value
or was actually just a misspelling of "standardly".

A-

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
 
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
Canon S3 IS woth the price? DznyNut@gmail.com Digital Photography 11 05-17-2006 07:57 AM
problem woth Kodak firmware upgrade quinte Digital Photography 13 12-14-2005 08:14 PM
How do I format my p.c woth a Windows 98 cd and a floppy disk? טל MCDST 2 12-04-2005 03:16 AM
QoS on Cisco 1721 woth ATM-interface Iskander Cisco 13 02-23-2005 10:03 PM
W3C Validator Icon and W3C Valdiator page Frank HTML 9 05-03-2004 09:32 AM



Advertisments