Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.
Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?
P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ] http://www.subuse.net : text-only, low bandwidth, anonymous web forums
Jul 23 '05
250  10485 
JRS: In article <3b************ *@uni-berlin.de>, dated Wed, 30 Mar 2005
13:37:09, seen in news:comp.infos ystems. www.authoring.html, DU
<dr*******@hotN OSPAMmail.com> posted : Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <42************ ***@nowhere.not >, dated Sun, 27 Mar 2005
10:57:55, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, David Ross
<no****@nowhere .not> posted :
I can't possibly remember all the rules for each
of the 21 newsgroups where I frequently participate.
Then write them down, and refer to them when posting.
Readers are more important than authors; they need to be at least as
numerous, since otherwise the authors are superfluous.
Wow! I've never read something as harsch as this.
You must have had an unduly sheltered life.
You can not be serious.
Naturally I am. News is not intended as a write-only medium; it is only
useful if it is read. Hence the convenience of readers is of great
importance. Authors are merely the servants of their readers.
I remember a particular netscape
newsgroup: I was once told that my signature should not be more than 2
lines long and my signature had 3 links of references to FAQ and
resources links useful for readers of the group. My signature had 3
lines, not 2.
You should know, and follow, the accepted standards. For Usenet, that
is a SigSep line of "-- " (not always possible), followed by up to four
lines. Two lines may have been a local convention there, but it's not a
reasonable one.
More technical newsgroups will not like
snipping much.
Rubbish.
-----
In the discussion, there has been undue concentration on particular
aspects of validation.
Validation is assuredly useful as a way of increasing the chances that a
page that works as intended in the browsers used for test will also work
well in most other browsers. That is what standards are for. (It is
not really needed if the pages are written, tested, and read using only
one version of only one browser, as could be the case on an Intranet.)
But it is also useful as a means of catching what are basically typos -
cases when the structural content of the file is what the author will in
hindsight feel that it should not have been (possibly caused by blunders
in editing). One should see most of those in reading the rendered page,
of course; but a second opinion of often valuable and in this case
cheaply obtained.
For example, I check every .htm file that is new after every brief
session of editing, using W3's TIDY in check-only mode driven by a batch
file; I just type 'try' at the open DOS prompt. It may not be the best
available validator; but it picks up most errors very easily.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Travis Newbury wrote: I (having taught computer science for 5 years at Central Texas College)
Also understand how most people use most applications full screen. I
don't think it is so much "don't understand the benefits of multiple
windows" as it is a I, and others, just like my applications full
screen. Currently, I create SCORM learning content (mostly based in Flash)
Still close by? Which campus? I believe they have a campus in El Paso
which is about 80 miles away from me.
As for full-screen vs. windowed, I'm a multiple window kind of guy. I
like Alan's? comparison of screen desktop with desk desktop. I even go
further than that; I have a switchbox that switches between my Linux
desktop and Windows desktop and remote from both of these to other
systems as well so I may have 4 computers instantly available (push of a
button or click of the mouse) and each of those desktops may have a
dozen or more applications open. Maximized windows just get in my way.
I do not argue the benefits of web standards, accessibility, or the use
of css over tables for design of a site who's main goal is sales or
information meant for a generic audience. Our website does them all as
our audience is teachers and learning services at corporations. (sigh,
we are fixed width though). Our applications on the other hand are all
flash based, and if connecting to a SCORM LMS require javascript.
Speaking of which, Don't you find it interesting (as an educator) that
the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) SCORM standards (which are
probably more accepted as standards from their respected communities,
than w3c is with html and css) REQUIRE a browser with javascript AND if
using Flash, require IE (because of live connect). When the education
community got together and came up with a set of standards fr building
learning content, they decided this was the best way to go.
That's too bad. I cannot think of a single valid reason to ever require
JavaScript, Flash, cookies, etc. But, NMSU has done it too. I have
multiple browsers installed so that I can get into the system where I
put in my leave time logging into a system that requires cookies and
JavaScript (why not do the tracking on YOUR computer instead of mine?),
the system opens new windows (I've set it for tabs) for screens with ONE
link to get to another new window with ONE link. It is IMO a horrible
thoughtless mess that I MUST deal with because it's part of my job. I
have to log into it frequently to reset user passwords, approve my
employee's time sheets, and enter any leave I take.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******** *************** *******@ppepc56 .ph.gla.ac.uk.. . On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
Apparently I'm "really so clue-impaired." Please enlighten me.
Carla
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalid> wrote in message
news:3I******** ************@tw ister.nyroc.rr. com... Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
How about a test? <g>
.pxunit { width: 420px; }
.emunit { width: <numberofchoice here>em; }
<p class="pxunit"> A long paragraph of text here...</p>
<p class="emunit"> A long paragraph of text here...</p>
Then experiment by changing the text size in your various browsers.
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
I just wanted an approximation. Didn't know there was none. I'll try your
test:)
Carla
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net > wrote in message
news:ar******** *************** *********@4ax.c om... "c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote:"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi****** *************** *********@ppepc 56.ph.gla.ac.uk ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
It makes reading tiring.
No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.
Then do as Alan suggests and use a stylesheet with max-width in it.
Then all the sites you're complaining about will be restricted to your
max-width. That way you get exactly your preferred width, not the
authors preferred width or some average preferred width based on the
half dozen people the author spoke to when building the site.
Please don't imply that I am "complainin g" about numerous sites. I only gave
the w3.org site as an example.
Neither you, nor I, know the decision making process involved on websites
belonging to others.
There will be sloppy sites, just as there are sloppy people & sloppy houses.
I detect an elitist attitude among some die-hard CSS purists.
A support technician at a hosting company I use said that web designers are
the plumbers (blue collar workers) of the internet. As with those in the
building trades union, web developers are paid well in large cities. Outside
of large metro areas we are hustling small business owners for work. They do
not want to pay more than $300.00-$500.00 for a website. So we have to build
them fast. If we want them to look good, then we use what works with the
settings & in the browsers that 90% of visitors use. That's reality.
A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display.
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
4" wide at what font size? With which font and leading? How far away
from the screen are you sitting? For me 4" would be much too narrow.
At 11-12px in Arial.
Studies have shown that narrow columns with wide margins are nearly as
bad as wide columns with narrow margins. Medium-to-wide columns with
moderate margins seem best but of course it also depends on font size,
etc.
I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
420px divided by your font size in pixels
So for me 420px is 30em but for you it will likely be different. (I
have my font size set smaller than the factory default.)
Steve
That you, Steve, for explaining em minus the attitude:)
Carla
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Peter1968 wrote:
I just opened IE & it opened at 100%.
Flavell wrote "installs"; you wrote "opened".
Indeed. If you change the window size, or switch to fullscreen mode,
and exit the browser normally, then in my experience it'll remember
that, and open the browser the same way next time. It usually
inherits these settings when a new version of the same browser is
installed, too.
But the initial browser installation, for all the usual browsers, has
been windowed, not fullscreen, until some user action was taken to
change that.
Like I wrote in another post, Amaya 9.1 actually installed and opened
first go maximized. I think I just used the word "opened" myself, which
isn't quite the same thing.
But no, Amaya is by no means a "usual browser".
me wrote: OT: Say how's your life now that I've given it meaning, you seem to
delight in trolling around after me commenting on just my posts.
;-)
Heh, then your newsreader must be broken. I've replied to others in
this very thread, and in numerous other threads in this group and
quite a few other groups. Though I doubt if we read the same ~50 groups.
My life has had meaning for decades!
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
"Els" <el*********@ti scali.nl> wrote in message
news:kc******** *************** ****@40tude.net ... me wrote:
"Els" <el*********@ti scali.nl> wrote in message
news:cf******** *************** ******@40tude.n et... Travis Newbury wrote:
Els wrote:
>>How are these different?
> a) fixed width doesn't leave an option for users on a smaller screen.
> It's one thing to change your window size to larger or smaller to your
> liking, but it's another to have to change your screen resolution to
> be able to fit a fixed width document in it.
You can have what ever size you want, you might have to scroll, but the
content is there for you. Your fluid design makes it hard for me to
read. I see no difference.
I find it harder to read a 1000px wide page in a 500px wide window
(horizontal scrolling for each line) than to read really long
sentences.
> b) fixed width doesn't let me choose a smaller window when I like to
> use 500px wide windows for instance.
Fluid design is only as fluid small as the smallest image.
Correct, when using fluid design, one should take image size into
account.
>>I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
>>sometim es have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
>>to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read.
> So, you have the option to
> a) use a narrower window
> b) use a user stylesheet that says max-width:800px;mar gin:auto;
> c) deprive yourself of options by using IE... ;-)
I can repeat those same (more or less) options to you with fixed width.
No, with fixed width:
a) you don't have the option to make your window narrower than that
fixed width. Not without serious usability problems (horizontal
scrolling for each line you want to read).
b) setting a max-width that suits you will break the layout. Unless
the author of the fixed width page has made it fluid underneath the
fixed width. Most fixed width authors don't do that.
Yup, c) is an option for every Windows user.
> In the flexible case, everybody has any option they like.
I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that
way.
You don't like full screen then, you like large empty spaces.
The thing is, that I want my pages to be accessible by everyone. Not
just you.
My Dad browses full screen too. On 800x600. To cater for him and use
fixed width, I'd have to set the fixed with to 750px. (he uses IE
without a favourites bar open or something).
Now there are people who prefer a larger font-size. For them, the
fixed width of 750px means that the menu takes up half the space, and
the text contains lines of 3 or 4 words. Very hard to read. And very
silly, if they bought an expensive 22inch screen to accommodate their
bad eyesight! All that wasted space...
Now - tell me again that I should use fixed width because /you/ like
to use your browser full screen on a large resolution?
IIRC you said you use a user style sheet so override the fixed layout or
font there. IE users can override fonts if they choose by opting to do so
in
the accessibility options.
You can't expect the ordinary surfer to use a user style sheet. (how
many people know what HTML looks like, let alone CSS?) You can expect
them however to make their window wider or narrower to their liking.
How does one implement a user stylesheet when browsing?
Carla (clue-impaired yet again)
"c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote: "Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net > wrote in message
news:ar******* *************** **********@4ax. com... "c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote:
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
4" wide at what font size? With which font and leading? How far away
from the screen are you sitting? For me 4" would be much too narrow.
At 11-12px in Arial.
That's your default font size? That's rather on the small side. 12px
is what I have set as my minimum font size (my default is 14px so it's
still smaller than most browser defaults). So you'd have to agree that
if 4" is right for you it would be too narrow for many other people. What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
420px divided by your font size in pixels
So for me 420px is 30em but for you it will likely be different. (I
have my font size set smaller than the factory default.)
That you, Steve, for explaining em minus the attitude:)
Oh, I have lots of attitude...
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>
c.thornquist wrote: "Els" <el*********@ti scali.nl> wrote in message
news:kc******** *************** ****@40tude.net ...
You can't expect the ordinary surfer to use a user style sheet. (how
many people know what HTML looks like, let alone CSS?) You can expect
them however to make their window wider or narrower to their liking.
How does one implement a user stylesheet when browsing?
To be honest, I don't know. I remember having seen the option once in
one of my browsers, but I forgot where it was and even in which
browser.
Carla (clue-impaired yet again)
Like me then ;-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: UB40 - Keep on Moving This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
