Opinion: Do web standards matter? - Page 19

Sugapablo

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

Subscribe Reply

250

10514

Toby Inkster

Uncle Pirate wrote:

What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?

Diverging into to seperate threads here:

1. Methods of determining content-type of some content.

Apache has several: "asis" files, using file "extensions ", MIME Magic
<http://httpd.apache.or g/docs/mod/mod_mime_magic. html>, hard-coding the
type for files into the server config files, etc

2. Methods of determining content itself.

mod_rewrite, CGI's PATH_INFO, custom Apache modules or ISAPI modules...
There is one site I maintain where *all* URLs are simply directed to one
particular CGI script that decides what to do with them.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #181

Travis Newbury

Uncle Pirate wrote:

I am such a well known stickler for no plugins, cookies, JavaScript and
such, that when talking to the CS program coordinator about my teaching
a Computer Literacy course next Fall, he was telling me about the
software used with the course and was worried that I wouldn't like it as
I have to use IE and ActiveX. No problem, I already keep a browser
configured for accessing my work site where I need cookies, JavaScript,
etc. enabled. He was kind of surprised as he thought he was going to
get an argument.

I think the key to a good website is building one that works for the
people that are most likely to use it. Very few people in the corporate
world, sitting behind corporate firewalls limited by the companies
security policies are regular visitors to Barbie.dot com. They probably
would lose more business by creating a accessible CSS based site, than
they would gain. On the other hand, a site providing information about
accessibility should probably shy away from Flash.

Every site is different, and should be treated as such. If the visitor
is truly the most important part of the website, then research them, and
give them what they want.

--
-=tn=-

Jul 24 '05 #182

c.thornquist

"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann. com> wrote in message
news:42******** @nntp.zianet.co m...

c.thornquist wrote:
"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann. com> wrote in message
news:42******** @nntp.zianet.co m...
Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times:)

That too. As you've been to some extent defending the table layout
method. From your posts though, I think you've got what it takes to join
us in some/most of those views. I don't think you've given CSS a chance
yet and if you truly have the artistic abilities, I'd sure like to see you
give it a chance and come up with some liquid creations. It's a whole new
type (ever changing) of canvas.

I may learn it someday. Is it much different from the embedded styles I'm
already using? Here's an example:

<style type="text/css">

</style>

After looking at Google's code today & setting my IE text size to large (it
worked!), I thought I should drop defined font size completely & use +1
and -1. For other sizes specify in the style.

Is that a start? :)

I ran a page through the validator today under many DOC TYPES. It went from
one error in transitional to 93 errors in 3.2 and 233 errors in 2.0 (hope I
remembered that right). Made me think it'll take quite a while to learn the
new rules.

Carla

Jul 24 '05 #183

c.thornquist

"Jim Moe" <jm************ ***@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:1a******** ************@gi ganews.com...

c.thornquist wrote:

If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be
allowed to rearrange it to your liking?
You miss the point. A painting is a fixed format; you are in complete
control of size, color, shape, texture, etc. WWW is highly variable; you
control the content, color (usually), and general layout; no control over
size or shape. You are comparing apples with cars and claiming they are
the same thing.

But isn't that what we are attempting to control by using fixed sizes?

developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.

You are just joshing us, of course. Remote controls for font size? LOL

Oh no, I'm serious. I'm not suggesting remote controls, just saying that
whoever designed & built them realized that people don't want to have to
make adjustments. People want to open their browser & go. Not having to
download plug-ins or be told that a site is "Best viewed at..." or having to
sit through a FLASH intro, etc. Creating a browser that requires the least
effort for the user & allows the widest range of content means more money.

Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers,
magazines or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be
fun to read?

Now you are just being silly.

Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.

Carla

Jul 24 '05 #184

c.thornquist

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net > wrote in message
news:cb******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

"c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote:
Now I'm even more confused. I just changed the font sizes in IE on a site
I've maintained for 5 years & on pages with the original coding IE can
change the size & they look fine. But on the newer pages in which I used
style tags, IE can't do a thing re sizes.

I predict that you used px or pt for the font size in your CSS, am I
right? Despite the daily advice in these newsgroups not to do so.

Yep. I'm new here:)

<snip>

I checked a site last week in FF & some of the fonts changed size, while
others did not.

URL? FF will resize any font (allowing for the user's minimum font
size setting). Sure the others weren't images? ;-)

My FF is gone. Several days ago it started downloading to my hard drive
automatically. I thought it was strange, since it didn't say that it was an
update. It was downloading a complete & newer version. Anyway, I've been
downloading games for my kids & checked ADD/REMOVE programs & found two FF
programs. So I deleted the older version. Now I have none that'll work. I'll
grab it again, but each said about 14MB. What happened?
(I'll try to check that site in FF after I grab it again)

Carla

Jul 24 '05 #185

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

c.thornquist wrote:

My FF is gone. Several days ago it started downloading to my hard
drive automatically. I thought it was strange, since it didn't say
that it was an update. It was downloading a complete & newer
version. Anyway, I've been downloading games for my kids & checked
ADD/REMOVE programs & found two FF programs. So I deleted the older
version. Now I have none that'll work. I'll grab it again, but each
said about 14MB. What happened? (I'll try to check that site in FF
after I grab it again)

Firefox needs to be uninstalled via Add/Remove Programs before
installing a newer version. This necessity will be corrected in a
coming version, soon. Meantime, you should already have the latest
1.0.2 file you downloaded; where did you save it?

Just rerun it.

Oh, Firefox is less than 5MB.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 24 '05 #186

c.thornquist

"c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Dln3e.8209 $Vx1.2157@attbi _s01...
<snip>

After looking at Google's code today & setting my IE text size to large
(it worked!), I thought I should drop defined font size completely & use
+1 and -1. For other sizes specify in the style.

<snip>

I meant "fixed" not "defined" font size. Still learning to communicate:(

Carla

Jul 24 '05 #187

Uncle Pirate

Travis Newbury wrote:

Every site is different, and should be treated as such. If the visitor
is truly the most important part of the website, then research them, and
give them what they want.

Bingo! And realize that there may be several audiences and ease of use
needs to be factored in for each audience. I'm talking about content
now; making it easy for a user to find what they are looking for.

--
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

Jul 24 '05 #188

Uncle Pirate

c.thornquist wrote:

Is that a start? :)
Sure, that's a start. There's three ways (maybe more?) to do CSS. 1)
Inline as a style attribute: <p style="font-size:large"> 2) As the
content of a style element as you showed. 3) In a seperate file
referenced from any page that needs that style (great for sites; if the
HTML is done well, change one file to change the site).

I ran a page through the validator today under many DOC TYPES. It went from
one error in transitional to 93 errors in 3.2 and 233 errors in 2.0 (hope I
remembered that right). Made me think it'll take quite a while to learn the
new rules.

Try HTML 4.01 strict. It really enforces separation of content and
layout by not allowing (counts as error) the deprecated layout type
elements such as <center>.

--
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

Jul 24 '05 #189

Toby Inkster

c.thornquist wrote:

Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.

A typical 14" (diagonal) monitor is 10.5" wide. Taking account of a scroll
bar and a little margin around the edge of the page, it's probably
slightly under 10", but let's call it ten as it's an easier calculation.

Assume some naviagation with a width of about 28% of the page and a 2%
gutter and you have left a 7" column of text to read, which is narrower
than a typical A4 sheet of paper. Few people have problems reading
letters printed on A4.

Besides which, it is not really the physical size of the text area that is
important. (Do you find giant 30 foot advertisement posters hard to read?)

It is the number of words per line that effects readability. That is
controlled a combination of font size and text area -- so a user can
increase/decrease the number of words per line by changing font size, or
by changing browser width.

By explicitly setting a font size and page width, you do not allow the
visitor to adjust the number of words per line, so decrease the
readability of your pages.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #190