Opinion: Do web standards matter?

[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

[c.thornquist]

"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3b******** *****@individua l.net...

c.thornquist wrote:

An example is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

(W3.org's font size looks typical of a childrens book.)

That's funny, I find both the font family and size to be absolutely
perfect, since I'm getting my own browser default for both. :-)

If you don't like how your browser default font looks, then change it.
Just don't complain about it.

Wow, that's a "medium"? I have my default in IE set to medium. W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites use
fixed font sizes?

Carla

[c.thornquist]

"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

c.thornquist wrote:

Don't you think most people keep their browsers open to 100%?
I certainly don't think that.

<snip>
Well, there's great population sample! Do you really think your teenagers
equate to most people?
No, I'll try to find the research. One thing I do know is that in a
capitalist society there's no shortage of market research. Knowing your
demographic & how they use their product means increased profit. I'm not
endorsing capitalism, but surely you know the research is being done.

There's probably research somewhere about it.
Does it really matter what the stats are for this? Screen sizes and
resolutions vary a great deal anyway, from 640×480 to 1600×1200 and
higher, and that's just for desktops.

Of course it matters what the stats are because I'm trying to reach the most
visitors. If I discover that 80% open their browsers to 100%, then I don't
want my text spreading 100%. I better use columns or blocks to contain it.

BTW, very few use 640x480, but 5 years ago I took them into account when
designing. Now I know they get the horizontal scroll bar. Very few use
1600x1200. Most use ... oh heck, here are the stats from The Counter:

Resolution StatsTue Feb 1 00:01:02 2005 - Tue Feb 8 15:58:00 2005 7.7 Days
1024 x 768 = 54%
800 x 600 = 28%
1280 x 1024 = 10%
1152 x 864 = 3%
Unknown = 2%
1600 x 1200 = 0%
640 x 480 = 0%

from: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/res.php
Since it's the viewport size that matters, not the screen size, whether or
not users keep the browser maximised or not is meaningless.

What's the viewport size? The resolution? If it's meaningless, then why are
people suggesting a stylesheet for my browser?

Carla

[kchayka]

c.thornquist wrote:

"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

Since it's the viewport size that matters, not the screen size, whether or
not users keep the browser maximised or not is meaningless.
What's the viewport size? The resolution?

The viewport is the part of the browser window where you can actually
see page content.

Even if you're using full-size windows at 1024x768 screen size, the
toolbars, status bars, sidebars and other browser UI parts take away
from the available space, so you may only have an 800x600 viewport.
If it's meaningless, then why are
people suggesting a stylesheet for my browser?

Screen size only has meaning in that it sets the maximum browser window
size, nothing more. Window size is often less than screen size, viewport
size is always less than that.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[kchayka]

c.thornquist wrote:

W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites use
fixed font sizes?

I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately. :(

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

c.thornquist wrote:

"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@ gmail.com> wrote

Since it's the viewport size that matters, not the screen size,
whether or not users keep the browser maximised or not is
meaningless.

What's the viewport size? The resolution? If it's meaningless, then
why are people suggesting a stylesheet for my browser?

Since you can't reliably tell what the visitor's viewport size is, and
we've discussed to death around here that the monitor's resolution is
in fact meaningless, what does this have to do with suggesting a
stylesheet? Oh, for *your* browser? A *user* stylesheet? Well, if
you want to override author settings, you would use one.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Travis Newbury]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Ok, so you dont like to listen to your visitors.

I presume you're already aware that I was going to resent that.

Actually I didn't think you would resent that

EVERYTHING depends on the site. You can design Flexibly (read that
as generic) if you like. Others take time to listen.

Oh right, and so optimise the site for those who are already visiting
anyway..

No. Optimize the site for "likely" visitors, not "potential" there is
a huge difference between the two. A lot in this group seem to miss the
difference.

--
-=tn=-

[dorayme]

> From: kchayka <us****@c-net.us>

Newsgroups: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,alt.html
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Opinion: Do web standards matter?

c.thornquist wrote:

W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites use
fixed font sizes?

I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately. :(

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Don't know the stats on this one but it could also be due to sites
specifying less than 100 percent or less than 1em sizes for almost all text
(bar headings). Perhaps you mean this sort of thing too?

I have had no luck or only very dubious and grudging support from clients
when I do not set the font sizes to be less than normal and "leave it to the
viewers" I held off one person for 29 days with arguments and actually going
and setting his browser preferences - but in the end, a terse instruction to
reduce the font sizes and that was that. I set .8 and .85 for things like
paras and he and his partners were very happy and, after being glum for a
while, I admit it looked more "standard" and when they paid I thought, who
can fight this epidemic? Is it an epidemic?

This is how I have been thinking (it is possibly inaccurate but corrections
are instructive...) : It is sensible to set main text to be "normal" in css
(or not setting at all) unless there is a special reason. This special
reason, ideally, should not include "So many websites have such unnaturally
small fonts that browsers are now default factory set or user set to make
most such pages easily readable. Thus when a web designer uses normal fonts
they will appear unusually large. The standard of normality has shifted. In
other words, there is a feedback process that has corrupted what was so
usefully conceived by the scss standard to pay respect to the viewers
settings. A sort of inflationary effect on the currency has happened.
(Currencies can get replaced to remove absurdities, new notes with lower
numbers ... perhaps this sort of thing could happen with a later html
version? XHTML 5 or something is geared to make normal smaller than browser
settings. Thus web designers can use normal with confidence again. I do not
seriously propose this, just an idea...)

dorayme

[dorayme]

in my last, "the scss standard" was a typo, should have been "the css
standard"...

dorayme

[c.thornquist]

"dorayme" <do*****@optusn et.com.au> wrote in message
news:BE7728B4.1 07F8%do*****@op tusnet.com.au.. .

From: kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,alt.html
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Opinion: Do web standards matter?

c.thornquist wrote:

W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites
use
fixed font sizes?

I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately. :(

--

So many websites have such unnaturally
small fonts that browsers are now default factory set or user set to make
most such pages easily readable. Thus when a web designer uses normal
fonts
they will appear unusually large.

<snip>

Maybe for those who have used the internet much longer than myself, the
average font size on sites today appears small. I've been using the www for
just 5 years. My sites usually have 12px or 11px (on older sites) Arial. I'm
going to try to stop using fixed sizes (unless I discover some reason why I
shouldn't switch).

I have visited sites with fonts so small I couldn't make out the text. If I
remember correctly, they were usually sites built entirely with FLASH. Maybe
the designer thinks small fonts look modern?

I understand why developers use mini fonts or pixel fonts, but they should
be used very sparingly and only in an image.

I'm 46 & need reading glasses, but still find that most sites have
appropriate font sizes. Another consideration is the vertical scroll. I try
to build sites that do not scroll on the opening page. Larger font sizes
take up more space. It's a balancing act when you put usability issues into
the mix. People don't like to scroll, so you try to keep the page tight.
It's not as if us designers are doing these things purely for aesthetics or
worse, for no purpose at all.

Carla

[kchayka]

c.thornquist wrote:

Another consideration is the vertical scroll. I try
to build sites that do not scroll on the opening page. Larger font sizes
take up more space. It's a balancing act when you put usability issues into
the mix. People don't like to scroll, so you try to keep the page tight.
There's no question that people don't like horizontal scrolling, but I
think vertical scrolling has been more or less accepted as "normal". I
believe even usability guru Neilsen now agrees with that. If you don't
think so, then can you cite a reference that supports your claim?

Reducing a font-size just so you can squeeze more into the viewport is
truly a wasted effort. First, you don't know how big the viewport will
be, so any guess as to a text scaling factor is just that - a guess,
which will probably be wrong in a lot of cases. Then there are those
visitors who can't read your chosen font-size. Some who need larger text
will zoom text and mess up your layout. Others who can't read it will
just go to another site that doesn't have such readability problems.
It's a no-win situation.

I don't dispute that putting important info at the top of the page is A
Good Thing, for both users and search engines, but reducing the
font-size is not the way to get it noticed.
It's not as if us designers are doing these things purely for aesthetics or
worse, for no purpose at all.

I think you might be a little naive. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.