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:

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?

I don't have a reference. I have read that you should keep scrolling to 3
windows or less. I expect to scroll on a site that is for news or reference,
but from a design point of view on the front page of a business site it
doesn't work. Your design is incomplete.
Reducing a font-size just so you can squeeze more into the viewport is
truly a wasted effort.
<snip>

From my point of view, since I try to keep scrolling off my front page, it's
not a wasted effort. I'm talking about IF I wanted 14px Arial versus an 11
or 12px. That extra size can make the vertical bar show up. I don't like the
look of large text anyway, so if some who want large fonts get the vertical
scroll bar, so be it.

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.
I don't reduce font size for much of anything. I settled on 12px Arial long
ago. What I will do is remove extraneous content from that first page.
Deeper pages scroll when necessary. And, now that I know IE won't let users
adjust their font sixe if its specified in CSS, I'll avoid specifying a size
with px.

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. ;)

Well, I try to be purposeful:)

Carla

[kchayka]

c.thornquist wrote:

IF I wanted 14px Arial versus an 11
or 12px. That extra size can make the vertical bar show up. I don't like the
look of large text anyway,
You consider 14px Arial to be "large"? In my world, that's still pretty
small, considering my default font size is 20px.

11px equates to font-size:55%! Few can read text that small. I'm not one
of them.
And, now that I know IE won't let users
adjust their font sixe if its specified in CSS, I'll avoid specifying a size
with px.

This is A Good Thing. :) Just don't go the route a lot of other
designers and use something puny like .7em for body text. That's only
marginally better than using tiny px, IMO.

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

[Kevin Scholl]

kchayka wrote:

11px equates to font-size:55%! Few can read text that small. I'm not one
of them.

On most browsers' default settings, 11px equates to font-size: 70%.

http://www.reeddesign.co.uk/test/points-pixels.html

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

=============== =============== =============== =========
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
ks*****@comcast .DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
=============== =============== =============== =========

[Toby Inkster]

Kevin Scholl wrote:

On most browsers' default settings, 11px equates to font-size: 70%.

And on mine 11px = 7.8pt = 0.65em = 65%. Though I have a mimimum font
setting of 10pt anyway.

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

[Oli Filth]

laurence said the following on 08/06/2005 20:33:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

How do you define "correctly" ?

Valid HTML is not synonymous with decent HTML that will render the way
you expect it to. I could write some perfectly valid HTML that will look
like shit in even the most stringent browser.

Chances are *you've* done something strange.
--
Oli

[laurence]

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

Eventually, I guess, they'll all take their heads out of their ***** and
support the standards.

"Sugapablo" <ru**@REMOVEsug apablo.com> wrote in message
news:pa******** *************** *****@REMOVEsug apablo.com...

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?

[David Dorward]

laurence wrote:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but
which the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of
browsers will not render remotely correctly.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Animesh Kumar]

David Dorward wrote:

laurence wrote:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but
which the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of
browsers will not render remotely correctly.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

I appreciate your point a lot. Nice way to get it through :)

Best
A

[Travis Newbury]

David Dorward wrote:

laurence wrote:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but
which the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of
browsers will not render remotely correctly.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

That's a keeper.
--
-=tn=-

[David Ross]

laurence wrote:

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

Eventually, I guess, they'll all take their heads out of their ***** and
support the standards.

You made the same assertion in another thread in this newsgroup.
However, when asked for the URL of the Web page that validates but
cannot be properly viewed via Mozilla, you refused.

It is indeed possible to write a valid HTML file that does not
display as intended. If you developed that buggy file while
viewing it with an equally buggy browser, you should not be
surprised if other browsers -- with fewer bugs -- don't display
them as you think they should.

I spent 41 years as a software engineer, most of that time doing
software testing. I saw many programs that compiled without error
that failed to produce required results. The programs had correct
syntax but faulty logic. That's not much different from an HTML
file that validates at W3C (correct syntax) but displays
incorrectly (incorrect logic).

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.