Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Isaac Grover]

Hi everyone,

Just out of curiosity I recently pointed one of my hand-typed pages at the W3
Validator, and my hand-typed code was just ripped to shreds. Then I pointed
some major sites (microsoft.com, cnn.com, etc.) at the W3 Validator; to my
surprise none of them passed.

Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at as
guidlines for web design?

Isaac

Are you losing $14,200.00 per year without your knowledge?
http://bigmoneyandfreetime.web1000.com

[Stan McCann]

Whitecrest wrote:

In article <40************ **@news.centenn ialpr.net>, ep*****@myexcel .com
says...

Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at as
guidlines for web design?

The problem with standards on something as diverse as the web is I might
not like your choice of standards, and you might not like mine.

You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote:

But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation,
Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content
because THAT is what drives people to their site,
WHAT???

Perhaps you'd like to share with us how that's done. Don't be afraid
to spell it out, step by step: I won't feel patronised.
not search results.
Have you actually looked at the proportion of page accesses which
result from a search? Across a wide range of types of web site, I
mean?
People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,
Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?
they don't have to search for it.
You said:
But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and ^^^^ presentation,

So: how many thousands, out of the total number of web sites, have the
luxury of having their URL known already by the web audience, would
you estimate? What proportion is that of the whole?

Hence or otherwise deduce how realistic it is for the majority of web
sites to design web pages which emulate them, and take no account of
indexing robots.

If I was in business (the regular readers have seen this before...),
you're the kind of competition I'd just love to have.

[Toby A Inkster]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:42:05 -0600, Stan McCann wrote:

You and I don't set the standards.

I do. This page:

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/textsize/

uses my very own HTML standard (based on HTML 4.01 Strict).

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

[Whitecrest]

In article <Pi************ *************** ***@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla. ac.uk says...

But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation, Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content

Never said it did

because THAT is what drives people to their site,

WHAT???

What drives people to "The Punisher" web site? It's position in the
search engines? Nope, the radio, tv, and print ads send them to the
site. What keeps people there? The presentation of the information
about the movie.
Perhaps you'd like to share with us how that's done. Don't be afraid
to spell it out, step by step: I won't feel patronised.
See above.

People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,

Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?

TV, Radio and print ads.

But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation,

So: how many thousands, out of the total number of web sites, have the
luxury of having their URL known already by the web audience, would
you estimate? What proportion is that of the whole?

Well pretty much any fortune 500 or better company in the world, and
virtually all web sites made for movies or tv.
Hence or otherwise deduce how realistic it is for the majority of web
sites to design web pages which emulate them, and take no account of
indexing robots.
I have always said if you site is there to directly make money, then by
all means your site should be accessible to as many as possible (which
includes search engines) ALL other web site must be dealt with in a
case by case manner to decide what is best for them. One size does not
fit all.
If I was in business (the regular readers have seen this before...),
you're the kind of competition I'd just love to have.

If you make entertainment web sites, then you already have me as your
competition. And your right, I love it.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

In article <40********@new s.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.c om says...

The problem with standards on something as diverse as the web is I might
not like your choice of standards, and you might not like mine.

You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?

And if I disagree with them?
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Brian]

Whitecrest wrote:

keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation,
Well, that is certainly true. They seem to play to the www's weaknesses
instead of its strengths.
because THAT is what drives people to their site, not search results.
Oh? And how, praytell, did you reach that conclusion? Because what I've
read suggests that the 2 means of getting visitors to your site are
search engines and email referrals. (I cannot find Jakob Nielsen's
column that discusses this; does anyone have the link?)
A simple search for "sparkling cola beverage" in google does not have
a link to any of the leading brands of cola beverages in the first 7
pages. Why?
Maybe because it's an odd search phrase to find cola?
People go to the Coke site because they already know the url, they
don't have to search for it.

Uh, ok. But if they *did* search for it, wouldn't they search for "coke?"

http://www.google.com/search?q=coke

Or "cola?"

http://www.google.com/search?q=cola

Or perhaps "coca cola?"

http://www.google.com/search?q=coca%20cola
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Owen Jacobson]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:15:09 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:

In article <40********@new s.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.c om says...

> The problem with standards on something as diverse as the web is I might
> not like your choice of standards, and you might not like mine.

You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?

And if I disagree with them?

Publish your own. Convince others to use it. Provide tools and support
for your standard. Document how and why it's better than the existing
standards.

--
Some say the Wired doesn't have political borders like the real world,
but there are far too many nonsense-spouting anarchists or idiots who
think that pranks are a revolution.

[Lauri Raittila]

In article Whitecrest wrote:

In article <Pi************ *************** ***@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla. ac.uk says...

But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation,

Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content

Never said it did

because THAT is what drives people to their site,

WHAT???

What drives people to "The Punisher" web site? It's position in the
search engines? Nope, the radio, tv, and print ads send them to the
site. What keeps people there? The presentation of the information
about the movie.

Well, it is esier to search for the punisher, that guess what the url
will be. In fact, i don't think I would have gotten it right by guess.
Much easier to write "Punisher" to addressfield and hit ctrl+l. If
official page would be unsearchable, I would most likely end up different
site, possibly some that tells me how the movie really sucks. (of course
I could use normal goole search instead of lucky, but usually lucky is
good enaugh)

Perhaps you'd like to share with us how that's done. Don't be afraid
to spell it out, step by step: I won't feel patronised.

See above.

People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,

Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?

TV, Radio and print ads.

They don't have anything to do with looks of website, do they?

So: how many thousands, out of the total number of web sites, have the
luxury of having their URL known already by the web audience, would
you estimate? What proportion is that of the whole?

Well pretty much any fortune 500 or better company in the world, and
virtually all web sites made for movies or tv.

No, punisherthemovi e.com, thepunisher.com , www.punisher-movie.com

Which one is official? You don't remember that. So it is easier to
search.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Whitecrest]

In article <MP************ ************@ne ws.individual.n et>,
la***@raittila. cjb.net says...

I would most likely end up different
site, possibly some that tells me how the movie really sucks. (of course
I could use normal goole search instead of lucky, but usually lucky is
good enaugh)

Wouldn't know, I probably won't see the movie.

> People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,
Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?

TV, Radio and print ads.

They don't have anything to do with looks of website, do they?

Nope, but it takes "better engine placement" out of the equation for a
lot of companies as a reason to follow a standard.

Well pretty much any fortune 500 or better company in the world, and
virtually all web sites made for movies or tv.

No, punisherthemovi e.com, thepunisher.com , www.punisher-movie.com
Which one is official? You don't remember that. So it is easier to
search.

I guess if you are doing a lot of drugs or you were getting head while
trying to remember the url that is true but in all other cases you would
probably remember it after reading, or hearing it.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

In article <pa************ *************** *@lionsanctuary .net>,
an******@lionsa nctuary.net says...

And if I disagree with them?

Publish your own. Convince others to use it. Provide tools and support
for your standard. Document how and why it's better than the existing
standards.

Or only use the pieces I want to make it work the way I want it to,
which is what 99% of the entire web does right now.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com