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

[kchayka]

Whitecrest wrote:

But all my pages work as designed.

Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.

We figured they probably thought it was easier to develop the crap
design than to do it right from the beginning. Re-engineering is too
hard, too. Not so different from web design, methinks.

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

[Whitecrest]

In article <c6************ @ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says...

But all my pages work as designed.

Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.

Nope, but bottom line is that it does in fact function as designed.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

In article <c6************ @ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says...

We figured they probably thought it was easier to develop the crap
design than to do it right from the beginning. Re-engineering is too
hard, too. Not so different from web design, methinks.

Welcome to the real world of software (and web) development. ;-}
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[kchayka]

Whitecrest wrote:

In article <opr6xw80b60ipb ra@alice>, sp*******@aspyr e.net says...

Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they are
three-fourths of the solution.

Maybe 10% of the problem, but 3/4?

This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, whitecrest.
Maybe the only time I ever will, too. :)

Standards themselves don't make much difference with bandwidth issues.
You can have 100% validated (X)HTML and still have bloated code, or lots
of graphics that weigh a page down.

Perhaps spaghetti was suggesting that those who validate their code are
more likely to use structured markup, fewer layout tables, more CSS
layouts, which probably make a bigger dent in bandwidth use than just
the fact that it's validated code.

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

[Whitecrest]

In article <c6************ @ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says...

Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they are
three-fourths of the solution. Maybe 10% of the problem, but 3/4?

This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, whitecrest.
Maybe the only time I ever will, too. :)

This is a milestone! ;-}
Perhaps spaghetti was suggesting that those who validate their code are
more likely to use structured markup, fewer layout tables, more CSS
layouts, which probably make a bigger dent in bandwidth use than just
the fact that it's validated code.

I completely agree, and if you (generic you, not you specifically) read
what I have been writing for the last 2 years or so, I say, validation
and W3c recommendations are good things. But they are not the ONLY way
to do things.

Sometimes you have to push the envelope to make your web site appealing
to your audience. That is all I say. One size, on something as fluid
as the web, just does not fit all.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, kchayka wrote:

Whitecrest wrote:

But all my pages work as designed.

Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed".

Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote:

In article <c6************ @ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says...

Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.
Nope,

You got that part right, at least
but bottom line is
It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".
that it does in fact function as designed.

See above.

[Whitecrest]

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

But all my pages work as designed.

Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed".

Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).

Nope never heard if it. And by definition it can not be true...
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

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

Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.

Nope,

You got that part right, at least

but bottom line is

It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".

Sure it is.

that it does in fact function as designed.

See above.

Well since you are wrong in the assumption that a designer does being
able to declare the bottom line, your "see above" is meaning less.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Brian]

kchayka wrote:

sp*******@aspyr e.net says...

Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they
are three-fourths of the solution.

Standards themselves don't make much difference with bandwidth
issues.
I thought there was a point, that it would make some difference if taken
literally. Remove invalid markup such as <font> and replace it with the
only alternative left for changing e.g. text color, and you will reduce
page weight in not a few pages on the www.

However, on looking at the recommendations , I did not find <font> in
html 3.2, but did find it in HTML 4/transitional as a deprecated
element. I was not aware there was anything in HTML 4 loose that was not
in 3.2. Thus <font> is valid for that one dtd.
You can have 100% validated (X)HTML and still have bloated code, or
lots of graphics that weigh a page down.

No argument here.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/