By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,679 Members | 2,602 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,679 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Does anyone pay attention to standards?

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
162 Replies


P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed ep*****@myexcel.com (Isaac Grover)
writing in news:40**************@news.centennialpr.net:
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?


In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code leads to better
results in search engines. Why? Because search engines are machines, have
no eyes, no ears, hands, etc., so they have to look for logical, valid
markup.

--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share
http://www.arbpen.com
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Isaac Grover wrote:
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?


Hehehe. Where have you been these last couple years, it's such an old topic!

W3C-compliant code is actually gaining popularity, due to some solid
promotional work by the W3C and other organisations, and due to the fact
that browsers are finally catching up with the standards.

But there are still a lot of people that seem to take pride in coding to
individual browser bugs instead of coding to reliable, stable standards.
I have no idea why they do that, there's no benefit to it (except that
they can make their clients pay for "updates" to "fix" the code when it
no longer works).

Here's a couple links about the benefits of web standards:

The Business Value of Web Standards
<http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000266.php>

What are the advantages of using web standards?
<http://webstandards.org/learn/faq/#p3>

The Business Benefits of Web Standards
<http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/why-web-standards/>

The benefits of Web Standards to your visitors, your clients and you!
<http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/>

Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Isaac Grover wrote:
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?


Are you asking what people actually do, or what they should do? The answer are
probably different!

See:
http://www.ub.uib.no/elpub/2001/h/413001/
It describes some 2001 research using a robot to validate many pages found on
the web. Fewer than 1% validated as they were. If a Transitional DOCTYPE was
assumed for those without a DOCTYPE, the proportion was still less than 3%.
The paper (125 pages) categorises the problems.

I think the websites of members of W3C have similar issues. But I believe the
proportion that validate rises year by year.

I validate my pages, but more as a check of whether I am getting things right
than in the expectation that it will make a lot of difference to my audience.
They are almost certainly using browsers that can tolerate invalidate pages,
because of the above. (I use Dreamweaver, which reduces the number of possible
errors).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Isaac Grover wrote:

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?


"Anymore"? Who ever cared for web standards? Aside from some HTML
freaks like us. In any case, if you don't do it out of selfishness
(e.g. to better maintain your sources), don't do it at all. If
Microsoft gets it wrong, don't follow unless you feel it saves your
time to have crappy HTML. Most websites do, you are correct.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Adrienne wrote:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed ep*****@myexcel.com (Isaac
Grover) writing in news:40**************@news.centennialpr.net:

In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code leads to
better results in search engines. Why? Because search engines are
machines, have no eyes, no ears, hands, etc., so they have to look
for logical, valid markup.


No search engine would ever care for valid markup.
This is not to say totally broken links are helpful.
Accessibility, especially the what-to-do-with-blind-people or
what-to-do-with-javascript-disabled-browsers approaches help SEs a lot.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Adrienne wrote:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed ep*****@myexcel.com (Isaac Grover)
writing in news:40**************@news.centennialpr.net:

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?

In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code leads to better
results in search engines. Why? Because search engines are machines, have
no eyes, no ears, hands, etc., so they have to look for logical, valid
markup.


Search engines usually index whatever their robots send back to them.
The engines themselves don't look for anything.

'Later
Peter

--
Peter aka Ulujain - Computing for Fun!
http://www.ulujain.org/
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Isaac Grover schrieb:
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?


Some weeks ago someone noticed that my pages are not valid, so I looked
it up and checked what is to be done. As I use a "standard frane"
programmed by php, I made this valid, and so _all_ my pages are valid.

Maybe that here ore there is something wrong, but if you find it I will
repair it :-)

Werner
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Adrienne wrote:

In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code
leads to better results in search engines.


That has certainly not been my experience. I did a new site for a
restaurant, using valid html 4.01 strict. It shows up 4th in Google for
"TS McHugh's" at the moment (it's been bouncing around a lot lately).
The old site is # 1 at the moment. It has dreadful markup like the
following for its header:

<td width="260" valign="top"><strong><font face="Times New Roman"
color="#FFFFCC"><big><em><big>T.S.McHugh's</big></em></big></font><font
face="Verdana"><small><small>

The new site is not new. It's been up since October.

In Yahoo, the new site doesn't show up on any of the 4 result pages.
Ditto for Lycos, HotBot, and Webcrawler.

I'm afraid better better markup doesn't necessarily lead to better
search results. What should get good results[1] is text content that can
be indexed and inbound links.

[1]I say "should" because even that hasn't helped in my case. Google
reports a handful of inbound links for the new site, while, for the old
site, it reports none. And that's been the case for several weeks.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Adrienne wrote:

In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code
leads to better results in search engines.


That has certainly not been my experience. I did a new site for a
restaurant, using valid html 4.01 strict. It shows up 4th in Google for
"TS McHugh's" at the moment (it's been bouncing around a lot lately).
The old site is # 1 at the moment. It has dreadful markup like the
following for its header:


<snip>

....as a counter-example, my relatively new page:

http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/multiviews

comes up second behind apache.org in a global Google search for
"multiviews", top for "php multiviews" and top on a UK search for
"multiviews". The page is only 9 days old.

So there's certainly no *disadvantage* to using decent markup, and there
seems to be no substitute for text content.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant wrote:
Brian wrote:
Adrienne wrote:
In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code leads to
better results in search engines.
That has certainly not been my experience.

<snip>

...as a counter-example, my relatively new page:
http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/multiviews

comes up second behind apache.org in a global Google search for
"multiviews", top for "php multiviews" and top on a UK search for
"multiviews". The page is only 9 days old.


! That's impressive. What the heck is your secret? :-)
So there's certainly no *disadvantage* to using decent markup,


Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply that. Only that decent markup
doesn't guarantee you anything on Google et. al.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Mark Tranchant wrote:
...as a counter-example, my relatively new page:
http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/multiviews

comes up second behind apache.org in a global Google search for
"multiviews", top for "php multiviews" and top on a UK search for
"multiviews". The page is only 9 days old.


! That's impressive. What the heck is your secret? :-)


I admit, I was surprised too. I probably got lucky with the timing of
publication coinciding with a Google index.

I guess the advantage my page has over your restaurant page is a lot more
relevant indexable content, as the subject is inherently deeper. However,
there's more content out there on similar subjects, so I have to admit I
don't really know.

I also get top slot for the highly competitive "chord tutorial" search.
Again, I'm not sure why. Maybe that $10,000 gift to Google helped...?

On the other hand, I can't get billericaybaptist.net to the top in a search
for "billericay church", despite all my attempts. >:(

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Isaac Grover ep*****@myexcel.com wrote:
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?


they ARE guidelines for web design...the reason for using them is that if
you start by building to the standard and then applying tweaks and work
arounds to deal with known browser bugs you can create effective future-
proof html quicker than you can by starting off by dealing with the
browser bugs first

large companies aren't always concerned with working as efficiently as
possible...and often with very large sites it simply isn't worth fixing
mark up errors that are all over the site...above all, most of the early
sites built by large corporations were farmed out to their regular graphic
design contractors or departments and hence weren't built by people with
any significant web design experience

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant ma**@tranchant.plus.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
Adrienne wrote:

In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code
leads to better results in search engines.


That has certainly not been my experience. I did a new site for a
restaurant, using valid html 4.01 strict. It shows up 4th in Google for
"TS McHugh's" at the moment (it's been bouncing around a lot lately).
The old site is # 1 at the moment. It has dreadful markup like the
following for its header:


<snip>

...as a counter-example, my relatively new page:

http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/multiviews

comes up second behind apache.org in a global Google search for
"multiviews", top for "php multiviews" and top on a UK search for
"multiviews". The page is only 9 days old.

So there's certainly no *disadvantage* to using decent markup, and there
seems to be no substitute for text content.


I get the weirdest search terms finding my personal site...having had a
look around to see why, it seems to be that a fairly pared down css layout
site will do pretty well for anything that's in the content...basically, I
assume, because it has a better signal to noise ratio

in my last long term job we went from the fourth page of Google for a
single word 3 million results search term to eleventh (and briefly tenth)
in the space of a couple of months when I shifted the entire site to a css
layout

however, other factors are even more important, such as having a keyword
in the domain name, good page titles, good link structure, and plenty of
inbound links with keywords in the link text...you need them all to rank
well and the last of them takes time

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant ma**@tranchant.plus.com wrote:

I also get top slot for the highly competitive "chord tutorial" search.
Again, I'm not sure why. Maybe that $10,000 gift to Google helped...?


on that one it's probably good content doing the trick :)

which reminded me to shift it from my bookmarks on to my music page

thanks

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
I code for standards in general because it is easy to do so and
reliable.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her
permission.
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Eric Jarvis wrote:
Mark Tranchant ma**@tranchant.plus.com wrote:
I also get top slot for the highly competitive "chord tutorial" search.
Again, I'm not sure why. Maybe that $10,000 gift to Google helped...?


on that one it's probably good content doing the trick :)

which reminded me to shift it from my bookmarks on to my music page


Eric,

As your email isn't working (full mailbox), and this is nearly topical,
please update the link on http://www.ericjarvis.co.uk/web.html to my
"exceedingly fine tutorials" (one of which I *must* get around to
finishing) to:

http://tranchant.plus.com/web/html-start

Thanks!

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant wrote:
On the other hand, I can't get billericaybaptist.net to the top in a
search for "billericay church", despite all my attempts. >:(


Ah. Well, in the misery-loves-company department, I'm glad it's not just
me. You'd think I could get www.tsmchughs.com to come up first in a
search for t.s. mchugh's, but no!

Interesting side bar: had I registered tsmchugh.com (no s at the end of
the 2nd level domain name), I think I'd have done better, because a
search for t.s. mchugh's = t.s. mchugh, and the domain would match up.
At least, that's how I interpret Google's highlighting of search terms.

More tidbits: I did have the new site above the old one at one point. A
couple of months ago, the old site finally dropped from 1 to 6 or 7, and
the new one went to 2 or 3. I thought I finally had at least that much
done. Then, I made a change to the site template. I moved the logo,
whose alt text is "T.S. McHugh's," to make the layout easier a bit more
robust. It went from near the top of <body> down to the navigation,
which is the last thing on the page. It wasn't long after that I
rechecked Google, and ruefully saw the old site back at 1, and the new
one on the 2nd page. (This change prompted me to start a thread in
ciwa.site-design that some of you may have seen.)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
In article <40**************@news.centennialpr.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.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
In article <Xn***************************@207.115.63.158>, arbpen2003
@sbcglobal.net says...
In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code leads to better
results in search engines. Why? Because search engines are machines, have
no eyes, no ears, hands, etc., so they have to look for logical, valid
markup.


But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation, because THAT is what drives people to their site, not
search results. 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? Because they don't care about search engine
results. People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,
they don't have to search for it.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Whitecrest wrote:
In article <40**************@news.centennialpr.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
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
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

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.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
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com 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
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
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/
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:15:09 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com 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.

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
In article Whitecrest wrote:
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.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, punisherthemovie.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.

Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> ,
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, punisherthemovie.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
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
In article <pa****************************@lionsanctuary.net> ,
an******@lionsanctuary.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
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote:
What drives people to "The Punisher" web site?
(Never heard of it, but no matter...)
It's position in the search engines?
Is it? (SCNR)
Nope, the radio, tv, and print ads send them to the site.
So, now you're saying that they go there because they've seen
advertisements for it?

Previously you said, and I quote:
But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation, because THAT is what drives people to their site,


Forgive me if I'm slow on the uptake, but I had the distinct
impression there that you were saying that it was the appearance of
the web site itself which "drives people to their site".

Now you're saying that what sends them there is radio, tv and
print advertising. Am I clear now?
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.


Right. Not the design of the web site. Got it.

Thanks.
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:41:01 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:
In article <pa****************************@lionsanctuary.net> ,
an******@lionsanctuary.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.


Which is most certainly not a good thing.
If browsers supported standards as they were supposed to, it would make
everybody's life easier.
The only way to encourage browsers to change is to do HTML properly.
Besides, even with IE being horribly wrong about everything coding to
standards isn't a great deal of effort - easier than not, I would say.
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:06:19 GMT, Isaac Grover <ep*****@myexcel.com> wrote:
Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at
as guidlines for web design?


Why do I pay attention to standards? I'm on dial-up, and have respect for
other dial-up users.

I know people who consider dial-up users the minority when in fact we are
MAJORITY. It reminds me a few years back when programmers weren't so
concerned about "code bloat" because computers were continually getting
better and bigger, so the time spent streamlining code didn't seem worth
it. Then along came handheld devices, where streamlined code was
mandatory...

People think spending time developing for dial-up doesn't matter because
more and more people are getting broadband everyday. But then comes along
the WIRELESS handheld devices... :P

Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they are
three-fourths of the solution. And pages developed with standards almost
always still work for me even if I choose to turn off graphics or sync the
page to my handheld.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
Toby A Inkster wrote:
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).

If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
Whitecrest wrote:
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com 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?


That's entirely your choice. Your code is not standard.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
"spaghetti" <sp*******@aspyre.net> wrote in message
news:opr6xw80b60ipbra@alice...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:06:19 GMT, Isaac Grover <ep*****@myexcel.com> wrote:
Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at
as guidlines for web design?


Why do I pay attention to standards? I'm on dial-up, and have respect for
other dial-up users.

I know people who consider dial-up users the minority when in fact we are
MAJORITY. It reminds me a few years back when programmers weren't so
concerned about "code bloat" because computers were continually getting
better and bigger, so the time spent streamlining code didn't seem worth
it. Then along came handheld devices, where streamlined code was
mandatory...

I completely agree, I am also A dialup user and Not likely to have the
option of broadband for
many years to come, not due to price but due to living in a remote area with
no access (I don't even get
mobile reception) Just under %90 of Australian Internet users are on dialup
and pages with lots
of non standard bloat make for a very unpleasant and fustrating surfing
experience.

I design pages for Australian business with Australian customers who need
standard complient fast loading
pages to make a good impression.

Trusylver
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
Stan McCann st**@surecann.com wrote:

<snip>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?<snip>

Actually the W3C only publishes recommendations. The only Internationally
recognized standards are promulgated by the ISO. In the case of HTML ..........

http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.html

James Pickering
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a
Brian us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid wrote:
Adrienne wrote:

In my experience, clean markup, clean CSS and clean code
leads to better results in search engines.


My recently loaded Practical Italic Handwriting page .....

http://www.jp29.org/cadr.htm

...... currently occupies the top four returns out of 1,960 in a Google search
for "Practical Italic Handwriting" and fifth place out of 182,000 for a Google
search for "Italic writing".

James Pickering
Pickering Pages
http://www.jp29.org/
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
James Pickering wrote:
Stan McCann st**@surecann.com wrote:

<snip>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?<snip>

Actually the W3C only publishes recommendations. The only Internationally
recognized standards are promulgated by the ISO. In the case of HTML ..........

http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.html


Interesting point; as well as true. But, in my opinion, it's semantics.
Much of what is in the "standard" refer to the "recommendation." IMO,
they are, for all practical purposes, the same thing. The
recommendations are much easier to read and understand.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Stan McCann wrote:
Toby A Inkster wrote:
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).

If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.


SGML is an ISO standard. HTML is a W3C recommendation. XHTML is a
W3C trademarked product. Hence or otherwise deduce which are
literally standards.

However, the cited document isn't useful in SGML terms without some
way for users to get a copy of the author's MyHTML4 DTD.
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
Brendan Taylor <te**@fungoid.dot.dyndns.dot.org> wrote in message news:<ZRhic.242357$oR5.38644@pd7tw3no>...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:41:01 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:
In article <pa****************************@lionsanctuary.net> ,
an******@lionsanctuary.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.


Which is most certainly not a good thing.
If browsers supported standards as they were supposed to, it would make
everybody's life easier.


Not everyone thinks the recommendations (which is what they are) are a
Great Thing(tm). Have a read of Jukka Korpela's review of HTML 4. I
agree with him every step of the way when it comes to <object>. Most
over-engineered implementation the W3C ever dreamed up. Why
reduplicate the <embed> tag? Because the W3C didn't dream it up?
<embed> is proprietary, you say? So where <frame>'s at one stage, so
was <layer>, but a lot of its functionality ended up in CSS...

And what purpose does <q> serve? Short in-line quotations...something
that typing out "this is a quote!" couldn't do to begin with?
No wonder browsers were slow to pick that one up.

For the most part, I agree with the W3C recommendations, but those who
write them definitely need to refine their Keep It Simple, Stupid
theories. (as well as bone up on what the word "illegal" means in the
English language.)

'Later
Peter

---
http://www.ulujain.org/
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
Hierarchy of the header element is rigidly enforced. For example, H4 is not
allowed to precede H3 at any place in a document.

Numerous W3C HTML 4.01 elements are refined in ISO-HTML and some attributes are
omitted from the standard (" .....they have been omitted because they are used
to describe appearance rather than structure, or because the feature is
considered to be still too unstable or immature for an International Standard
......").

Style sheets must be linked -- embedded style constructs are not allowed.

The ISO standard mandates separation of content from presentation
Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
My apologies, my previous post was a premature submission -- it should have
been:

Stan McCann st**@surecann.com wrote:
Interesting point; as well as true. But, in my opinion, it's semantics.
Much of what is in the "standard" refer to the "recommendation." IMO,
they are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.<snip>


There are actually some significant differences:

In the ISO standard hierarchy of the header element is rigidly enforced. For
example, H4 is not allowed to precede H3 at any place in a document.

Numerous W3C HTML 4.01 elements are refined in ISO-HTML and some attributes are
omitted from the standard (" .....they have been omitted because they are used
to describe appearance rather than structure, or because the feature is
considered to be still too unstable or immature for an International Standard
......" -- from the specification).

Style sheets must be linked -- embedded style constructs are not allowed.

The ISO standard mandates separation of content from presentation.

BTW, you can substitute the W3C HTML 4.01 DOCTYPE (strict DTD) for the ISO
DOCTYPE on any validated ISO-HTML document and it will validate as HTML 4.01
(strict) -- it does not necessarily work in reverse, however.

James Pickering
http://www.jp29.org/
Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says...
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.


To many of the purist here, but in the real world (fortune 500), it is
the exact opposite. Now if they change, then I will change too. But
they see no financial gain from doing so, and neither do I.
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?)


Article or not, if it were true, then Coke would be the first link you
saw if you searched google for "sparkling cola beverage"

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?"


Ah yes searching for the name of the company. Even my own site is in
the top 4 if you search for Whitecrest entertainment. And I don't
follow any standards! Actually I do and I validate, but that is not the
point. Search for any company name and you get the company in the first
page. That is not searching.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk says...
Nope, the radio, tv, and print ads send them to the site.

So, now you're saying that they go there because they've seen
advertisements for it?
Previously you said, and I quote:
But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation, because THAT is what drives people to their site,

Forgive me if I'm slow on the uptake...


Yes you are slow, You know exactly what I'm saying but would rather
troll.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a
In article <ZRhic.242357$oR5.38644@pd7tw3no>,
te**@fungoid.dot.dyndns.dot.org says...
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. Which is most certainly not a good thing.


Why?
If browsers supported standards as they were supposed to, it would make
everybody's life easier.


Todays "standards" are yesterdays innovations, and they were almost
always browser specific. So if everyone were forced to follow the
standards, how would we see the innovations? Let the standards people
decide what an innovation is? Thats exactly what Microsoft haters say
is one of the biggest problems with Microsoft.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a
In article <e6**************************@posting.google.com >,
pe***@ulujain.org says...
For the most part, I agree with the W3C recommendations, but those who
write them definitely need to refine their Keep It Simple, Stupid
theories. (as well as bone up on what the word "illegal" means in the
English language.)


The W3c is great, and we almost always validate. (It is a great way to
find errors). But many times, especially with the inability for most
browsers to live connect, the standards just don't cut it.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a
In article <opr6xw80b60ipbra@alice>, sp*******@aspyre.net says...
Why do I pay attention to standards? I'm on dial-up, and have respect for
other dial-up users.
You don't need standards to do that.
Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they are
three-fourths of the solution.


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

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #48

P: n/a
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says...
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).

If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.


It is a standard for him (I am being facetious)

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #49

P: n/a
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says...
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?

That's entirely your choice. Your code is not standard.


But all my pages work as designed.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Jul 20 '05 #50

162 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.