Do you make your sites standards compliant?

Advert test
#23
Yep, I've taken a side: adhering to standards is better than not.

Isn't that how you start a debate?

We all know the benefits of standards-based design. People doing this stuff seriously (as in, for a living) that don't adhere to standards are, in my opinion, less professional, because they're not keeping up with the rest of the industry.

Are you disagreeing with me? Do you adhere to standards yourself? If not, why don't you? Is it a time issue? Do you not agree with the perceived benefits of standards? Is this perhaps not your main job, in which case, the time to learn this stuff isn't worth it?

Come on, discuss!
 
#24
I've already stated my opinion Paul, and I'm afraid I don't debate with people with superiority complexes. When you need a hand dismounting, gimme a shout.

adam
 
#26
to answer frankp (http://forum.search.ie/t45-do-you-make-your-sites-standards-compliant.html)

ok admitedly, I should not have said 'not being asked', and using that as a valid reason not to design to web standards.

however I would like some people to answer the following


1. why should i code for mozilla/firefox when the majority of end users still use IE. If I code my css for Mozilla/Firefox I know that I will have to make corrections in IE and dare I say it, make a few IE specific hacks

2. Would u consider a site that is viewable in multiple browsers - somewhat standards compliant? Even though not all browsers (across different platforms) confirm to what is considered "standard"?

3. If we are encouraged to use "web standards", why is there is so much work involved in getting right across the board when developing?

Whilst I am aware of web standards, etc, blah, blah - it doesnt necessarily mean I will use them. I use tables on some sites, and not strictly limited to tabular data (as recommended). I just know from experience that, across the board - tables are more then likely able to display a page how I need to.

That is not to say there is no room for css/div in my current and past development but I wont be relying solely on them
 
#27
ph3n0m said:
1. why should i code for mozilla/firefox when the majority of end users still use IE. If I code my css for Mozilla/Firefox I know that I will have to make corrections in IE and dare I say it, make a few IE specific hacks
Firefox is becoming more prevelant so will start to make up more of your client base. IE7 will be much more standards compliant then IE6.
The corrections you have to make to IE is bacause IE is wrong.
coding to standards also means that you will not have to go back and change things at a later date.

ph3n0m said:
2. Would u consider a site that is viewable in multiple browsers - somewhat standards compliant? Even though not all browsers (across different platforms) confirm to what is considered "standard"?
That has been the root of the problem for years, back during the browser wars in the mid 90's microsoft and netscape kept adding their own proprietary functionality and did not follow any of the W3C's recommended standards. When Microsoft "won" they stopped developing IE and hence how far IE is now from being standards compliant.

ph3n0m said:
3. If we are encouraged to use "web standards", why is there is so much work involved in getting right across the board when developing?
It's only a lot of work the first couple of times, soon enough you get the hang of it and it becomes second nature. Developing with web standards is actually much easier then without (if the standards are implemented correctly in the browser).

ph3n0m said:
Whilst I am aware of web standards, etc, blah, blah - it doesnt necessarily mean I will use them. I use tables on some sites, and not strictly limited to tabular data (as recommended). I just know from experience that, across the board - tables are more then likely able to display a page how I need to.
If you use tables for content layout you are not creating a very accessible website.

Ask any person who uses a screen reader on a regular basis what they prefer.

Tables maybe more likely to display correctly but CSS can also be made to display correctly with a little patience.
 
#28
hey ph3n0m,

You see, I don't view it as coding for mozilla/firefox. I view it as coding for standards compliant browsers.

What's the difference?

Well, if everybody codes for standards compliant browsers then browser developers will be forced to produce standards compliant browsers.

That way, there will be less and less worries about how sites look in different browsers as we move forward.

As far as IE is concerned, IE has made positive steps in supporting standards, and I while the differences between IE and other browsers is annoying, I think progress is being made.

Yes IE still has the majority share and so it's important to ensure your site works in IE.

However I remember learning to design using tables and it was not that much different to learning to design using web standards. Surely you remember the horrible issues between NN and IE in table design back in the day?

In other words I think there is a learning curve to get into standards compliant development, but I think it's worth it to try and put the majority of cross browser issues behind us.

I'm realistic enough to realise there will always be cross browser issues, but I think good progress is being made.

As for what I consider a web standard design? One that validates.
However, as I stated I give myself some leeway when designing - unless, as Adam said, the client has requested a fully compliant site.

I hope this answers your questions... feel free to come back with your view on all this!

Cheers!
Frank
 
#30
evilhomer said:
Firefox is becoming more prevelant so will start to make up more of your client base.
I would say until there is a dramatic increase, the Firefox is still going to lag behind IE, no matter what the "experts" say. That is, unless there is a visible and sudden increase in the number of Firefox users, IE will still be number one

evilhomer said:
IE7 will be much more standards compliant then IE6.
I wait with baited breath, but I aint holding it

evilhomer said:
The corrections you have to make to IE is bacause IE is wrong.
and yet IE is still number 1 by a significant margin

evilhomer said:
coding to standards also means that you will not have to go back and change things at a later date.
and yet as far as we are lead to believe, most if not all current IE hacks will have to be either removed or redone when IE7 comes out

evilhomer said:
It's only a lot of work the first couple of times, soon enough you get the hang of it and it becomes second nature. Developing with web standards is actually much easier then without (if the standards are implemented correctly in the browser).
you said it..... "if the standards are implemented correctly"


frankp said:
You see, I don't view it as coding for mozilla/firefox. I view it as coding for standards compliant browsers.
What's the difference?
well I for one can create a cross browser/platform website that works in most browsers (old and new) and it wouldnt necessarily be standards compliant

frankp said:
As far as IE is concerned, IE has made positive steps in supporting standards, and I while the differences between IE and other browsers is annoying, I think progress is being made.
but that progress is slow

frankp said:
As for what I consider a web standard design? One that validates.
but that doesnt necessarily mean it will work cross browser/platform
 
#32
frankp said:
And accessibility and findability?

Ok someone asks you to make a site - what has that aspect of the job got to do with SEO? Because findability is (IMO) SEO. We are simply talking about making and creating websites.

As for accessibility - I will give you that screen readers do prefer a table-less format and to make your site accessible to screen readers would be a bonus - but what happens if your identified target audience do not nor ever will use screen readers?
 
#33
I consider findability to be integral to the design of a site. Clients are not best served by being delivered a site onto which an 'SEO strategy' must be bolted onto afterward...

Here's something I wrote on that before.

As for accessibility - granted there may be cases where it could be argued that accessibility is not an issue.

I personally believe there is no reason not to have a site far more accessible than tables: use web standards.

Having a site which is not very accessible because you prefer to design using tables is, in my opinion, a rather weak argument for designing less accessible sites.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like we'll convince you, but if for no other reason I recommend web standards to increase findability and therefore your value to your clients.

But feel free to stick with tables too, coz then my designs will outperform yours... :p
 
#34
frankp said:
Having a site which is not very accessible because you prefer to design using tables is, in my opinion, a rather weak argument for designing less accessible sites.

Anyway, it doesn't sound like we'll convince you, but if for no other reason I recommend web standards to increase findability and therefore your value to your clients.

But feel free to stick with tables too, coz then my designs will outperform yours... :p
Frankp, maybe it is a weak arguement, but you are right you will never convince me - as it stands I deliver what my clients want and they are quite happy with me.

As for sticking to tables - as I said before I and I dont - it depends on what I need to do - however your designs will outperform mine - because I am not a designer :)

And on a last note :) and to quote you :)

"While web standards themselves do not equal a more findable site, it is easier to develop a more findable site using web standards"

We could always have an arguement that content will superseed any design/standards compliancy arguements
 
#35
indeed... content is crucial, however usually content depends on the client, but once you have great content to work with you increase it's chances of success by ensuring people can find it... :)
 

mneylon

Administrator
Staff member
#37
ph3n0m said:
and yet as far as we are lead to believe, most if not all current IE hacks will have to be either removed or redone when IE7 comes out
You'll have to have both the old hacks and the new ones, as people generally don't upgrade immediately. I might - you might, other users of this forum might, but I doubt if my mother would even know how to ..
 
#38
blacknight said:
You'll have to have both the old hacks and the new ones, as people generally don't upgrade immediately. I might - you might, other users of this forum might, but I doubt if my mother would even know how to ..
BK,
I'm sure that Auto Update will shove it down most peoples throats if they want it or not :p
 
#40
auto update? very few - because most people are still warying of such things.

and I personally feel, that despite what most tech savy people say - IE will still remain the forerunner of browsers - most people dont know any different.
 
Top