Hi all,

I know this is an old post but I thought I'd see what people thought of it as I came across it today?

?Valid CSS? and Similar Claims AreUnprofessional ? Jens Meiert

Personally, I'm all about raising awareness. The more people have these the better but what do ye think?

__________________
My Blog thing!

a few years back I thought ... cool ....

Now I think ... hmm...

With so many other people editing the content on sites ... they will be adding in their own errors ...

For the most part as well .. those buttons feel like you're trying to say ... look at me .. I can design ... as was said in that article ... you don't expect to see a badge saying .. I can cut hair at a barbers do you ? (In oranmore at the moment there is a barbers called ... Professional Barbers ... I mean .. hello ... as opposed to a company thats going to call themselves Unprofessional Barbers or what)

__________________
Forbairt Media | Web Design & Development Galway / Dublin, Ireland - coming soon ... ( vague but descriptive isn't it )
Recent Work: Safari Club African Safari Holidays - Malawi Safaris
Other Stuff: FluffyLinkulator Rapid Inclusion Service Tools
Jumper Stuff: Task Drop's Official Geansai Gorm Website

I dunno. I like to see some qualifications around the place... I wouldn't go to a surgeon if I didn't see B. CH. after their name unless I was very familiar with the industry and knew the people involved.

That same barber shop example. Say there were two barber shops in the town... and you'd never been in either. Both the same price and looking at the outside you could see that they both looked like they seemed to be able to cut hair fairly well. However, on the outside of one, they had a few of those medals that barbers win.

I reckon most people go into that one, cause we like to think that it means that they will definitely cut hair properly. Its a silly example I know.

I get what you mean for multiple people editing sites and stuff as this has happened to me or more than one occasion!

The general punter, they couldn't give a toss if the site is valid or invalid as long as it works and gives them what they want.

It means something to us as designers, developers etc and so influences our opinion of the site and of the creators but most people would not know what it means and to be honest they do not need to know.

I think it's wrong to compare standards compliant websites with either a surgeon or a barbers for that matter.

Having a standards compliant icon at the bottom of the screen doesn't mean that a website/web firm are professional.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of web development can create a standards compliant website - so it is no guarantee of professionalism.

Awards are different than compliance, you get awards for achieving something (nowadays you generally pay for them). Compliance is about quality stanards.

I'm still on the fence about standards compliance in the "web" industry. I believe we should have them, but I don't believe we are going the right way about it. For me, standards compliance on the web is al about ego at the moment.

__________________
Web Design Ireland | My Blog | Online Marketing Ireland

But I'm not. I am however comparing the outward images of both examples. And I think its fair.

True on the top point - However I believe it shows a certain delligence. And on the bottom point, I think you and I have very different ideas on the meaning of basic. It is quite an amount of work to get a complicated, well designed website to be web standard compliant and valid. Most people I know with basic web skills are still throwing table based websites at the general public.

I don't understand what you mean about it being about ego... I don't think anyone is out there under the impression that just because they made their website standards compliant that their somehow a legend among men?

I believe that most people who are interested in these things do it to raise awareness. To try and get more people on the road to standard, better written and designed websites that enable the content to be shared by everyone and is not excluding any group of people through laziness or lack of understanding.

Well you did use the analogy of the barbers with medals outside and it's likely to "win" the customer.


I never said anything about a complicated design being easy or basic. I said that anyone with basic web development knowledge would be able to create a standards compliant website.


Well to be honest I do feel that it's a pure ego thing - at the moment. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of standards compliance and hope that one day the whole web will be compliant, however, in the real world you don't need to be standards compliant to have a successful, attractive, functional website. Raising awareness is a good thing and I like that trail of thought.

I don't agree that non-standards compliance is a lack of understanding. And I really hate hearing people say that it's laziness. How is it lazy? Because it takes longer to do you think people aren't interested in doing it? I don't think so.

There are a number of reasons when running a business. Speed of delivery, the amount of time it takes to develop a complicated site in CSS over HTML and of course, the cost of that time.

I did indeed but based on the outward appearance to the customer. Anywho, I said it was a silly example at the time...

And I was saying that I don't believe this is true. And the internet proves it. In abundance.

However you should be standards compliant. Even one WAI priority 1 issue makes a site very difficult to navigate using a screen reader or text only browser. However you don't need to go nuts and start ripping your site apart to try and fix it. Look at your demographic and the people who are going to use it and then try as hard as possible not to exclude anyone.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. If you understand the issue then you should be doing it. It doesn't take long if you have the knowledge.

We have to stop treating the internet as a place full of perfect people. It isn't. We have to be more inclusive, and try to reach as many people as we can with our content. I feel that in Ireland we have a very inclusve culture and society. For example, we have better public transport access for wheelchair users than any other city I've been in. Every single new building has ramps or lifts etc. So I feel that we shouldn't ignore various groups on the internet because the time it would take to complete it.

I'm sorry but it doesn't. The Internet proves that not many people are interested in building standards compliant websites. It doesn't prove that people with a basic knowledge are not capable of doing it.


However why?

A common misconception between many people is that you need a standards compliant website to be accessible, this is not true at all. You can have an accessible website without being standards compliant.

It's an interesting point you make about "not to exclude anyone" - Accessiblity is about "access for all" - now go explain to people who use old computers, with old browsers why they won't have access to your website.

WAI 1 is way too restrictive and WAI 2 are proof of that. WCAG 2 will be more like section 508 which is a more practical and common sense approach. No longer will it revolve around code, but whether it actually works or not.



It still takes longer than doing it the old fashioned way.

Yet again getting confused with accessibility and the latest coding standards. I will say it again... a site does not have to be coded in the latest coding standards to be accessible.

Oh I would disagree that "every single new building" has accessible options. I'll give you an example, a wheelchair ramp at the back of a building is NOT accesssible. Yes you may be able to get in in a wheelchair, but because it's at the back of the building, it is excluding wheelchair users.

So this is kind of similar to web accessibility. Just because WAI WCAG 1.0 says it's accessible doesn't mean it is. And it definitely doesn't mean it's accessible if it is coded to the latest coding standards.

What?! As I said already I think we have very different feelings on what we are considering basic here?

True. But why not use the guidelines that are there? That the applications that are built to aid accessibility use to base their products on?

Its all about percentages. and specifically demographics. For my website, or any website that I am involved in, very few people read or connect to it using a browser older than IE6. In fact I think it was less than 1% the last time I checked. However with 7% of internet users using some form of accessibility aid - this is a large percentage to ignore.

Excellent. However at the minute we can only work with what we have.

What exactly is the old fashioned way that is so much quicker than then current methods?

Can they get to it? Is there a note on the front to say that the ramp is at the back? Probably. But this is beside the point. I was merely pointing out that in Ireland we make an effort.