Forum Moderators: open
In answering that question there are a number of other questions that must be taken into consideration:
• What would happen if there were no standards? (Bear in mind that all browsers today are based on the earliest standards for the Web. They just offer different levels of support.)
• Is the W3C really the ones that should set the standards, or would that be done better somewhere else? If yes, who/where?
• If you agree that W3C standards are good for the Web community, and that W3C should continue to develop them, why is there an argument about one standard vs the other (such as CSS vs. HTML)? Isn't there just one standard, and those who advocate it should be willing to comply with it on all levels?
• Are the standards too strict, or perhaps too forgiving?
• Having standards is one thing, but validation and conformance is another?
• Which role should software companies play in setting the standards?
• Which role should the Web community play?
Personally I think that the W3C standards are crucial to the Web's existebce. Unfortunately they are just neglected by most, or even unknown. I also believe that there's only one standard.
If the W3C recommends accessibility awareness, then that's the route we should take. If the W3C recommends CSS for styling Web pages, then that's the route we should take. There are no grey zones - either you are for W3C standards, or you are against.
I also believe that the argument about backward browser compatibility is lame. All you have to worry about is supporting current and future browsers, not old ones. As an example, Netscape 4 is not a current browser. It only survives because we keep it alive. Stop developing half-baked Web pages, and those hardcore NN4 users will find themselves upgrading to Mozilla Firebird.
It concerns me that many Web developers are holding the overall progress back, when we should promote it instead. Lingering in the mindset of 1998 is not going to help you establish a successful presence on the Internet. You need to be up-to-date. And the only way of doing that is by observing the W3C standards.
Look at what wonders the IETF, ISO, RFC system and friends have brought to us.
I've developed programs that relied on EDI standards to communicate data. But is that level of standards where I want to be when I'm browsing around? Sometimes. The vast realm of information on the web is obscured by one's ability to search and navigate. Standards would improve the "information gathering" for a select group of users, but having to live by that standard while I search for a good game of cribbage would probably not be ideal.
The internet being what it is, having evolved from where it was, will probably evolve beyond our imaginations. I do not see standards as a way to promote that evolution.
Standards have a place in the world of programming. And I do believe it's important work that W3C does for us all. When I inherited my site every page was missing the end html tag. So I fixed that, and continued working on the pages (and still continue) until they are validated. This only brings me baleful glares from the owner when sales drop off...
You don't have to memorize everything... But some basic knowledge and staying up-to-date never hurt anyone. But, maybe you prefer catching up on everything when the browsers no longer support your code? Just remember - your power to change and make an impact is pretty much zero in the backwaters...
Personally, it took me forever to start appreciating W3C's Web site. Now I realize it was simply because I didn't understand the language used. And, I didn't see the benefits.
i agree totally that staying up-to-date is crucial for any webmaster, be you a designer, developer or combination of the two. but there are some particulars to keep in mind.
memorization to some extent is key. site developers, even those using editors, need to return coding by rote, but with an understanding of what they develop. having to refer to standards (snippets, templates, etc) constantly is simply not a efficient use of a developer's time when projects are on a timeline. it will be years before there is a large pool of developers who create validating websites (remembering when i first learned simple html and how much differently i do things now). many webmasters are today not truly developers, but folks who just add bits of coding here or there in a wysiwyg fashion. many still do not know about / accept the w3 standards.
now i wonder about all those poor lost websites developed years ago who's webmaster is long gone.
when the browsers no longer support your codeWhen will this be?
Depending on how obsolete your code/way of coding is - that may very well be now for some people.
If the W3C standards are actually geared toward accessibility, for one example, then there should be emphasis on multiple standards for multiple separate criterion within the subject of accessibility
The mantra of w3c is 'Universal access'
Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, languages, education, ability, material resources, access devices, and physical limitations of users on all continents
"Universal access" sort of sums it up - lowest common denominator.
And enforecement - well - here in Australia, its pretty clear... the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (yes - 11 years old!) make the rights of the disabled online the same as their rights in the real world.... [humanrights.gov.au...]
SOCOG - the Sydney Olympic Organising committee LOST a test case back in 2000 [hreoc.gov.au...]
In the real world - if you want to be an architect - you must understand and comply with legal aspects regarding 'council approvals' and 'accessibility legislation'. On the www - you can just ignore the law, and the 'standards' - at your own peril.
Chris_D
Sydney Australia
And enforecement - well - here in Australia, its pretty clear... the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (yes - 11 years old!) make the rights of the disabled online the same as their rights in the real world.... [humanrights.gov.au...]I am not an Aussie so hesitate to but in here. However the standard quoted above is only "advisory".
SOCOG lost it's case, but SOCOG is a public organisation, and the result will not necessarily be applicable to other organisations. For instance public organisations have to provide access to information to people with sight difficulties, however I have never heard of a newspaper or a magazine being forced to provide copies in braille.
We are talking here of highly developed countries with sophisticated Western-style legal systems, but most of the growth in internet use is going to come from countries that have rudimentary legal systems, or systems that, while sophisticated, do not neccessarily follow Western precepts.
I am very doubtful about giving W3C standards legal backing. For example the standards recommend the use of the Alt tag to assist the visually-chllenged. But if that became codified as law, that would have the tendency to perpetuate the Alt tag even when its use has become technically obsolete. The law would continually have to be updated to reflect changing technology. It would be a can of worms.
I must admit I really do not understand the tendency for some people to actively seek legally-imposed constraints on their own activities.
Harry
When I design a site, I design it for those who can see design clearly.. nothing against handicapped, but I just don't do that.
Not so long ago (and still in some parts) you could be banned from appearing in public, holding public office, voting, eatiing it certain restaurants, or sitting in parts of buses depending on your skin color, race, gender, or religion.
I suspect all the restauranteers (etc) could say "when I build a restaurant, I build it for..."
There is no excuse for any form of discrimination. And especially, on the web, against the handicapped. It's so easy to build universally-accessible websites that you need a compelling reason to do otherwise.
"I just don't do that" doesn't sound compelling to me.
This is not to say that 50 years from now I'll be able to browse HTML 4.01 Transitional web pages with a nifty (Insert futuristic device here). That wouldn't be very good for anyone, but at least the W3C has offered strength of numbers to webmasters by creating these standards. I'm sure that older standards will eventually stop being supported, but not until the time is right. Otherwise there would be a reasonably organised push to reinstate support for a standard that is still valid. Without the standard we would be left with a fragmented group of webmasters complaining about random particular tags that would no longer have support.
Any of that make any sense?
Without standards we would have to do a LONG list of EVERY item supported by each micro version of each browser, none of which is published and all of which we have to find by trial and error.
Basically You would never know if your site worked somewhere or not.
SN
Most people I have suggested www.w3c.org to have said that it was too technical to understand or to pique their interest.
I love the challenge of creating validated code personally, and refuse to go live with a site unless every page validates.
FACT: Although W3C validation is heavily endorsed by the SEO community - DMOZ is currently the only portal, directory, or search engine with a front page that validates.
You'd be surpised how many web designers haven't even heard of the W3C
That's what worries me the most. Even if you're not part of a public organization right now - sooner or later you might be (or at least do some development for one). Don't be narrowminded enough to think that accessibility won't ever apply to you. You may lose a contract tomorrow if an organization has that requirement. And it's not something you can catch up on overnight!
Besides, sooner or later the laws may change...
FACT: Although W3C validation is heavily endorsed by the SEO community - DMOZ is currently the only portal, directory, or search engine with a front page that validates.
This was the base for a discussion on another forum I was on recently and to be honest I was relieved to read that "top" sites when checked at w3c.org weren't valid. I agreed with the poster that if the "big boys" don't worry and that my sites view/rate well then why should I worry.
I did however start to think that if a majority(slowly changing)of designers feel this way and they are my competitors then if I work on validating then I'm ahead of the game so to speak.
I'm a self taught web designer (as many are) and am glad that I have found this input early on in my career.
BTW...there's nothing like the feeling of getting the tick at w3c.org to say you're site is valid. :)
I'm hooked on V
Louise
Today, we are no longer faced with the same problem. Spaghetti code can easily be avoided.
Still, for some reason, people complain if your site doesn't render correctly in 100% of all browsers (including really obscure ones).
Second of all... If you start a site today, and use valid code, isn't your hope and dream that your site will grow and be one of those "big" sites? If it does, it's sometimes too late to think about validation. And, your site will end up being used as an example of bad coding practices.
Pages that validate are more likely to survive than those that don't.
Because they were started back in 1998 when spaghetti code was a must if you wanted the page to render correctly in most browsers.
Nice points, DrDoc
No one would point to a typical five-year old car and say: "that's the features I want: rust, breakdowns, chipped windshield, discolored paintwork, bad fuel economy, stolen CD player, and half a happy meal staining the back seat".
So why look at a 5-y-o website and expect it to be much of a role model?
Yeah, so when you talk to customers you can say that:
"We will code your new website to published web standards and can use tools (i.e. the validator.w3.org/ and jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ sites) to demonstrate that compliance to you. In this way you should have no problems with search engines spidering and indexing your site, and we will maximise your audience because your new site will work in the most number and versions of different web browsers, and we will maximise your exposure to a wider customer base, including the many disabled users who often get locked out of the many "proprietory-coded" web sites like many of your competitors are currently using."
They may not know exactly what you are talking about, but what if the next "web designer" they have in to interview for the job of doing their new site is then asked about "validation" and he says that he has "never heard of it", or that "it is a waste of time"; don't you think that at least some businesses having heard you tell them that you are going to demonstrate compliance to something that could increase their business, that then having some other guy say it is a "waste of time" might make him look stupid, and give your tender for the job a more favourable outcome? yes?
I see compliance and validation to standards important in any industry and believe that it's a very important aspect that is too critical to miss.
Because they were started back in 1998 when spaghetti code was a must if you wanted the page to render correctly in most browsers.
And because 'the big boys' still do this, browsers like NN4 live on. As a result the standards of today arent followed because developpers still pander, often not by choice, to bad browsers instead of following modern standards. This results in a web that evolves at a snails pace and leaves developers wasting time and resources to accomodate non-standard browsers.
Following standards both in web development and browser development will result in an environment where everyones job is easier. Its too bad that day is a long way off, unless by some miracle microsoft has a change in policy.
<added>
I see compliance and validation to standards important in any industry and believe that it's a very important aspect that is too critical to miss.
Well said, every industry works better with common standards, especially those of a technical nature.
</added>
They may not know exactly what you are talking about, but what if the next "web designer" they have in to interview for the job of doing their new site is then asked about "validation" and he says that he has "never heard of it", or that "it is a waste of time"; don't you think that at least some businesses having heard you tell them that you are going to demonstrate compliance to something that could increase their business, that then having some other guy say it is a "waste of time" might make him look stupid, and give your tender for the job a more favourable outcome? yes?
not necessarily! i've come behind a good number of other designers and had to pick up the mess. you'd be surprised at how many 'designers' can play the game and say all the right things to impress clients who otherwise would never know better. but it all comes in time. first the developer world eases into standards then the clients, large to small, recognize the importance.
One thing I'd liek to see is a reference implementation of a brower or any other piece of software that deals with these standards.
The W3C does have a reference implementation, Amaya.
However, it's rather clunky, and other browsers, such as Mozilla, support most standards better than Amaya.
There are various charts like that all over the Internet. Some are more correct than others. However, I believe a complete, all encompassing list of every browser and its level of support, would be virtually impossible to compile.
Now, if the W3C were to maintain this list, and implement it in the validator, bam! the validator and validation could suddenly take off. It would be too useful to ignore.
I suggested this to Karl Dubost at the W3c some time ago, and he suggested I volunteer my time to work on the validator... (what am I supposed to do, give up sleeping?!)
ISTM that although most here are in favour of valid markup, we're actually being slightly economical with the truth. We write valid markup that falls into the subset of valid /and/ works widely, which is not the same as just valid (e.g. putting advanced css into an imported stylesheet, all the other css hacks). If only the validator could check "valid and works"...
volunteer my time to work on the validator
...not to mention that it takes a bunch of computers with different OSs installed, each with every available browser installed as well :(
Then you have to test EVERYTHING, and that in 10 to 15 different ways! :(
It's an impossible task! The available charts are limited to browser/OS maker, at best...
>> I believe killroy meant that it would be nice to see some form of chart <<
No, a reference implementation of something is a working model that other developers can build on to add features.
For example, in electronics when some new multi-purpose silicon chip is developed, there will be a circuit diagram supplied of all the other components needed, with their types and values, in order to make the chip do something quite basic but still useful. That is a reference implementation, a circuit you can add more features to to make your own products, or you can use the basic circuit as a tester to test that each chip you bought does actually work.
So, a reference browser would be one that you feed HTML pages and CSS into, and see what it looks like. The validator is a sort of reference browser. It parses the code, and then produces error messages rather than attempting to render the code into a page.
We do need a guide of some sorts, especially for those just starting out into the field - but this guide has to be a clear summary of what works best for everyone, not something that's a compromise for already existing browsers. A very good abovementioned point was providing for 'modern and future browsers' - so true (yet most tend to believe the opposite). How else are we going to develop towards a working common language that all can understand?
... this guide has to be a clear summary of what works best for everyone, not something that's a compromise for already existing browsers.
Sorry to go over old ground, but something that works best for "everyone" has to be a compromise for existing browsers. There are no simple solutions. To be a succesful web designer one has to put in the effort to aquire an in depth knowledge of browser compatablity, and also have access to comprehensive test browsers and OSs. That situation will not change.
Today there are employees still surfing with IE4 and NS4 (and maybe even earlier) on company-provided PCs. Sometimes the company is quite happy with that, sometimes they don't have the budget to upgrade, and no doubt there are lots of other reasons. And of course there are still private individuals running PCs they bought a decade or so ago who would run a mile at anything so technical as a download.
But this problem isn't going to go away. In five years time the situation will be the same. The majority will be running whatever is the latest thing then, but no doubt there will still be people runnnig "old" IE6 models, and (shudder) even NS4. And so on ad infinitum.
Any solution to this has to be an individual solution. Some commercial organisations may decide to ignore this small percentage of users, but some will not. And of course as "accessablity" becomes more and more important certain sites may have to cater for all the old junk.
I wonder when the first litigant will sue for damages because a public site does not render in his elderly browser? :)
Harry
Another thing that has crossed my mind a couple times... Maybe those using NN4/IE4 and earlier are doing it on purpose, to give us a hard time! Maybe their browser of preference is actually Mozilla or Opera, but they delight in playing with our minds. ;)
Yeah... Since it's free, how can you not "afford" to upgrade? :)
Is there a "modern" browser for them to use, something better than NS 4.8 which is (as far as I know) the end of the road for them?
I came across a company only three years ago that still did their accounts on a Commodore PET!
Perhaps a 'best solution' for W3C would be 'the best of now and all that in the future' - but that's what it is already, isn't it? One thing that they have done is waylay MS and Netscape efforts to 'implement' their own 'personal browser coding' into widespread acceptance...
