do people web develop or browser develop?

need to back my case to my company that we need to follow standards...

[mikejson]

Hey everyone, I'm getting frustrated with my company, they are doing all this web stuff and tossing up new web pages constantly. But they fail to realize that when they look at something on IE and ok it to go up, they could be looking at a broken page, if rendered in another browser. I wouldn't mind getting an idea of how many people out there develop in strict standards like HTML 4.01 strict or higher. I would also like to know which are doin this for large dynamic websites.

Help me bring my companies web image to a standard! hah... if I can make a big enough stink, with good some facts, I might be able to do somethin

[Reflection]

At minimum you should be testing in all major browsers, not just IE, whether you are developing to standards or not.

Best thing to do is show them how bad their pages break in other browsers.

[victor]

Good questions.

Yes I develop to standards. 4.01 loose is the DTD, but I'm aiming at being strict.

The main site I'm working on is 100% dynamic -- several thousand pages. And:

it gets top rankings in Google

it displays well (though not always perfectly with older Netscape Navigators) in all known browers

it doesn't cause any problems for non-browser visitors (those all-important search engine spiders for example)

99 out of 100 all the users (ie content suppliers) have to do is update a database or edit some text files, and the new/amended pages are generated on the fly.

by changing the CSS, I can change the appearance in seconds

by fiddling with the scripts, I can add or alter navigations and other dynamic elements, and have them live without having to reload *any* content pages

Life is simple, and the site has a welcome for pretty mcuh 100% of its visitors.

Why would anyone volunteer to give up any of those advantages?

[photon]

I've been developing my pages to validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict. I do the initial checking in IE, then periodically in Opera and Firebird as I go along.

I intend to swap IE and Opera in that order in the near future.

[TGecho]

1) There are far more browsers out there then you can ever hope to test on. There are also newer versions of browsers being made. Even IE will be upgraded eventually (crosses fingers)

2) The only possible reason to not use current standards like CSS is because of older browsers like NN4. I would be willing to bet that users of cellphone browsers and such exist in comparable numbers--and they will probably increase. Standards based designs tend to fare much better in these browsers.

3) The best way to increase and/or guarantee decent compatibility with future browsers is to develop according to the standards that these browsers (hopefully) will be following.

4) The (minimal) cost of using a standards based approach is far less than the money needed to overhaul an old page when it won't display properly in the newest version of IE (fingers still crossed)

This is not to mention stuff like reduced page size, increased design potential, higher word density resulting in better search engine rankings.

In other words, developing to standards (if done properly--no silver bullets) can not only save money in the future, it also has the potential to earn more money.

<edit>Oh yeah, I use html 4.01 strict and primarily test with Opera and FB</edit>

[jbinbpt]

The main focus for us is content. We accept input from a lot of different in house sources, but we make sure that the code validates to 4.01 transitional. It’s very important that the code validates.

We check the output on the current version of IE, Netscape and Opera.

I have found that users are really turned off by malformed pages, regardless of their content.

jb

[iamlost]

Your company sets standards i.e. in employee hiring. Governments continually set standards; some such as access for the disabled that impact web design. The world is overflowing with standards that individuals and especially businesses need to meet. People are using a variety of devices and methods to connect to the internet. Without standards it would be impossible.

The following may give you some ammunition:

[w3.org ]

[devedge.netscape.com ]

I write to standards (xhtml 1.0 strict, css 2.0) and then test/refine in a variety of browsers (and versions). Strangely, I have found it easier to make a site browser consistant with valid code!

Good luck!

[ricfink]

I don't know if this is allowed by the terms here, but my Thanksgiving weekend reading has been Jeffrey Zeldman's book Designing With Web Standards and he gives a lot of good solid business reasons for going the standards route.
You might want to quote some of his stuff to help make your case to the powers that be in your company.

[Farix]

Zeldman is a rather controversial figure on the web standards front. Many people are far too likely to dismiss anything he says because he does try to push the envelope toward a standards compliant web.

[ricfink]

Persuasive logic is persuasive logic, whether the source is Zeldman, Feldman, or Schmeldman.

[Farix]

If someone is already predisposed to think negatively of the source, then logic need not apply. Best to figure out what they think of Zeldman first before using him as a source.

[TGecho]

>> If someone is already predisposed to think negatively of the source, then logic need not apply.
Unfortunetly that is a consideration if you're going to throw names around. Using some of his logic might not be a bad idea though.

[BergtheRed]

Best to figure out what they think of Zeldman first before using him as a source.

what they actually "think" may color their perception, but quite a lot of what Zeldman says make sense from both a business perspective and from a developement perspective.