Forum Moderators: open
To support my point… Would you buy or live in a house in which the foundation did not meet building codes? Of course not… it puts the contents of that residence at risk.
If the foundation of a website is weak, content is at risk. Accessibility and usability are limited and that could result in a loss of memberships, sales, and users.
I love it when people say: “Mac users only make up 5% of our customers, why should we design for them?” Can you imagine a 5 percent increase in users and or sales just by providing them access to a website!
This is almost not worthy of a discussion as validation should speak for itself. Someone (I think it was a gal named Chio? Here at WebmasterWorld) said: “It is a sign of a good programmer.” Those words echo in my mind with everything I do now… I am also working on some research regarding validation. I am sold on validation for months and is the core of my work ethic. I cringe at my old work – non-validated code! Blegh! Everything I do from here on out has been more productive and enjoyable for my clients, their site users, and my reduction of headaches.
So why is Validation shelved? It should play a big part in what we do… Not to mention saving our clients money in the long run.
I especially like Appendix A:
Validate accessibility with automatic tools and human review. Automated methods are generally rapid and convenient but cannot identify all accessibility issues. Human review can help ensure clarity of language and ease of navigation.Begin using validation methods at the earliest stages of development. Accessibility issues identified early are easier to correct and avoid.
...
As you have quoted, W3 advocate compliance and validation for 'accessibility'. 'Validation' is neither required not neccesary for 'accessibility'. Furthermore, universal accessibility is not, in my opinion a good goal, given that sites have different target audiences. So why is validation neglected? Admittedly in some cases through laziness or ignorance, but in other cases it is neglected because the designer has made a well thought through decision that validation for the purpose of accessibility is misguided, or because the designer wishes to forego universal accessibility to better position the site to their target audience.
I'll admit that in trying to get people to challenge their previous thinking, and to think outside the commonly accepted wisdom, I conveyed my points in a somewhat flippant way. If that made the discussion get out of control, I'm sorry.
Shawn
You increased your customer base by around 3.5% (according to my own stats) with that simple change. I'm sure your current count of Mozilla/Netscape7 visitors is lower than this. But that's just because your site didn't work for them until now, so they left immediately after arrival, skewing your statistics. Remember that this includes the current AOL browser.
So I now had a little larger html files and use a little more bandwidth and spent hours doing it for probably zero dollar return on the investment.
Go back in a month, and count the sales you made to people using Mozilla/NS7 relatively to those you made last month. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested to learn about your findings.
So why don't people validate their code more? My main theory is that most of them grossly underestimate the benefits.
They create a valid site for the first time, assuming validation means it's cross browser compatible, accessible, works on every device etc - after all this is what the w3c says, right?
Then they discover it doesn't work in NN4, goes funny in Opera 6, and won't load on their phone. And someone complains the site is inaccessible. So what has validation actually given them?
BTW I think its interesting that html is often refered to as a programming language. Validation could be compared to compiling a program. Folks sometimes think that if a program compiles, it "works" but it just means there are no syntax errors - not that it is doing the right thing!
And, it should be W3C's standard. After all, they have the right to set the standard...
waldemar
Basically HTML is like any other programming language
bird
You increased your customer base by around 3.5%
But that's just because your site didn't work for them until now,
Go back in a month, and count the sales you made to people using Mozilla/NS7 relatively to those you made last month. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested to learn about your findings.
BTW I think its interesting that html is often refered to as a programming language. Validation could be compared to compiling a program. Folks sometimes think that if a program compiles, it "works" but it just means there are no syntax errors - not that it is doing the right thing!
Very interesting point. Just ask Microsoft about code that doesn't compile but "works".
Another similarity is that validation, just like documentation, doesn't take much time to do if you do it while building your site. Going back and validate takes more time than if you do it as soon as you're done with a document. Once a site is validated, it's then much easier to get the code up to validation, since by then you'll probably have a code standard and layout that you follow.
The real gem, however, comes when the next version of IE (or any other browser) shows up; All of a sudden many invalid pages break since IE suddenly doesn't support a certain proprietary feature any longer. Companies have done it before *cough Netscape cough*, and most likely it will happen again. But do people notice that? Hell no. They won't notice anything until it's broken, and valid HTML code won't be broken.
Bottom line: The benefits of valid HTML are mostly long-term, and the gains won't always be obvious, even though they are there. (and please note that I'm talking about HTML here, not CSS which is a chapter in itself, completely separate from HTML.)
A program with syntax errors will not work properly. First step is to get rid of the syntax errors. A page of HTML without syntax errors will stand a better chance of working than one with errors.
All of a sudden many invalid pages break since IE suddenly doesn't support a certain proprietary feature any longer
That should not happen. The standard is if the browser does not recognize the feature it should ignore it. Which is why adding color to tables for IE does not affect NN. Now if browser XYZ ignores this long time standard way of doing it, well, millions if not billions of pages are not going to be fixed for their ignorance, even if it is IE. Same reason for putting remark marks around JavaScript, etc. so it doesn’t break in the future.
But it's just not proprietary tags, either. Say that IE all of a sudden decides to set a width of 95% of the mother element for all <p> tags. Now, if you don't include your </p> tags there, your page paragraphs will become increasingly smaller. If you write valid HTML however that won't be a problem.
See what I mean?
Why is validation so neglected?
- why don't otherwise health-conscious people ask for nutritional information when they visit a restaurant?
- why don't otherwise safety-conscious people wear their seat belts when driving?
- why don't otherwise technologically proficient people adjust their VCR and microwave clocks for daylight savings?
Developers skip HTML validation simply because it's an extra step that's easy to skip, and most people can get away with it most of the time with few or no practical consequences. If you want validation to be widespread, the software makers ought to embed it into their save, or preview, or some other automatic, commonly used function. What if Dreamweaver popped up a little red box if you saved an HTML page with invalid markup, the way another editor might do for XML or C++? At the very least, you'd have a lot of developers looking up what validation was in the first place.
Beyond that there's nothing but getting into the habit. I instinctively click on the little validate button when coding directly in HTML, just as I instinctly fasten my seat belt whenever I get in a car. I never program my VCR but I do plug and unplug it a lot, so I don't really care what time it's displaying. And I certainly don't ask for nutritional information at the Old Ebbitt Grille.
Another thing to consider is how the web is built today. When I first started, eight or nine years ago, almost all websites consisted of static HTML pages built "by hand" and FTP'd to a waiting server. The developer was solely responsible for the whole shebang from start to finish.
Nowadays, how many corporate sites are static HTML under the charge of a single webmaster or web design team? Maybe you're delivering invalid HTML that was entered into a database four years ago. You don't have a budget to go back and change the database, and maybe the team in charge of that database is territorial and won't let you do it. Frankly, I won't lose any sleep because that one widget on the home page is going to make it invalid when inspected by some geek who isn't interested in our proudct in the first place :).
A program with syntax errors will not work properly. First step is to get rid of the syntax errors. A page of HTML without syntax errors will stand a better chance of working than one with errors.
Heres where HTML differs - it doesn't need to "compile" to work (it's not a programming language).
Furthermore, no browser fully supports w3c standards, so arguably validation/compilation to the w3c syntax standard is meaningless: no user will run that program (view the web page) with that compiler (w3c standards) - they'll use their browser (different compiler, different syntax).
In the extreme case, one may start off with a HTML page that validates but then introduce syntax errors (in html or css) to make it work in some browsers. Or proprietary features for something the w3c hasn't noticed/isn't "semantic" enough e.g. favicons ;-)
I see validation as just another "browser" for a page to work "in". The standard I write to is the de facto standard of what works and (hopefully) validates: the undocumented, messy, constantly changing intersection of browser support and w3c standards.
If the w3c validator actually told folks what works and what doesn't in RW browsers, I think validation would not be neglected - it would be fantastically useful and folks would flock to use it.
Yes, Yes, Yes... that would make it truly worthwhile and powerful
I guess the main reason at least for me for not using the validator, is that it reports stuff as invalid when i know it works in 98% of my target audience.
If it said this won't work pre IE 5 or pre NS 6 for example I could instantly way up whether it would be worthwhile going back to fix it... Whether I'm happy for that paticular feature not to work for those paticular people...
Personally, I don't care if there is a small amount of browser comaptible code in there, but to not even check the pages at all, with a validator is foolhardy. Even if you just use it to find tags with spelling typos, wrongly nested stuff, wrong value or missing attributes, and so on, then you have at least made a start in writing better code.
Your right, if someone misses putting in the </p>, they need to validate their code. They should also write about 10 html pages in notepad by hand. There are good reasons why great professors make students do things the old fashion way.
g1smd
It is invalid in as much as it may fail in the new version of any flavour of browser that just happens to be released tomorrow.
Assuming you are not talking about ‘browser specific code’?
Personally, I don't care if there is a small amount of browser comaptible code in there, but to not even check the pages at all, with a validator is foolhardy.
I can see your point, but if one validates one’s code for 6 months and never finds anything wrong, are you saying that they should continue to validate till death do they part? Or is there a point where there is no return on the investment. Running code through a validation program is testing it, and as I said before, you cannot test quality into anything. It just can’t be done, and after 50-70 years of trying, in some cases, Fortune 500 companies figured this out and stopped doing it because there was no added valued in doing so. Quality has to be engineered into it. To quote someone from FORD that I talked to about statistics in the last several months, she said, ‘there is no substitution for good engineering.’
I can see your point, but if one validates one’s code for 6 months and never finds anything wrong, are you saying that they should continue to validate till death do they part?
I'd say that validating pages should be routine checkups as well as initial validation. So that you validate your code once you create it, then you have scheduled revalidations every third month or so and fixes the pages that failed to validate.
What bothers me the most is that there really are no site-wide validation tools that crawls your site, generates HTML from .php and .shtml sites, and reports back a list of all pages that fails to validate. Atleast I haven't been able to find any, despite a few hours spent on Google. Anyone knows of a script/program that have this feature? Open Source preferrably, although I'll settle for anything.
You’re not self-employed are you?
i use Visual InterDev which has syntax highlighting which picks out anything missing like that...
Now if you could download a regular update of the W3C standards and plug this into InterDev or other editor which would then run at the click of a button, and actually highlight the code in the editor, then that would be much more efficient.
One of the problems with the present situation is comparing lines numbers with source code, especially when you're writing ASP or other dynamic language, because obvioulsy lines # don't match up
Its just too slow ;)
Nope, I'm still in the academic world, working on learning UNIX (one more year to go!:)). I have a few projects running as well though, so I have some experience about validating pages, even though I'm still new to the entire Webstandards thing...
And yes, I know my view is mostly a technical standpoint, but hey, I'm (educating myself to become) a techie, what did you expect? ;)
"... Wertigon, You’re not self-employed are you? ..."
Not sure what the intent of the question was. In my case the answer is yes (i.e. I am the major shareholder of my company). In the past the answer was no (i.e. I have held highly technical software development roles as well as general management roles in other companies). So I have experience on both sides of the fence, and I feel that posts should be evaluated on their merit; not on the employment status or level of education or any other attribute of the poster. I learn from all who post, be they 16 year-olds using web development as an outlet for their creative energies, academics, free-lance copy writers, long-standing employees at small or large corporations, Westerners, those from the East, those from the North and those from the South (I'm talking the globe, not Texas vs New York). The diversity of views is what makes WebmasterWorld valuable to me; it broadens my thinking. If I don't agree with what is said, I try to find a way to argue the point, not the person.
Shawn
Not sure what the intent of the question was.
My only point was that if he is paying for the time out of his own pocket, perhaps his views would be different. I was just trying to establish whom I was talking with so that I could understand where he is coming from. And that question was important to establish that. Because this media is not face-to-face, I find it better to as just a simple question to try to understand better whom I am talking to.
I don’t know how such a question could be taken so far out of context. I agree with everything you said. And have posted such in other threads. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted the meaning of my question. The question has nothing to do directly with his age, social status, religion, income, schooling, or anything else.
[edit]It was a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. I did not ask for the additional information he volunteered. If he would have just answered yes or no, would you have had the same interpretation?[/edit]
As for paying from my own pocket - I don't mind if I have to, but I'd rather pay as little time/money as possible doing it (who wouldn't?). I can understand others aren't willing to spend the time or money on that though... Which is when you hire some teenager desperate for some money (it ain't free, but atleast it's cheap). ;)
I'm waaaay too much of a sucker for solving problems... Maybe I should lay off the caffeine?
...
Naaaaaaaah.
If you don’t ‘lay off the caffeine’, by the time you get to 40, you may be consuming 30 cups a day like I do. Not to mention 1 pitcher of tea every other day! ;-)) But caffeine does seem to be an occupational hazard.
I don’t know why they say I have a sleeping problem. It’s a mystery!
The value of validation
As communicated here in this discussion it seems ultimately all this breaks down into what is validation worth to users, and to our clients. Even search engines have been considered as a possible factor in if we should validate or not.
It seems it is in all how a “developer” values validation of their code.
To that I say: Should it be the developer’s choice or the clients? After all it is the clients site and their content at risk – not the developers. To support this lack of validation could bring legal action against a site owner.
Validation and Optimization for equal access…
I have been doing a lot of research on how valid coding supports equal access for those using accessibility devices for online access. I have learned a great deal in how these both play important rolls in how information is accessed. Today companies are being challenged legally in the courts to support the ADA (American’s with Disability Act). This research was sparked by a comment made here in this validation discussion.
Sites which cater for the blind will be optimised for the blind.
The question is… How does one know what sites a blind person will access? Do the blind only read Braille related sites? I happen to know several blind people who are into new media.
I am not one to preach on accessibility. Yes our site validates, BUT it is not accessible for the visually challenged or for any assistive technology. All my digging and research is changing that and working on our own site access - even if it is on to support one of our blind clients.
Validation and care for content is a good sign for a programmer, and one who communicates that value to their customer’s/employers demonstrates a solid work ethic. NO we don’t live in a perfect world, and most clients look to save a few buck by cutting corners. BUT should we not raise the standards through educating our clients, which can save them money down the road.
Regarding Browsers
I.E. is the most used browser there is no argument there… But even I have seen sites working well on Windows version of I.E. on one machine and look different on another Windows I.E. platform.
Echoed by many web developers…
But they look great in IE.
90% users use I.E. so why bother about other browsers?
Do we really stand by this? I mean really? If we do, then it will continue to be a bumpy ride. Even if I.E. is the browser of choice it still needs help. I don’t think there is an excuse for writing dirty code, or ignoring usability, and we can’t depend on browsers alone to solve buggy code.
A sign of a good programmer is one that validates their coding. If a standard is set, we follow this then we can continue to move forward.
Agreed, that is how it should be. But (again), you're missing something; HTML is a dead language. XHTML (it's successor) is extensible and allows you to define your own tags in your own DTD, like any other XML application. So "Browser specific tags" will in fact be valid markup, as long as you have defined it in the DTD (I might be wrong on this, but that's the way I have gotten it explained to me).
HTML IS DEAD? WOW. You may be right because I am getting pretty old for a developer and that strikes me as the most stunning thing I have heard someone say in a few years. If HTML is dead then gosh, I don't even know where to start on that.
I think it is a quote from the Church of Bob that says, "The more ridiculous it sounds, the more likely it is important.”
But (again), you're missing something; HTML is a dead language. XHTML (it's successor) is extensible and allows you to define your own tags in your own DTD, like any other XML application.
HTML? Dead?! Name just one site (or one page!) of any of those 2 billion pages listed in Google which uses XHTML in the way you've described! I've been to a couple of sites which used XHTML 1.1 plus MathML, but that's it.
HTML is very much alive, and those using XHTML are, in the vast majority, using it as a simple HTML4 substitute, serving it up as tag soup with no understanding of how it should really be used.
There's no obligation to use XHTML, or to see it as a "successor" to HTML. There are a variety of standards from which you can choose the one which best fits your needs. HTML 3.2 is still a valid standard, as is HTML 4.01.
One of the best and clearest explanations I have seen of why validation is so important can be found here: [diveintomark.org...]
