Re: [WSG] Skip Navigation question

[Mark Harris]

Brian Duchek wrote:


A simple way to reduce the design impact of a skip-nav link would be
to make it the same color as the background on which it resides.

You won't win any Bobby awards by doing it, of course, but sometimes a
little trickery goes a long way.

 


As I recall (vaguely), Google does penalize same colour text on 
background, as that is a favourite keyword-spam trick



cheers

mark


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Skip Navigation question

[Brian Duchek]

Leaving all the philosophical standpoints behind, I still feel the
urge to make this suggestion.

A simple way to reduce the design impact of a skip-nav link would be
to make it the same color as the background on which it resides.

You won't win any Bobby awards by doing it, of course, but sometimes a
little trickery goes a long way.



On 12/21/06, Christopher M Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Just FYI, the approach on www.seoworkers.com seems to work correctly in
IE6.

In my work here, I advocate skip links being visible and staying visible
for all users.  The "suddenly appearing" method, to me, is better than
not visible at all.  As noted in a previous post, there are a number of
users who are sighted, but prefer to not use or cannot use a mouse for
navigation.  I myself prefer to TAB through forms, etc.  (Full
disclosure: I do have Cerebral Palsy, but it hardly affects my computer
use.  I do completely stink at video games, though.)  I get really
annoyed if TAB order does not match visual layout.  And, I know some
very learned and wise folks advocate putting content first, nav second,
but I do not agree.  Just my opinion, of course.  My feeling is on Web
pages most users, sighted or not, are used to hitting nav first, meat
second.  Reversing it confuses the TAB order for sighted users and may
make screen reader users think they messed something up in their
navigation.

A combination of well placed and visible skip links, semantic page
organization with heading elements and other proper elements, and
possibly access keys (I'm not totally sold on them) provides multiple
effective methods for users of many abilities to navigate a site
efficiently.

So, in my humble and sole opinion, leave the skip link where it is at
top, but don't have it pop in and out when keyboard focus hits and
leaves it.  I know there are "design" concerns and I sympathize.  But,
can't we have both good visual appeal and maximum accessibility?

Just my 2 cents adjusted for inflation.

Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22)
State Farm Insurance Companies
Accessible Technology Services & Support (ATSS)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

"[Web] Access is not about adding wheelchair ramps to existing pages.
It's about getting your page right in the first place. This medium was
designed to be accessible. If your work isn't accessible, you're doing
it wrong..." - Owen Briggs, Web and CSS guru,
http://www.thenoodleincident.com 

"However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do and
succeed at. While there is life, there is hope." - Stephen Hawking



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[sharron]

 
Someone from Google has spoken regarding valid code and google's bot. Thought 
I'd share Mr. Lasnik's post in the before mentioned Google Webmaster Help 
Group.  

Sharron


Quote:


 From:   Adam Lasnik - 
Date:  Thurs, Dec 21 2006 7:34 pm  


  Our Googlebot is amazingly persistent and resourceful and is given 
  antacids each day before he crawls. 

  Seriously... I don't want to discourage anyone from validating their 
  site; however, unless it's REALLY broken, we're likely going to be able 
  to spider it pretty decently. 


  It's more important -- from a Google-friendly site perspective -- that 
  your site adheres to our guidelines and is broadly accessible 
  (serverwise, browserwise, platformwise, etc.) 


  Being more specific:  I'm betting that in the vast majority of cases in 
  which folks have indexing or ranking concerns, the core issue is NOT 
  that their site doesn't perfectly validate. 

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


dot_clear.gif
Description: GIF image


green_g.gif
Description: GIF image

Re: [WSG] Deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1

[Micky Hulse]

A good thread:

*XHTML1.0 vs XHTML 1.1*


Might help. :)

Also good:

*XHTML vs HTML FAQ*


Cheers,
Micky


--
 Wishlist: 
   Switch: 
 BCC?: 
   My: 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Skip Navigation question

[Christopher M Kelly]

Just FYI, the approach on www.seoworkers.com seems to work correctly in
IE6.
 
In my work here, I advocate skip links being visible and staying visible
for all users.  The "suddenly appearing" method, to me, is better than
not visible at all.  As noted in a previous post, there are a number of
users who are sighted, but prefer to not use or cannot use a mouse for
navigation.  I myself prefer to TAB through forms, etc.  (Full
disclosure: I do have Cerebral Palsy, but it hardly affects my computer
use.  I do completely stink at video games, though.)  I get really
annoyed if TAB order does not match visual layout.  And, I know some
very learned and wise folks advocate putting content first, nav second,
but I do not agree.  Just my opinion, of course.  My feeling is on Web
pages most users, sighted or not, are used to hitting nav first, meat
second.  Reversing it confuses the TAB order for sighted users and may
make screen reader users think they messed something up in their
navigation.  
 
A combination of well placed and visible skip links, semantic page
organization with heading elements and other proper elements, and
possibly access keys (I'm not totally sold on them) provides multiple
effective methods for users of many abilities to navigate a site
efficiently.
 
So, in my humble and sole opinion, leave the skip link where it is at
top, but don't have it pop in and out when keyboard focus hits and
leaves it.  I know there are "design" concerns and I sympathize.  But,
can't we have both good visual appeal and maximum accessibility?
 
Just my 2 cents adjusted for inflation.

Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) 
State Farm Insurance Companies 
Accessible Technology Services & Support (ATSS) 
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

"[Web] Access is not about adding wheelchair ramps to existing pages.
It's about getting your page right in the first place. This medium was
designed to be accessible. If your work isn't accessible, you're doing
it wrong..." - Owen Briggs, Web and CSS guru,
http://www.thenoodleincident.com  

"However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do and
succeed at. While there is life, there is hope." - Stephen Hawking



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[sharron]

opps decided that I may be applying the responses to this thread personally. I 
do realize that the answers do apply to all, especially those who do have a 
need to convince clients.

My stance was leaning more toward the general website building population. Mom 
and pops who want and do build their own sites.

Although there are plenty of website builders who promote their website 
business that don't care nor bother. 
Said major "fusser" on the google fuss, is a web designer who promotes building 
websites for a fee. 

Gosh he made a remark that he would not mislead clients


Sharron

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[sharron]

Hi Barney,
I've got to thank you for your input. I certainly appreciate it.

Barney you said: The thing is, your rhetorical 'why not' will sound weaker 
than the client's 'why'.


I must clarify that I don't need to clarify the issue to a client.

My intention of this post to begin with was not because I have to convince a 
client. My reason was simply because so many like to argue that validation 
is not important for any number of reasons.


For instance the reference I made to the google webmaster fuss. lol, I spent 
a bit of time yesterday validating one such "fusser's" index page.xhtml 
transitional. I didn't remove the table, I didn't remove all the font tags 
etc.


All I did was make the darn page valid. I don't get anything from such an 
exercise except for experience and the slight hope that someone in the same 
position I was at one time might gain some realization that it isn't hard, 
doesn't have to change their beautiful designs.


However I didn't even show them, as they stand on their box firmly 
entrenched in that it absolutely does not matter to them. My question if why 
are you asking questions as to if the code matters to google.


I've also just for the heck of it because I can, validated and converted to 
css sites and or pages for several folks for free. I just want to share with 
them, that valid code is not impossible nor a big pain in the rear to 
acheive.



If I build a site and do get paid for it, well I build valid sites. The 
client doesn't care, but I do. I did build a site for pay once that didn't 
and doesn't validate. Well it does except for one (1) small reason, I could 
not find an valid alternative to (onresize). Other then that and of course 
the additions made over time by their content input. I didn't do the data 
base or php programming.


Also I could have chosen to leave out the "onresize" but it would have added 
an additional click on the reload for users, I opted not to validate and 
make the "onresize" automatic. The client didn't care, nor did they know. 
I've had the distinct pleasure to have carte blanche.


Not to infer I am a good site builder, nor professional. Novice with good 
intentions and a desire to deliver the best I can do.



Oh well,

I'm glad so many have responded to my questions. It's been interesting.

I'm also glad some appreciate my analogy, I was quite afraid it was a bit to 
off to post.
I also hope my typos and mistakes in the text of my posts are not too darn 
awful. I don't even see them until I read them back after posting.


Barney, one other thing... I didn't use the word "snot". lol I 
was a bit more tactful then that I hope.

Sharron




- Original Message - 
From: "Barney Carroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and 
those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is there are validation tools, information and help available 
for free everywhere. It doesn't mean one has to spend money to validate 
their pages. If one takes the time to build a site for themselves using 
whatever method, well then why not take a bit more time and use valid 
code?


I am certainly not suggesting you turn away from validation on principle 
(I think I gave that impression). The thing is, your rhetorical 'why not' 
will sound weaker than the client's 'why'. Is that what you're going to 
tell them, or is that the kind of statement you could only let go 
unquestioned in a community of web developers? I'm not your client, and 
you shouldn't feel the need to justify your practices to me. Them, 
however...


As you put it, there is a notion of 'niceness' to validation. But as a 
paying civilian, it's unlikely your client will sympathise with this.


Saying your reason for it is that they will get better search results is 
an abuse of their ignorance and possibly ours (I'm not quite sure how 
seriously that was taken). I think you should tell your client that 
validation will...


1. Make their site accessible cross-browser, cross-language, cross-medium.
2. Be future-proof and never need integral re-designs to work across these 
factors in the future.
3. Make the back end of the finished product manageable and understandable 
in case they should ever hire someone else to tweak, upgrade or re-design 
it in any way.


The snot on the shirt is not visible to the client, only 'our friends on 
the internet' - who should not be your target audience; too many people 
design for designers, and they are not the ones who need it. Design for 
the client. Explain to the client how snot is unhygienic, how it will 
matte the shirt, how it will make it difficult to clean.


Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAI

RE: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Valdosta Webmaster]

One of the main reasons for going to XHTML way back in 1999 when it came out
was separating the content of the page from the style. The "extra" code for
the style that was in HTML 4.0 was making the pages hard to universally
update. It wasn't too bad if you had a site with 25 pages, but if you had
several hundred or more it was difficult and mind numbingly boring to find
them all. Now, it is simple - "You want the font changed to this color blue
and the background of the pages in white? No problem."

 

Clients like to change things, that is the reason for a designer to think
modularly and XHTML and CSS help greatly in that effort.

 

Trying to convince a client why they should design or redesign their site to
take advantage of the standards is part of the education process for our
clients. 

 

Usually I ask my clients if they would like to get everyone possible to view
their site. "Of Course I want everyone to see what I have" is the obvious
answer. Then I explain that if you code the page in such a way that it works
with only one browser, you are leaving some people out of your business.
Keeping with the standards allows everyone to see what you have to offer.
Whether they have a pc running Internet Explorer, a PDA running Opera, a Mac
running Safari or a Linux box running Firefox they all see what you want
them to see, and everyone is invited into your store. Seeing that you are
accessible to everyone, you are also following the rules for other things,
such as 508 rules. And there are many reward to this: Everyone is happy.
Your customers are because they can see your pages with anything they are
using, the search engines are because they can index your pages faster, and
you can make changes faster because your designer can find things easier.
Everyone wins!

 

Yes, you may get some that don't care about valid code, but if you couch
your argument by asking if they want everyone to see their pages the same
way it be easier for you to do the right thing code wise and help them too.

 

Alan Dunbar

 

  _  

From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 4:05 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and
those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

 

hmmm, sorry if off topic and uncouth. I've a rather simple question or
two if  you please.

 

1. On a scale of 1-10, how important is W3C validation?

2. How does one convince folks that it is important?

3. Is valid code important to SE?

4. Does it follow, that those who don't care about validation also don't
consider accessibility?

 

 

I've decided that telling people it is important is like telling my 5 year
old granddaughter that a tissue is better then her shirt sleeves.

 

Yes the honey, the shirt is convenient, it works and you don't have to go
about looking for a tissue. On the other hand, if you use your shirt it's
nasty. 

 

If I were google had to crawl nasty shirt sleeves, I certainly would think
twice before trying it again.

 

Happy Holidays Everyone

 

 

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Barney Carroll]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is there are validation tools, information and help available 
for free everywhere. It doesn't mean one has to spend money to validate 
their pages. If one takes the time to build a site for themselves using 
whatever method, well then why not take a bit more time and use valid code?


I am certainly not suggesting you turn away from validation on principle 
(I think I gave that impression). The thing is, your rhetorical 'why 
not' will sound weaker than the client's 'why'. Is that what you're 
going to tell them, or is that the kind of statement you could only let 
go unquestioned in a community of web developers? I'm not your client, 
and you shouldn't feel the need to justify your practices to me. Them, 
however...


As you put it, there is a notion of 'niceness' to validation. But as a 
paying civilian, it's unlikely your client will sympathise with this.


Saying your reason for it is that they will get better search results is 
an abuse of their ignorance and possibly ours (I'm not quite sure how 
seriously that was taken). I think you should tell your client that 
validation will...


1. Make their site accessible cross-browser, cross-language, cross-medium.
2. Be future-proof and never need integral re-designs to work across 
these factors in the future.
3. Make the back end of the finished product manageable and 
understandable in case they should ever hire someone else to tweak, 
upgrade or re-design it in any way.


The snot on the shirt is not visible to the client, only 'our friends on 
the internet' - who should not be your target audience; too many people 
design for designers, and they are not the ones who need it. Design for 
the client. Explain to the client how snot is unhygienic, how it will 
matte the shirt, how it will make it difficult to clean.


Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Barney Carroll]

Andrew Maben wrote:

Wow, that's kinda harsh - and at Christmas!!


Sorry Andrew, I always come out wrong with these things. It's a warning 
as opposed to a criticism. I'm only on this list because I think 
standardisation is an integrally good idea, especially when it serves 
purposes.


> (Who could he mean??)

When I mention 'standardistas', it tends to draw up tribal defensive 
feelings. By no means am I criticising standardistas in general. I just 
think that the banner of standards is often used to patronise people 
without due cause. When you belittle your client and ignore their 
concerns without being able to justify your own enthusiasm for 
standards, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why you're 
doing it.


Standardistas are a majority. Their guiding hand can be extremely useful 
to the uninitiated, but they must guide with reason. I'm concerned that 
inventive, creative coding and design is often dropped simply because of 
standard practice. This is tragic. Guidelines must evolve. If we all 
just follow them without knowing why, that can't happen.


If you have good reason (and good reason abounds), you are utterly 
successful in my eyes.


I think you've got it backwards. Those of us who aspire to live in a 
standards-based www are not fascists trying to impose some arbitrary and 
unreasonable set of conditions. We just want our stuff to "just work". 
Our fight is not with users or clients, or even our competitors, but 
with monopolist organizations who use their flouting of standards as a 
weapon against their competitors.


Monopolies and fascists are different, and both are threats. Monopolies 
have corporate interests at heart and will not serve the public if there 
is no louder voice - hence W3C.


There is the further threat of general disorganisation and confusion 
within the trade - and the Standards Project seeks to remedy this as 
much as it does the discompassionate hand of developers with market 
share in mind.


I argue with neither of these in principal. To the contrary, I uphold 
them. But as much as it is crucial to do a lot of the research, 
thinking, development and guidance for mere individuals who cannot by 
themselves see the greater picture, I am greatly discomforted by cases 
where people come into situations where their abidance of standards is 
seen as faintly ridiculous, and they cannot rationalise it themselves.


Andrew Ingram wrote:
> The justification for charging more is
> experience and expertise.

Exactly. I believe that experience and expertise as regards standards is 
indispensable. A complete lack of experience or expertise but huge doses 
of enthusiasm regarding standards is worth nothing - and it is dodgy 
territory when you believe that, even though you could never argue this 
rationally, it is in fact worth just as much.


...

Rather than playing devil's advocate all my life (nobody's too keen to 
divulge answers, only further questions!), I think I might come clean 
and tell you all why I respect validation:


It's a universally approved and agreed way of reducing code ambiguity to 
the bare minimum. Massive fundamental differences in the various ways 
documents can be mis-interpreted are ruled out with validation.


As far as markup is concerned, I am actually entirely supportive of 
'validity' as it stands. Not blindly enthusiastic about, but 
understanding and respectful of it when it tells me my code needs extra 
/ more concise information.


As far as CSS is concerned, I cannot respect it fully because
as it stands, complex CSS designs that are utterly valid will fail in 
their intended goal - near-enough identical computing on all major 
systems. The only reason this is the case is because developers haven't 
held their side of the bargain - and validity is not useful in and of 
itself, only if it represents a working method - which in this case it 
doesn't. I bypass validity here and achieve the desired end I believe is 
more important: identical content for all users.


Regards,
Barney

P.S.: I just want to make it clear that I'm not challenging anyone here. 
 Sharron's analogy is a brilliant one but it can work both ways - a web 
designer with superior ideas they can't communicate to you, and their 
ideology on the cuff of their spotless shirt, isn't somebody clients 
will sympathise with. You need to show them why. When standards alienate 
the people the website is for, something has gone disastrously wrong.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[sharron]

The point is there are validation tools, information and help available for 
free everywhere. It doesn't mean one has to spend money to validate their 
pages. If one takes the time to build a site for themselves using whatever 
method, well then why not take a bit more time and use valid code?


I'm not an expert nor professional and I still have to ask questions all the 
time, if I can do it then anyone can.


My son once used a garden hose gasket on his car brakes. When I asked what 
in the world possessed him to trust his life on a garden hose gasket. His 
reply was it worked, fit and served the purpose. My response was, lol, if 
you were supposed to use garden hose gaskets in your car breaks then the 
manufactures would have provided garden hose gaskets in with the brake kit.




If your going to do something, shouldn't you atleast try to do your best? 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Andrew Ingram]

You don't charge more for compliant code, because you're never going to 
say "oh, i'll do it using tables and rubbish things but charge you half 
as much then", but you'll probably be charging more because you actually 
know what you're doing - like you say, you're not a hack.  The main 
reason is that it doesn't take longer to do things the right way, so you 
can't justify charging extra.  The justification for charging more is 
experience and expertise.


- Andrew Ingram


Andrew Maben wrote:
And is anyone actually charging more specifically to write standards 
compliant code? Is it more expensive to do so?


Or is that skill part of the whole package that differentiates a 
competent coder from the hacks?



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Andrew Ingram]

I think you're missing the point of what i'm saying.  Good semantic 
markup has more meaning, that's what semantics are all about.  However, 
an algorithm can only begin to assess the true meaning if the syntax is 
correct (humans don't always have to do this, because humans are 
smart).  Good syntax and good semantics result in a search algorithm 
being able to correctly understand the content of the page and 
subsequently order results as well as possible.


This isn't a sinister situation where standards-compliant sites are 
given a ranking bonus because they follow some elitist rules, that 
should never happen.  A compliant site merely has more information (the 
technical kind) for the search engine to draw upon.  It could be that 
good syntax and semantics actually makes your site appear in results 
less results because the search engine knows that it's completely 
irrelevant to more search queries.  The aim should be to make the search 
algorithms more accurate, and if people are looking for what you have to 
offer then of course you should appear in the results.


Now i'm not saying search engines do this at the moment (i don't know), 
but if the algorithms start taking a closer look at the content of 
pages, you can bet that strong semantic markup will play a big part in this.


Regards,
Andrew

Barney Carroll wrote:

The search engine thing is pretty much a lie.

People are begging Google to factor w3c validity into the relevance of 
their results, but there's no good reason they should - and I 
personally believe this is a bit sinister.


Invalid code should succeed or fail on its own merits, not because 
standardistas bully 'validity' into practice.


I hold Google in very high esteem for their complete magnanimity over 
standards while maintaining (some might say as a result) the highest 
elegance and popularity.


If human beings or machines start complaining that this irreverence is 
in any practical way detrimental to their experience, then 
standardistas should flock to the rescue. Until then, the notion 
cannot help but smell mafiosi - protection racket kind of stuff (- You 
need this 'help' I'm giving you. I know it seems inconvenient and 
expensive but you really do. - This really doesn't look like help to 
me. - I don't remember asking you a goddamn thing).


...

I sympathise with the client: if I can't justify how it's useful to 
them, then there's no reason they should be bothered with it. If I 
can't justify it to myself, there's no reason I should bother myself 
with it. This is the ultimate opportunity to question yourself and 
work out whether you adhere to standards because of their actual 
virtue or simply because you like rules, big crowds, and being better 
than other people.


Regards,
Barney 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Andrew Maben]

Wow, that's kinda harsh - and at Christmas!!

I think you've got it backwards. Those of us who aspire to live in a  
standards-based www are not fascists trying to impose some arbitrary  
and unreasonable set of conditions. We just want our stuff to "just  
work". Our fight is not with users or clients, or even our  
competitors, but with monopolist organizations who use their flouting  
of standards as a weapon against their competitors. (Who could he  
mean??)


If you were a car mechanic, for example, how would you feel about  
having to buy a complete set of tools for use with each manufacturer,  
or even worse each model? Pretty unhappy, I'd guess.


And is anyone actually charging more specifically to write standards  
compliant code? Is it more expensive to do so?


Or is that skill part of the whole package that differentiates a  
competent coder from the hacks?


Andrew Maben

Webmaster
Alachua County Library District
http://www.aclib.us/

The content is yours but the code is mine...





On Dec 21, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Barney Carroll wrote:


The search engine thing is pretty much a lie.

People are begging Google to factor w3c validity into the relevance  
of their results, but there's no good reason they should - and I  
personally believe this is a bit sinister.


Invalid code should succeed or fail on its own merits, not because  
standardistas bully 'validity' into practice.


I hold Google in very high esteem for their complete magnanimity  
over standards while maintaining (some might say as a result) the  
highest elegance and popularity.


If human beings or machines start complaining that this irreverence  
is in any practical way detrimental to their experience, then  
standardistas should flock to the rescue. Until then, the notion  
cannot help but smell mafiosi - protection racket kind of stuff (-  
You need this 'help' I'm giving you. I know it seems inconvenient  
and expensive but you really do. - This really doesn't look like  
help to me. - I don't remember asking you a goddamn thing).


...

I sympathise with the client: if I can't justify how it's useful to  
them, then there's no reason they should be bothered with it. If I  
can't justify it to myself, there's no reason I should bother  
myself with it. This is the ultimate opportunity to question  
yourself and work out whether you adhere to standards because of  
their actual virtue or simply because you like rules, big crowds,  
and being better than other people.


Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[sharron]

I do my best to adhere to standards simply because I can.

Sharron


- Original Message - 
From: "Barney Carroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and 
those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)




The search engine thing is pretty much a lie.

People are begging Google to factor w3c validity into the relevance of 
their results, but there's no good reason they should - and I personally 
believe this is a bit sinister.


Invalid code should succeed or fail on its own merits, not because 
standardistas bully 'validity' into practice.


I hold Google in very high esteem for their complete magnanimity over 
standards while maintaining (some might say as a result) the highest 
elegance and popularity.


If human beings or machines start complaining that this irreverence is in 
any practical way detrimental to their experience, then standardistas 
should flock to the rescue. Until then, the notion cannot help but smell 
mafiosi - protection racket kind of stuff (- You need this 'help' I'm 
giving you. I know it seems inconvenient and expensive but you really 
do. - This really doesn't look like help to me. - I don't remember asking 
you a goddamn thing).


...

I sympathise with the client: if I can't justify how it's useful to them, 
then there's no reason they should be bothered with it. If I can't justify 
it to myself, there's no reason I should bother myself with it. This is 
the ultimate opportunity to question yourself and work out whether you 
adhere to standards because of their actual virtue or simply because you 
like rules, big crowds, and being better than other people.


Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 
12/20/2006







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Barney Carroll]

The search engine thing is pretty much a lie.

People are begging Google to factor w3c validity into the relevance of 
their results, but there's no good reason they should - and I personally 
believe this is a bit sinister.


Invalid code should succeed or fail on its own merits, not because 
standardistas bully 'validity' into practice.


I hold Google in very high esteem for their complete magnanimity over 
standards while maintaining (some might say as a result) the highest 
elegance and popularity.


If human beings or machines start complaining that this irreverence is 
in any practical way detrimental to their experience, then standardistas 
should flock to the rescue. Until then, the notion cannot help but smell 
mafiosi - protection racket kind of stuff (- You need this 'help' I'm 
giving you. I know it seems inconvenient and expensive but you really 
do. - This really doesn't look like help to me. - I don't remember 
asking you a goddamn thing).


...

I sympathise with the client: if I can't justify how it's useful to 
them, then there's no reason they should be bothered with it. If I can't 
justify it to myself, there's no reason I should bother myself with it. 
This is the ultimate opportunity to question yourself and work out 
whether you adhere to standards because of their actual virtue or simply 
because you like rules, big crowds, and being better than other people.


Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Re: Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[sharron]

Thanks for the answers! 

Somehow my list subscription got deleted right after my post. I've had to 
re-subscribe and visit the online archive to read the responses.

I've no specific examples to provide although plenty exist in the webworld.

Recent somewhat abusive remarks on the Google Webmaster discussion pages led me 
to ask the questions.
Folks just don't want to hear that their code and practices just might be the 
answer to why their sites aren't getting crawled. 

I've copied the responses, although I doubt that they will listen.

Thanks Sharron

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Andrew Ingram]

Matthew Pennell wrote:
Until you tell that to someone that knows what they're talking about, 
and then you look like an idiot. Valid code means the browser has to 
spend less time figuring out what you meant to write, the page is is 
more likely to look the same across browsers and platforms, and 
accessibility AT will have an easier time rendering the content in 
whatever format it produces.
I'd honestly be quite suprised if having good validating semantic markup 
didn't improve your search engine rankings for certain queries.  It only 
makes sense for it to do so since the search engine has more knowledge 
regarding what your site is about.


I know all the other reasons for why you should use validating markup, 
but people generally don't care and the question was how you would sell 
it rather than why should you do it.  Minor speed increases, 
accessibility, identical appearance - not sure why but for some reason 
these aren't generally enough to convince people to spend more just to 
get a competent developer


Sometimes I make invalid code with the specific purpose of
increasing accessibility (ie making it work in as many browsers as
possible).


Example?
Anything where you're unable to change the html to include conditional 
comments.  Sites that are modelled on css zen garden for example, i've 
worked on one of those.  Myspace themes (ew).  I believe the YUI Fonts 
styles don't validate either.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Tom Livingston]

 


On 12/20/06 5:04 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I've decided that telling people it is important is like telling my 5 year old
> granddaughter that a tissue is better then her shirt sleeves.
>  
> Yes the honey, the shirt is convenient, it works and you don't have to go
> about looking for a tissue. On the other hand, if you use your shirt it's
> nasty. 
>  
> If I were google had to crawl nasty shirt sleeves, I certainly would think
> twice before trying it again.



That is the best description I have ever heard! I¹m hanging this up in my
office!


-- 
Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1

[David Dorward]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:06:10PM +0200, Shlomi Asaf wrote:
>I wish to know the deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes

>I understood that it is very minor, so why using 1.1?

The usual reason seems to be that "Its newer, it must be better"
coupled with a lack of understanding of the rules for text/html (which
don't say that XHTML 1.1 may be served as text/html).

-- 
David Dorward  http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1

[Shlomi Asaf]

HI
I wish to know the deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1

I understood that it is very minor, so why using 1.1?

Thank you
NeoSwf

--
www.webcssdesign.34sp.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] getting XUL response from servlet

[James Ellis]

Hi

This thread is offtopic for the list. Please continue the discussion in a
more relevant place (as mentioned in previous replies)

Thanks
James
--
admin


On 12/21/06, Matthew Cruickshank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi Nisha,

XUL is just a set of tags so make your Java code produce XUL tags
instead of HTML tags. Ajax is not required.





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

1. On a scale of 1-10, how important is W3C validation?


XHTML: 10+ (regardless of MIME type)
HTML: 8 (but it depends on what lowers its importance from a 10)
CSS: 10 (until IE/win needs its fixes, and weak standard-support must be
solved by non-standard workarounds)


2. How does one convince folks that it is important?


One just tell them that there _are_ standards. Apart from that one maybe
shouldn't try very hard unless they ask.

Many won't ask until they run into too many problems caused by
non-standard they can't "solve" on their own. Then maybe a 'cleaned-up'
example, one that works, will have most convincing-force.


3. Is valid code important to SE?


Probably not all that important, but I don't think it'll hurt.

4. Does it follow, that those who don't care about validation also 
don't consider accessibility?


Those who don't care, don't care - period.

Many are probably more or less ignorant about both issues, and may, or
may not, bother to do anything about their ignorance until a certain
pressure, or need, is present.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)

[Matthew Pennell]

On 12/20/06, Andrew Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


2. Tell them that validating code will get higher search rankings, it
doesn't matter if it's true or not



Until you tell that to someone that knows what they're talking about, and
then you look like an idiot. Valid code means the browser has to spend less
time figuring out what you meant to write, the page is is more likely to
look the same across browsers and platforms, and accessibility AT will have
an easier time rendering the content in whatever format it produces.

Sometimes I make invalid code with the specific purpose of

increasing accessibility (ie making it work in as many browsers as
possible).



Example?


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***