I've just started working for the company responsible for one fo the finalists (the Pioneer site). I've only been here a week, though, so I can't take any kudos for it other than vicarious ones. ;)
I have to admit, I've noticed that very thing about the sites that I've been playing with here over the past week. I think part of it is due to the CMS we're using for most of the sites - from what I can tell, it doesn't put out clean code at all, so I guess no one really bothers validating what they build around it because the whole thing isn't going to validate anyway. Still, since they built the CMS in the first place it's a bit sad that they didn't spend more time and effort on making it valid. Maybe I can start having an influence on this sort of thing on upcoming projects, but it's certainly too late for any of the behemoths already in production. *sigh* Cheers, Seona. On 23/01/07, Katrina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gday, So is anybody on this list one of the finalists? http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=2649 I notice a very interesting phenomenon: CSS is widely used, but validation is not considered important, for either CSS or HTML, and I don't think accessibility has been given a high priority either amongst these pages. Does anyone know why? Why have many of them made similar choices? Kat ******************************************************************* 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] *******************************************************************
