On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:29:43AM -0500, Jeremy David wrote: > On 11/28/05, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I assume it's because Nick is a VOLUNTEER that spends an unlimited > > amount of time keeping the site updated with CONTENT. He knows that > > no matter what design changes he wishes to make will undoubtedly be > > shot down by Theo since the site is already FUNCTIONAL and meets the > > goals of the project. > > > > Well, simply as a matter of fact, it's actually untrue that the site is > functional. Functional for you? Maybe. For everyone? Not exactly. > > Check this out: > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openbsd.org&charset=%28det > ect+automatically%29& > > There are 5 errors on the main page alone. That means that no matter how > useful the content on the website is, the code breaks down for a lot of > people.
NAME ONE. Name one person. Name one browser. Name one problem. OR SHUT UP. > Standards are important. Where HTML is concerned, they're doubly so, > because there are so many different clients (browsers) being used by so many > different kinds of people. This sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, there is no known browser which implements all standards perfectly. If such a browser exists, it isn't in wide use. Validation is NOT sufficient for having a universally usable website. Validation is NOT required for having a universally usable website. Validation is a good idea, But by itself, it solves nothing. I don't care how "valid" my website is if someone with some browser has trouble reading it. I don't get to jump up and down and say, "It is your problem, not mine". On the other hand, if you have to use third-party tools to find a "problem" with things as they are, you have to wonder about the definition of "problem". There are REAL problems on the website, on pages which "validate" just fine. Which would you have me fix? The problem that causes an issue with rendering in a particular (but important) application? Or the problem that only the validator can see? The really pathetic thing is you aren't naming the real, practical benefits for passing a validator test. > http://www.webstandards.org/about/ > http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/ > > I'm really underwhelmed by comments like "Why don't you cut the guy some > slack" and "I don't speak for Nick, but I imagine he probably feels a > unappreciated when folks feel like nitpicking his "design"" > > Excusing errors in the interests of not hurting someone's feelings is a > great way to end up with a third-rate product. people who do nothing productive do not hurt my feelings. > The website is hacky, invalid, and broken. Not to mention the fact that most > people think it's ugly. If that hurts someone's feelings then I'm sorry, but > it does no one any favors to ignore errors and broken code. > > If no one is in charge of making sure that the site is good, then someone > should be in charge of that. Tell you what. Go fork the project (or at least the website). You can call it WebBSD. Whatever. "We got the best website. No validation errors in six years!". Go write your content to whatever standards you wish. YOU will be the one "in charge of that". You can do WHATEVER YOU LIKE. Go find yourself content writers and a translation team. Have contests for design, logos, etc. Stick your finger in the wind of public opinion, listen to those who yammer the loudest, come up with solutions that offend the fewest and please the most. And if you have time, put some content out there for others to laugh at. By the way, you will have to make new content for most of your website, as the OpenBSD website it is copyrighted. Writing new content will be good for you, gives you an opportunity to experience the entire work cycle. See who gives a rat's ass. Your goals are not my goals. Your goals are not the project's goals. My goal is to get useful information to the people who need it. Your goal seems to be to stop me, to waste my time dealing with this piddly stuff that DOESN'T MATTER TO ANYONE IN REAL LIFE. Unfortunately, I care about the work I do. I do read (or at least skim) every message (ok, almost every...I've started an "ignore" list of people who warrent not ever giving a response to) that goes through misc@, looking for a tidbit that might really be significiant. For example, the claim yesterday that the website would not be usable on a Zaurus machine. So, I wasted a lot of time trying to find out what the heck that idiot was talking about. But no, it turns out he made up a non-existent problem to "prove" a point in a convoluted way that only the poster could appreciate. That was an hour I could have spent doing many more productive things, including some things that would help OpenBSD users. I think these discussions can be considered over. No one is convincing anyone of anything. Nick.
