Harvey read my mind while I was reading thru what this discussion had turned
into.
I'll do my uptmost best to write valid xhtml and css, and test sites as such
prior to launch. It's our job to know the standards and implement them at
design and dev time. However there comes a stage where this validation
aspiration becomes a little bit of an inefficient obsession and badge of
honour stuff. I don't know how many times I've seen it used online to troll.
I always smile when a developer claims to be perfect in this area across the
board at code time. 9 times out of 10 it's wishfull thinking at best, utter
bullshit at worst. When every web developer worth his mettle is supplying
largely non-technical clients with CMS systems and often basic html editing
capabilities, ongoing compliance is often impossible.
Dave, no offence mate, but of the 6 home pages featured in egressive's
portfolio, 4 don't validate.
Not being pedantic or calling you out on it, it's only a few errors and you
are running STRICT. But this simply highlights the point that even for
someone who holds standard compliance high, validation perfection 24/7 (or
lack thereof) is not indicative of a bad web developer. Complete ignorance
and laziness is however, I agree.
But there is a balance between ignorance/laziness and prioritizing
development efforts and resources. And I'll take a developer who knows that
balance above one working in either extreme any day.
Regards
Aaron Cooper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Kane" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [phpug] Re: web programming and development services or
consultation
I agree partly with all that has been said so far, but overall I'm with
Nick on this.
Developers get way too hung up over validation. They think that because a
page has 4 validation errors, then the site is not 'standards compliant'.
They confuse 'code that completely validates' with 'code that is well
written'. Just like people that confuse a 'nice looking site' with a 'site
that sells products'. I wouldn't hire someone either who thought that "web
standards didn't matter" but I would hire someone who had 4 validation
errors on their homepage. There is the world of difference between the
these things.
Personally, I produce valid markup when I create sites - but I don't get
all panicked and upset if the odd error creeps in over time as content is
added. Often it's the client or the WYSIWYG which has introduced the
issues, in which case some pokey markup is the price you pay for the extra
convenience / flexibility / happy customer. I could of course create a
markup validator factory factory factory to prevent all this from
happening, but I could instead write a new plugin for their shopping cart
which makes the checkout process faster / more reliable / smoother /
better.
Also, I agree that it's 10 mins work to validate a site *homepage* - but
keep in mind that validation is a page-by-page thing and most sites are
made up of a number of templates, which in turn contain content blocks
which also needs to be validated. It *can* take hours to go through a
whole site and validate every page to get it 100% compliant - even if you
are fantastic at HTML. Most of the time, this expense or effort is simply
not justified in terms of business results (however you measure that).
Harvey.
On 17/03/2010 3:45 p.m., Dave Lane wrote:
+1 - excellent response, Keri.
For any other developers out there, if Keri's explanation doesn't
convince you to to generate valid markup, perhaps an added incentive is
that increasingly your customers are becoming aware of web standards and
their inherent value, and if you're not conforming to them by default,
you're unprofessional.
If web standards don't matter to you, then we certainly wouldn't hire
you.
Cheers,
Dave
On 17/03/10 15:35, Keri Henare wrote:
Validation isn't like IE bug fixing. If you spend more than 10
minutes fixing validation errors then you're doing it wrong. People
who ignore validation don't learn the rules and therefore create lots
more validation errors. I'm a big believer in validation but I
almost never use the validator anymore because I almost never write
invalid HTML. Learn the rules and then you won't keep breaking
them.
A valid site is a site than conforms to the specification. What's
the point in writing HTML if you aren't going to bother to write
valid HTML? Actually, if it's not valid by the specification then
it's not HTML is it, because the spec tells you what is HTML and
you've written something else.
If a client is told that HTML validation would "waste hours of time"
then they should go and find somebody who knows what they're doing.
No client should pay for a developer to go back and fix their own
bugs.
The single most important reason for staying valid is that it helps
you to find bugs in markup. When a layout breaks the first thing
that I do is validate the page, because if the bug is markup related
it'll stick out like a sore thumb.
Kind regards, Keri Henare
--------------------------------------------------- [e]
[email protected] [w] kerihenare.com [m] (+64) 021 874 552
PLEASE NOTE: I check my email 3 times per day and will respond at
these intervals. For anything urgent please ring me.
---------------------------------------------------
On 17/03/2010, at 3:17 PM, Nick Jenkin wrote:
Users don't care if your html is valid (except maybe, developers,
but they do not represent the general population). If you want to
waste hours of time making a site valid, then go for it - but I'd
be a pretty pissed off customer if I was paying for it, and while
gaining absolutely zero ROI. I'd rather you spend that time
*actually testing* the site on different web browsers, after-all as
I'm sure you are all aware, a valid site != a working site. A
shipped product is more valuable than a perfect one. -Nick
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Bruce Clement
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've been using this quote in my signature file for a while.
Today I think I'll headline with it.
"Before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a
good appreciation of everything that already exists in this
field." Mikhail Kalashnikov
This forum is populated by experienced php developers who use php
and W3C standards to generate real-world websites. They exchange
useful information and help each other out. Even if you think you
know better, standards are important, and just saying that a
standards validator is "Stupid" only shows how much you have to
learn. The reason standards are important here is because a
standards compliant website has a greater chance of working with
as yet unreleased browser versions than a non-compliant one has.
You got one reply to your posting about your site giving what I
consider to be pointing out a basic and easy to fix problem which
you replied 3 times to with increasing levels of petulance.
According to my records this thread is the second time you've
posted on this forum. The other being a one liner "2 hrs to
research find out how, and implement" comment on another thread.
Giving you constructive criticism on your site as Boyd did is
hardly tall poppy. In this list, you are not a tall poppy, people
like Jochen, Harvey, and Aaron (amongst others) are and they
don't rant and rave when people point out mistakes they make.
I'm a database& back-end developer, not a website designer, so
there's no point complaining about my sites, but I am currently
the customer for having a few dozen of my domain names developed
into small websites. The people I'm working with on this project
are mature adults who accept a task and deliver to spec (or they
stop getting commissions). If one of them told me they wouldn't
use a dictionary because it was stupid they would get no further
work. I expect basic things like spelling and grammar from
content writers, W3C compliance from web developers and laces in
shoes; if I don't get them I spend my money elsewhere.
Last I was looking to hire a web developer I looked critically
at their website on the basis that their own website is their
advert and should represent their best possible work. This wasn't
just a surface examination, I carefully examined their html as
well. If it wasn't of the required quality I simply moved along.
Bruce
--
Harvey Kane
New Zealand:
-Office: +64 9 950 4133
-Mobile: +6421 811 951
Email: [email protected]
If you need to contact me urgently, please read my email policy
www.ragepank.com/email/
--
NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug
To post, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to
[email protected]
--
NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug
To post, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to
[email protected]
