Trademe also doesn't validate http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.trademe.co.nz&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, vincenz2004 <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe Im wrong with a decision I made? > > Back in the day, there was this debate (and probably still exists). > > The question was: > > Do you create a website that works right down the middle - generic > (eg. compatible with everything) or, something that requires the end > user to "upgrade" their system (i.e. install the latest flash, or have > javascript enabled) etc etc. > > and which is best? > > This argument came about mostly from people in the media industry who > wanted to push the envelope when it came to creating good looking > sites vs functional (yes another debate). > > So for me, I chose to create the best of both. i.e aesthetics and > functionality. I think a website that can balance both, is > successful. However, I lean mostly to a site that depends on new > systems (i.e. javascript) and browsers that can handle. Theres > another debate there... IE6... do you keep creating code for that? So > for me, I've made the decision to create the site to the higher end > (new machines, latest browsers, javascript enabled etc) and if someone > has an old crusty browser, too bad. I'll cut the loss. Id rather > have a site thats a little bit on the "edge". > > Maybe I've not made the right decision? but really, I think that > decision is mine to make (for my own projects) and my customers > decision (for their projects) and it comes down to expectations and > meeting (or exceeding) those. > > Yes, I agree with compliance as much as possible but there are other > influencing factors such as time line and budget (funny that). > > This starts a whole new debate also, about AGILE development which > seems to be a new approach by some (yes I know its been around for a > while) and where do you draw the lines with that? > > What about Googles approach to creating new things? > > They craete something albiet, it might have bugs and issues, but they > put it out there to see what the response is. If its good response, > they refine it. Otherwise, you could spend many hours, dollars, time, > energy building something perfect, that nobody likes. > > Food for thought huh. These things I try to weight up in balance. > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:58 am, Jennifer Geard <[email protected]> wrote: >> A quick comment about standards compliance, which for me includes WCAG 2.0 >> AA: it's both hard and not-hard. >> >> It's hard the first time. It's really hard if you're trying to bolt >> standards compliance onto a project that's already mostly designed and built. >> >> Once you've got your head around what's involved and built your patterns of >> thought and libraries of code, though, it's just another aspect of what you >> do. >> >> I'd love to see more developers around who have standards compliance "in >> their bones". >> >> If you have the resources, getting a solid external audit of your work is an >> amazing eye opener. >> >> (For the record, I'm usually in the position of commissioning code and then >> tailoring/managing it, not cutting it from scratch. Only one of the sites I >> run is currently compliant. I'm working on the others, including actively on >> the main one.) >> >> Cheers, >> Jennifer > > -- > NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug > To post, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words > "REMOVE ME" as the subject. > -- Blue Horn Ltd - System Development http://bluehorn.co.nz -- NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
