Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)
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] ***
Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)
[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] getting XUL response from servlet
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] ***
[WSG] Deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1
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] Deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1
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] ***
Re: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)
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] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)
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] ***
[WSG] Re: Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)
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)
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)
I do my best to adhere to standards simply because I can. Sharron - Original Message - From: Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
[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)
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: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 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:
RE: [WSG] Tissue (valid code) vs shirt sleeves (wysiwyg editors and those who use them and also refuse to use tissues)
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] Skip Navigation question
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 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] Deferences between XHTML 1.0 to 1.1
A good thread: *XHTML1.0 vs XHTML 1.1* http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320391 Might help. :) Also good: *XHTML vs HTML FAQ* http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393445 Cheers, Micky -- Wishlist: http://snipurl.com/vrs9 Switch: http://browsehappy.com/ BCC?: http://snipurl.com/w6f8 My: http://del.icio.us/mhulse *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip Navigation question
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. /bd 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 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] Skip Navigation question
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] ***
