Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Lea de Groot wrote: On 10/12/2005, at 1:53 PM, Brian Cummiskey wrote: I wonder how many visits google gets in a day... Probably in the billions - plenty of people have it as their homepage. Of course, there'd be a lot of caching happening... Lea http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/press/funfacts.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_platform What's interesting is how they have set up their server cluster (15,000 back in 2003), which doubled from the 18 months before. If you google on that you'll find many articles. G ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html Hey, cool stuff! :) I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. Interestingly, comparing the two pages in http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( Lea Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do people reuse Google throughout the day? If all those users cached the files, we're talking about drastic reductions in Google's bandwidth. It wouldn't be hard at all to lighten the page... but we knew it was a good idea even before the example. Quite right - I had started with a heavier version of the page than the default, with Google Desktop, signed in to account, etc., which added a bit of text and Javascript. Now I've done a new version, based on the simpler page that the W3C validator gets back from www.google.com. Invalid (original) page (with just 21 chars added to get a full url for the logo image): http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/invalidGoogle.html (2,654 bytes) Updated valid page, based on the above: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html (1,953 bytes) I retained the one-line Javascript in the head, but all styles are in an external CSS file: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.css (636 bytes) So even for a one-off request, with no cached CSS, the valid version is 2589 bytes - *still* lighter weight than the current invalid version. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/10/05, matt andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do people reuse Google throughout the day? If all those users cached the files, we're talking about drastic reductions in Google's bandwidth. It wouldn't be hard at all to lighten the page... but we knew it was a good idea even before the example. Quite right - I had started with a heavier version of the page than the default, with Google Desktop, signed in to account, etc., which added a bit of text and Javascript. Now I've done a new version, based on the simpler page that the W3C validator gets back from www.google.com. Invalid (original) page (with just 21 chars added to get a full url for the logo image): http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/invalidGoogle.html (2,654 bytes) Updated valid page, based on the above: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html (1,953 bytes) I retained the one-line Javascript in the head, but all styles are in an external CSS file: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.css (636 bytes) So even for a one-off request, with no cached CSS, the valid version is 2589 bytes - *still* lighter weight than the current invalid version. Nice job, you should get hired by Google, or at least paid big for that page... it would save Google millions of dollars in bandwidth. And imagine if this was done with some of their other pages (which would take a few seconds, since their sites are so simple)... we're talking about billions here. Be careful Googlebot doesn't find that page, if they cache it they might just steal the whole thing, remove the quotation marks, launch it, and pretend it was theirs all along. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Don't you just love W3C recommendations? Google is stuck farther into the dark ages than we all thought... I just realized Google's logo is a GIF image, and you know what that means... so I downloaded it, opened it with the GIMP, and saved it as a PNG with the highest compression. The GIF: 8.35 KB The PNG: 7.86 KB 8.35 - 7.86 = .49 KB = ~502 bytes. Which times 1 billion is: a lot. Considering PNG is a W3C recommendation, this puts the total W3C savings at: 65 for Matt's page + 502 for the PNG = 567 bytes saved in total for every one off request. There might be some money in this standards thing after all. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
... Updated valid page, based on the above: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html (1,953 bytes) Ok I took your version and got it to extreme: http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google1.html (1729 bytes). What I did: got rid of some optional tags, shortened name of CSS file to one letter ( one may save four more bytes by removing extension); got rid of redundant META element (that info belongs to server config), removed widht and height from IMG: there is now use in this case to have them. Still valid HTML strict: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1uri=http%3A//rimantas.com/bits/google/google1.html I retained the one-line Javascript in the head, but all styles are in an external CSS file: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.css (636 bytes) So even for a one-off request, with no cached CSS, the valid version is 2589 bytes - *still* lighter weight than the current invalid version. One gotcha here: even in cached stylesheet case there is some chat going between browser and server, and it usually amounts in the range between 0.5 and 1KB. (http://rimantas.com/bits/google/headers.txt) So, for small javascript and CSS it may be better to have them in html, in case every byte counts. There is version with embeded CSS (I did not try to optimaze styles, taken as-is): http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google.html Size is 2361 bytes, but about 600 bytes of traffic are saved by having one HTTP request less. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
I feel you are forgetting a number of things. - Response times: Response times are every bit as important to Google as bandwidth usage is. A user should never have to wait for the Google page, or the Google search results. Ever. CSS and JavaScript in separate files means the browser needs two roundtrips to server more than currently. If rendering relies on CSS, this means unreliable response times and inevitable slower percieved loading (Try a 14.4 modem on phone lines with high interference and 75+% packet loss - those can make any page seem like it takes an eternity to load). And JavaScript loaded as a separate file means unrealiable script triggering. We wouldn't want to throw an error report in the face of our users just because they don't have the script loaded yet, do we? - Hidden bandwidth consumption: Google pages, especially the main page, are pretty light weight. Which means the HTTP headers are a considerable part of the bandwidth consumption. You double the amount of HTTP headers to send if you add two external references - both requests and responses. - Obvious bandwidth consumption: We have unneccesarily increased bandwidth consumption from the script and link elements required to reference these new files, as well as from the doctype needed to make the HTML valid. - Localisation: Google has within all probability made their pages so that minimal changes are required even to languages and scripts considerably different from English. This has to be considered for any remake with semantical markup, including the issue of the next point. - Serialisation: Not only do we want our content to be laid out the same in CSS and JavaScript enabled browsers. We also want to retain the current layout/serialisation for the content in browsers with bad or no CSS support, with terminal window textual browsers, screen readers or braille interfaces. Google may throw ugly code at us, but it isn't inaccessible as it is. This includes things such as not laying the Web/Images/Groups... out as a horizontal list instead of a single line when you have no CSS support. - Dynamic elements: Things such as being logged in/not logged in, having Google Desktop or not, sponsored links, search listings etc. all need be take in consideration. -- David liorean Andersson uri:http://liorean.web-graphics.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/10/05, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel you are forgetting a number of things. - Response times: - Hidden bandwidth consumption: - Obvious bandwidth consumption: See Rimantas' version... I think you are focusing too much on the specific implementation of standards, and not the simple fact that if Google used standards, they would save a lot. At least Rimantas thought ahead and solved these problems by putting the CSS in the header, but let's not all bash Matt for not doing that. Also see my post on GIF vs. PNG. - Localisation: Google has within all probability made their pages so that minimal changes are required even to languages and scripts considerably different from English. This has to be considered for any remake with semantical markup, including the issue of the next point. What? I would rather modify the standards version than the original. The original uses tables, which means you have to add TD's every time you want to add another link, which are much heavier than adding LI's. Also, the standards version allows the Google codemonkeys to cut and paste the CSS, and then just edit the markup to reflect the language/localisation. - Serialisation: Not only do we want our content to be laid out the same in CSS and JavaScript enabled browsers. We also want to retain the current layout/serialisation for the content in browsers with bad or no CSS support, with terminal window textual browsers, screen readers or braille interfaces. Google may throw ugly code at us, but it isn't inaccessible as it is. This includes things such as not laying the Web/Images/Groups... out as a horizontal list instead of a single line when you have no CSS support. Huh? The bottom line is saving money, accessibility or serialisation is not so important. I would say it serializes just fine in the standards version anyway. - Dynamic elements: Things such as being logged in/not logged in, having Google Desktop or not, sponsored links, search listings etc. all need be take in consideration. How? What does that have to do with it? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See Rimantas' version... I think you are focusing too much on the specific implementation of standards, and not the simple fact that if Google used standards, they would save a lot. At least Rimantas thought ahead and solved these problems by putting the CSS in the header, but let's not all bash Matt for not doing that. Actually, when I started writing that, Rimantas hadn't posted his first entry yet. Also see my post on GIF vs. PNG. Well, support for gen 5 browsers maybe could speak against PNGs. Google have to consider a wider audience than most other major sites. Otherwise, yeah, it makes sense to use PNG for the size reduction. What? I would rather modify the standards version than the original. The original uses tables, which means you have to add TD's every time you want to add another link, which are much heavier than adding LI's. Also, the standards version allows the Google codemonkeys to cut and paste the CSS, and then just edit the markup to reflect the language/localisation. Maybe, but it's a consideration that hadn't been mentioned yet when I started writing that. Actually I was more thinking about the way actual search listings, sponsored links and results overview are laid out in different languages. How do they handle vertical scripts, for instance? - Serialisation: Not only do we want our content to be laid out the same in CSS and JavaScript enabled browsers. We also want to retain the current layout/serialisation for the content in browsers with bad or no CSS support, with terminal window textual browsers, screen readers or braille interfaces. Google may throw ugly code at us, but it isn't inaccessible as it is. This includes things such as not laying the Web/Images/Groups... out as a horizontal list instead of a single line when you have no CSS support. Huh? The bottom line is saving money, accessibility or serialisation is not so important. I would say it serializes just fine in the standards version anyway. Might very well do. Does the content before the search box to take so small space as to allow an 80x25 text browser to show it without scrolling? That's about as much requirements I think one can have on this issue in particular. Keeping it to a single page also in text browsers does wonders for usability in such. - Dynamic elements: Things such as being logged in/not logged in, having Google Desktop or not, sponsored links, search listings etc. all need be take in consideration. How? What does that have to do with it? Consider the entire www.google.com site. Or at least the search part of it. You probably want to create one stylesheet file and one javascript file for the entire thing, probably sent compressed if client supports it, so it gets cached and not requested again in that browser session. Also, how many users access the main page once but searches several times in a row, or move beyond the first listing page? How many access it from the Google bar or browser search fields instead of coming through the main page? The main page is just a part of the application, not the whole thing. These considerations probably make CSS layout an even better choice for reducing bandwidth consumption. -- David liorean Andersson uri:http://liorean.web-graphics.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/10/05, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Dynamic elements: Things such as being logged in/not logged in, having Google Desktop or not, sponsored links, search listings etc. all need be take in consideration. How? What does that have to do with it? Consider the entire www.google.com site. Or at least the search part of it. You probably want to create one stylesheet file and one javascript file for the entire thing, probably sent compressed if client supports it, so it gets cached and not requested again in that browser session. Also, how many users access the main page once but searches several times in a row, or move beyond the first listing page? How many access it from the Google bar or browser search fields instead of coming through the main page? The main page is just a part of the application, not the whole thing. These considerations probably make CSS layout an even better choice for reducing bandwidth consumption. That's what I was thinking. Matt's solution is almost identical to: http://search.msn.com While Rimantas is more like: http://search.yahoo.com I'm wondering what led MSN to go with external files, and Yahoo with CSS in the header. MSN is obviously much more optomized than Yahoo (the yahoo markup is a mess), and I'm thinking MSN might have picked the right choice. Their CSS file is massive and probably covers all the internal pages, which makes it worth the extra cost of having an external file. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
... I'm wondering what led MSN to go with external files, and Yahoo with CSS in the header. MSN is obviously much more optomized than Yahoo (the yahoo markup is a mess), and I'm thinking MSN might have picked the right choice. Their CSS file is massive and probably covers all the internal pages, which makes it worth the extra cost of having an external file. That's very very good point. Indeed, by tidying up SERPs and using common CSS file Google would save much much more. Optimizing only google.com start page does not make much sense: if one uses search form then he will want results pages too. Results pages are also generated by request from search box in Firefox or Opera, from google powered search in other pages. So SERPs are to be targeted if someone is serious about saving bandwidth. And in terms of web standards MSN with valid and CSS-formated start and results pages is way ahead of Google... Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
liorean wrote: Consider the entire www.google.com site. Or at least the search part of it. You probably want to create one stylesheet file and one javascript file for the entire thing, probably sent compressed if client supports it, so it gets cached and not requested again in that browser session. Also, how many users access the main page once but searches several times in a row, or move beyond the first listing page? How many access it from the Google bar or browser search fields instead of coming through the main page? The main page is just a part of the application, not the whole thing. These considerations probably make CSS layout an even better choice for reducing bandwidth consumption. -- David liorean Andersson There's no doubting the arguments here, but you are dealing with large organisations. Anyone who has worked within one of these large organisations as a web developer knows not to raise these issues or else they could find themselves without a job, even if their intention is only to benefit the organisation. Zeldman pointed out Yahoo's problems in DWWS, but it had little impact. *Jakob* Nielsen was utilised as the usability design person for Google's initial design, which has changed little from it original. I don't know if he's still on their payroll. Even take a look at an organisation like Telstra and it's implementation of Standards (http://telstra.com.au/standards/index.cfm). They have at least put an effort into this, but the people on this list will see the flaws in it's implementation, and it's assumptions. This movement has been going on for half a decade at Telstra, and the version 6 templates are at least 4 years old. It's almost impossible to effect these types of changes in these organisations, unless you have a position of authority. The only way to do it (so far) is to lead by example, and when there is enough evidence of good standards design implementation, then these large organisations may be willing to adapt best of practices. Geoff Deering ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Surely either you jest, didn't read the whole article or need to update your feeds. ;) From the article itself: This is a spoof article. Please compare it with the original and you will see how little it has been changed. From the blogosphere: http://www.forgetfoo.com/?blogid=5150 http://adactio.com/journal/display.php/20051208103827.xml http://tinyurl.com/9vowd (adactio.com - Why Nielsen Sucks (Most of the Time)) Cheers, Collin Christian Montoya wrote: Ajax based applications like that make me think of: http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html When companies are using Ajax, they usually have already thrown accessibility out the door. It's not often you see Ajax applications with good, accessible fallbacks. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 09/12/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote: Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire programmers who understand standards. See, thats where I differ - I think that to say 'we do this other stuff thats Good, so we don't have to worry about something as trivial as Web Standards'[1] undermines all our work, which we like to think makes the world a Better Place. By declining to support Standards they implicitly state that it isn't important, and as I think it Is important, I feel they are not doing good, they are doing... that other thing ;) By being a big company (and by golly by market valuation they are absolutely Huge these days!) they implicitly make a massive statement about the value of something simply by ignoring it :( Lea [1] And, I must point out, in fact, they don't say any such thing - as usual they don't say anything at all about the matter. No one knows why they've never spent the 2.5 hours required to bring at least the home page up to standards... Lea de Groot Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/9/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely either you jest, didn't read the whole article or need to update your feeds. ;) Sorry, I should have made it more clear I was kidding. They do remind me of that article though :) -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html Hey, cool stuff! :) I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. Interestingly, comparing the two pages in http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html Hey, cool stuff! :) I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. Interestingly, comparing the two pages in http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( Lea Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do people reuse Google throughout the day? If all those users cached the files, we're talking about drastic reductions in Google's bandwidth. It wouldn't be hard at all to lighten the page... but we knew it was a good idea even before the example. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
... I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. Interestingly, comparing the two pages in http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) ... You can also remove html,/html,head,/head,body,/body, ps and /lis and still be valid HTML4.01 strict. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Michael Cordover's comments were the correct answer. :)Here is an excerpt from an Interview with Matt Cutts, Google engineer, just last month:Q: In more general terms, what do you think is the relationship between Google and the W3C? Do you think it would be important for Google to e.g. be concerned about valid HTML?A: I like the W3C a lot; if they didn't exist, someone would have to invent them. :) People sometimes ask whether Google should boost (or penalize) for valid (or invalid) HTML. There are plenty of clean, perfectly validating sites, but also lots of good information on sloppy, hand-coded pages that don't validate. Google's home page doesn't validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes. Will the world end because Google doesn't put quotes around color attributes? No, and it makes the page load faster. :) Eric Brewer wrote a page while at Inktomi that claimed 40% of HTML pages had syntax errors. We can't throw out 40% of the web on the principle that sites should validate; we have to take the web as it is and try to make it useful to searchers, so Google's index parsing is pretty forgiving. http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-11-17-n52.htmlI suppose the real issue now is - can someone build the Google page so that it does work in all browsers; so that it validates; and so that the resultant code is 'ligher' and saves more bandwidth? After all - Google are saying there is a commercial benefit to their invalid codebase - the only way they'd consider achange - in my opinion - is for a greater commercial benefit.
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Chris Dimmock wrote: *Google's home page doesn't validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes. So, he's saying font color=red loads faster than font color=red ? I'd like to see some documented proof of this. The homepage of google is only a couple lines of code... but yet they have inline javascript instead of external cached/linked scripting.. I think their /saving precious bytes/ comment is full of itself. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Multiply those two by millions of hits every day and we're talking big bandwidth! --- Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Dimmock wrote: *Google's home page doesn't validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes. So, he's saying font color=red loads faster than font color=red ? I'd like to see some documented proof of this. The homepage of google is only a couple lines of code... but yet they have inline javascript instead of external cached/linked scripting.. I think their /saving precious bytes/ comment is full of itself. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Francesco Sanfilippo Web Architect and Software Developer http://www.blackcoil.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 402-932-5695 home office 402-676-3011 mobile Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience. Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography. Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Francesco wrote: Multiply those two by millions of hits every day and we're talking big bandwidth! Good point. I didn't even think about it like that. I wonder how many visits google gets in a day... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
I wonder how many visits Google gets in a day...? Brian - I'm not sure how many visits Google gets in a day,but Danny Sullivan reported on the Nielsen netratings numbers back in Julythat Google has 46.2%market share of 4.5 billion searches/ month http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156451 ...percentage of online searches done by US home and work web surfers in July 2005 that were performed at a particular search engine. Internal site searches, such as those to find material within a particular web site, are not counted in these totals. The activity at more than 60 search sites makes up the total search volume upon which percentages are based -- 4.5 billion searches in this month. So - using these numbers - 46.2% (Google's market share) x 4.5 billion searches/ mth= 2.079 billion/ month. I'm reading this as 'US home work web surfers' - not a global number of searches. Also, Alexa says that the average Google session is 6.2 pageviews http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=url="" Another numberI read once was that there were approximately 320 - 350 million searches per day on the web. I can't quote you a source on that. But taken in context of Google's market share - its a huge amount of bandwidth. Either way - small coding issues (and vaildation/ use of semantic code etc) are going to meana lot of bandwidth when looked at in light of that kind of volume... Best Chris a href="" href="http://www.cogentis.com.au/">http://www.cogentis.com.au/Cogentis Internet Marketing/a
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/9/05, Chris Dimmock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either way - small coding issues (and vaildation/ use of semantic code etc) are going to mean a lot of bandwidth when looked at in light of that kind of volume... You all act like you don't know how much bandwidth can be saved with external stylesheets and javascript files. A lot more than . And why does Google have javascript on the main page? What is it doing? Can anyone tell me? They comment is full of itself... often times you find a solution to a problem and think you've solved it, when you have only really found a partial solution and not the best solution possible. If no one else does it I'll do that Google page Monday when my exams are over. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Just quickly, speaking in Google's favour, I've had to use Gmail in an emergency via SSH on a text terminal, and it remained eminently usable. Screenreaders may not fare so well, but for the vast majority of users, it's key strength is usability and the depth of their products. It seems they value usability over (universal) accessibility, which is, for many businesses, quite an acceptable order of values. You can either devote resources to ensuring accessibility for those clients who may or may not be the most profitable, or you can devote the same resources to improving usability for the widest possible range of people... which drives the growth of their products in no small way. And, despite all its validation misdemeanours, Google's search engine linearises quite well (if you don't believe me, fire up Links... which I presume is a decent guide to the way a screen reader would approch things). Hah! I just discovered something that puts an interesting spin on my previous assertion about Google not worrying about showing up in search engines. Try this search: http://www.google.com/search?q=search Yes indeed, Google ranks after MSN in its own search engine! Josh On 12/8/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me! I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate. I never looked at it closely, but you're right - it's tagsoup, tables for layout and deprecated elements and attributes galore (font, center anyone?). No DTD either. Perhaps, like *many* businesses, they look at it and say it works in all browsers, so what's all the fuss about? They don't *see* the need... Perhaps it's also a case of (some) programmers are not html coders. It seems many people who write server side scripts only have a vocabulary of about 10-12 HTML elements (html, title, meta, body, table, tr, td, center, font, img and maybe a couple more). Yes, I know there are exceptions... Just thinking Google may fall into this category as it's obviously script driven. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 08/12/2005, at 5:35 PM, Bert Doorn wrote: Just thinking Google may fall into this category as it's obviously script driven. Yeah, its probably mostly that - they are back end coders and aren't aware of the front end issues. But - this is *Google*!! They are hiring the best of breed. I can't believe that no one over there has ever come across WaSP et al. :( Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Hi Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire programmers who understand standards. I think the Google question more comes down to if you are on to a good thing, don't change it CheersJamesOn 12/8/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For a company with the motto of 'do no evil', its embarrassing noless, and they should pick up their act.
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote: Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire programmers who understand standards. See, thats where I differ - I think that to say 'we do this other stuff thats Good, so we don't have to worry about something as trivial as Web Standards'[1] undermines all our work, which we like to think makes the world a Better Place. By declining to support Standards they implicitly state that it isn't important, and as I think it Is important, I feel they are not doing good, they are doing... that other thing ;) By being a big company (and by golly by market valuation they are absolutely Huge these days!) they implicitly make a massive statement about the value of something simply by ignoring it :( Lea [1] And, I must point out, in fact, they don't say any such thing - as usual they don't say anything at all about the matter. No one knows why they've never spent the 2.5 hours required to bring at least the home page up to standards... Lea de Groot -- Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Makes it interesting when you are trying to sell clients "validated" code and web sites if they ask "does Google have validated code?". Regards, Ric James Ellis wrote: Hi Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire programmers who understand standards. I think the Google question more comes down to "if you are on to a good thing, don't change it " Cheers James On 12/8/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For a company with the motto of 'do no evil', its embarrassing no less, and they should pick up their act.
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these days. Inserting a doctype, separating style data, that sort of thing, takes a lot of additional bandwidth when you're dealing with hits in the quantities that they do. Plus I don't think there's been a *code* change in there for years - apathy beats everything again. -mjec -- http://mine.mjec.net/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
From: Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me! I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate. I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could all just shake it off - they are no where near validating. Lets just look at the home page (although I'm not aware of any of their other products that are an improvement). 51 errors - *51*! On around the same number of lines of markup! For a company with the motto of 'do no evil', its embarrassing no less, and they should pick up their act. 51 errors is true, but misleading. There is a pattern to the errors and most of them are repetitive. Can anyone think of a single sane reason why their pages are nowhere near compliant? Probably because it works as it is. Given the sheer size of its market, I would say that Google's validation failures make a large statement about standards in a real-world context. But if I were you, I'd get in touch with Google and really lay into them about this :-) Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
G'day Michael Cordover wrote: I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these days. Inserting a doctype, separating style data, that sort of thing, takes a lot of additional bandwidth when you're dealing with hits in the quantities that they do. I don't follow your logic. Bandwidth is getting cheaper and cheaper, at least where I live. Getting rid of tables, font elements etc is likely to make their pages lighter, rather than heavier, especially when all presentation and behaviour is moved into (cached) external style sheet(s) javascript file(s) respectively. Downloading a style sheet once, or downloading all the presentational code on every page view - which one is going to cost them more in bandwidth? Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/8/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Michael Cordover wrote: I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these days. Inserting a doctype, separating style data, that sort of thing, takes a lot of additional bandwidth when you're dealing with hits in the quantities that they do. I don't follow your logic. Bandwidth is getting cheaper and cheaper, at least where I live. Getting rid of tables, font elements etc is likely to make their pages lighter, rather than heavier, especially when all presentation and behaviour is moved into (cached) external style sheet(s) javascript file(s) respectively. Downloading a style sheet once, or downloading all the presentational code on every page view - which one is going to cost them more in bandwidth? Valid CSS based design would definitely improve Google's speed, not hamper it. I think the reason Google doesn't care is just that they are already profitable as it is. Companies like Google are driven by profit and they are the market leader in what they do. If I went to Google and told them that changing their front end would allow them to reach more customer and become more profitable, they wouldn't see the need. And though they have a good laugh with the do no evil foolery, they don't really care if their markup is inaccessible. Someone mentioned they are back-end programmers, and from dealing with back-end programmers at school, I know that most of them consider HTML to be really easy and pointless so they don't bother or care to learn how to use HTML correctly. If I told them how complex HTML/XHTML/CSS really is they would think I was crazy. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 09/12/2005, at 12:20 AM, Al Sparber wrote: But if I were you, I'd get in touch with Google and really lay into them about this :-) What, when I can whinge on a mailing list? No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;) OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :) Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Well, if they don't know about it already, consider Gmail conspiracy theories disproved ;-) On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/12/2005, at 12:20 AM, Al Sparber wrote: But if I were you, I'd get in touch with Google and really lay into them about this :-) What, when I can whinge on a mailing list? No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;) OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :) Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
What, when I can whinge on a mailing list? No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;) OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :) Yeah, good luck finding usable contact details on their site ;) As far as I can tell, Google doesn't write valid/accessible markup since a) there's no money in it for them, or at least not enough that they care; and b) the average punter won't give it any cool points. Google is motivated by money and cool. Standards don't get either one. man, I think I need a beer now ;) h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :) Interesting timing rumour is that http://www.google.com/ig is going to become their new My Google style portal page. The markup still stinks. h -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/9/05, heretic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :) Interesting timing rumour is that http://www.google.com/ig is going to become their new My Google style portal page. The markup still stinks. That has been around for a long time, and isn't much different from similar portals like start.com or netvibes. Ajax based applications like that make me think of: http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html When companies are using Ajax, they usually have already thrown accessibility out the door. It's not often you see Ajax applications with good, accessible fallbacks. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Single sane reason: Well now, I suppose they're not trying to get themselves indexed by a search engine, are they? ;-) josh -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 On 12/8/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08/12/2005, at 12:54 PM, Paul Bennett wrote: Trolling? Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me! I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate. I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could all just shake it off - they are no where near validating. Lets just look at the home page (although I'm not aware of any of their other products that are an improvement). 51 errors - *51*! On around the same number of lines of markup! For a company with the motto of 'do no evil', its embarrassing no less, and they should pick up their act. Can anyone think of a single sane reason why their pages are nowhere near compliant? Lea ~ why, yes, I do like changing the subject line ;) -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Lea de Groot wrote: On 08/12/2005, at 12:54 PM, Paul Bennett wrote: Trolling? Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me! I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate. I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could all just shake it off - they are no where near validating. Lets just look at the home page (although I'm not aware of any of their other products that are an improvement). 51 errors - *51*! On around the same number of lines of markup! For a company with the motto of 'do no evil', its embarrassing no less, and they should pick up their act. Can anyone think of a single sane reason why their pages are nowhere near compliant? Lea ~ why, yes, I do like changing the subject line ;) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 08/12/2005, at 12:54 PM, Paul Bennett wrote: Trolling? Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me! I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate. I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could all just shake it off - they are no where near validating. Lets just look at the home page (although I'm not aware of any of their other products that are an improvement). 51 errors - *51*! On around the same number of lines of markup! For a company with the motto of 'do no evil', its embarrassing no less, and they should pick up their act. Can anyone think of a single sane reason why their pages are nowhere near compliant? Lea ~ why, yes, I do like changing the subject line ;) -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
On 12/8/05, Joshua Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Single sane reason: Well now, I suppose they're not trying to get themselves indexed by a search engine, are they? ;-) josh Good answer. Maybe also: - they aren't making a browser - they use lots of javascript - they don't care Maybe the WASP should start talking to them? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] *Why* doesn't Google validate? was New logo scheme was talking points for standards
G'day Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me! I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate. I never looked at it closely, but you're right - it's tagsoup, tables for layout and deprecated elements and attributes galore (font, center anyone?). No DTD either. Perhaps, like *many* businesses, they look at it and say it works in all browsers, so what's all the fuss about? They don't *see* the need... Perhaps it's also a case of (some) programmers are not html coders. It seems many people who write server side scripts only have a vocabulary of about 10-12 HTML elements (html, title, meta, body, table, tr, td, center, font, img and maybe a couple more). Yes, I know there are exceptions... Just thinking Google may fall into this category as it's obviously script driven. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
