RE: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-06 Thread Berman, Pamela E
Rowan,

I had the same problem when I started my blog. I had to edit the markup
in the template as there was a set of p/p that caused the problem.
The pages did validate but their search box wasn't labeled. I see now
that Blogger added additional elements to their search feature and it no
longer validates ... sigh ...

Pam

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rowan - 
 RMW Web Publishing
 Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:32 PM
 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 Subject: Re: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' 
 actually comply
 
 Those coders that are knowingly writing invalid code (be it a 
 trade off or sheer laziness) should be honest with 
 themselves and stop trying to kid their viewers. Not only are 
 you (like Nic said) weakening the value of the button for 
 everyone but you will likely be found out (and to me - that 
 would do more harm than good - it's not worth it).
 
 On a personal note: I removed my [XHML] [CSS] links from my 
 Blogger hosted blog. Now these were never the W3C buttons 
 (just text links), but I linked to the validator, which was 
 showing invalid due to the invalid code that Blogger was 
 inserting into my otherwise valid template
 
 --
 Rowan
 
 **
 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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Marco van Hylckama Vlieg

I'm one of these site owners :)

I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these buttons were 
actually compliant when they were launched / created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when 
stuff is added / removed / modified. It has nothing
to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and everything with having 
more inportant things on my mind than making
sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'. I'm getting to the 
point where I feel minor validation errors that don't
cause any of the major browsers to break the layout aren't really that 
important to spend so much attention on.


In 1 or 2 months I'll be launching a redesign and the site will probably 
comply again. After that the same thing will
probably happen again. Such is life. It doesn't have much to do with 
incompetence or lack of respect for standards. It's a focus thing really.


Just my five cents!

Marco

Nic wrote:

I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to
find more and more.

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance.  You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim!  Their css is a mess.  And as far as
WAI compliance, the number of sites claiming AAA that don't even meet A
level is mind boggling.  Then, there are those sites who actually
technically meet some level of WCAG, but in such a way the site is in fact
unusable...

This upsets me on several levels.  It can only impact negatively on those of
us who actually do make sites that comply.  If non-compliant sites claim
compliance, it dilutes the effect of claiming compliance for those who do
comply.  But it also reflects on our competence.  If so many people who
claim compliance have apparently not a clue of what they are doing, how can
a potential client be sure that the next guy (you, me) claiming they know
what they are doing actually does?

Perhaps this is a pointless rant, but it's seriously getting under my skin
this week.

Thanks for any feedback on this :)

Nic

**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote:

...


In 1 or 2 months I'll be launching a redesign and the site will 
probably comply again. After that the same thing will probably happen

 again. Such is life. It doesn't have much to do with incompetence or
 lack of respect for standards. It's a focus thing really.



Just my five cents!


I'll add to your five cents, and don't think I'll have any problems with
your site either as long as it is working well :-)

One question though: are those buttons important enough at any stage?

I personally see standards as 'the best tools available' - not as 'rules
of law'. I use standardized tools for all they are worth, to achieve
what I want as many visitors as possible to experience. I rarely ever
claim perfect adherence to standards since such a claim won't help any
visitor in itself - even if it is true.

That's my last five cents - I'm broke now :-)

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Steve Ferguson

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
 Marco van Hylckama Vlieg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I'm one of these site owners :)

I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these 
buttons were actually compliant when they were launched / 
created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly 
deteriorates when stuff is added / removed / modified. It 
has nothing
to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and 
everything with having more inportant things on my mind 
than making

sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'.

...


Just my five cents!

Marco



And a great five cents it is.

You almost always have make trade offs between 
risk/quality and time. It seems most web developers choose 
to accept risk for the sake of time.


The sad truth is that it is quite difficult and time 
consuming to maintain a compliant site with the tools that 
most people use today.


There's my five cents for the kitty.

Steve - WebLight Developer http://illumit.com/weblight
**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Christian Montoya
 On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
   Marco van Hylckama Vlieg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I'm one of these site owners :)
 
  I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these
 buttons were actually compliant when they were launched /
 created.
  However in the real world this sometimes slightly
 deteriorates when stuff is added / removed / modified. It
 has nothing
  to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and
 everything with having more inportant things on my mind
 than making
  sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'.

Maybe, but if a site that is XHTML served as text/html were actually
served correctly as application-type/xhtml+xml, any validation errors
would cause the site to STOP working entirely. So this kind of can't
win them all attitude is okay when we are talking about html 4, but
with xhtml, it's not acceptable. When I see an html 4 site with
validation errors, I don't mind at all, but when I see an xhtml (or
wannabe xhtml) site with validation errors, I think that's a problem.
I know it sounds elitist, but in the xhtml world, validation is the
law.

This is why on my latest project, a wordpress template for a friend of
mine, I am designing the template to be html 4. Even all those
wordpress-generated img / tags are valid in html 4, and I don't have
to lose sleep over my friend's mistakes when she uses html in her
posts, because I know the site will still work.

As much as I like seeing a decent adoption of xhtml by so many
websites, I still think many of them should roll back to html 4, if
they aren't going to bother to fix their errors.

--
--
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Leslie Riggs
I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would 
be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as 
application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done 
has been rather confusing, particularly when I go and see sites served 
as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and text/html. Does that mean those sites are 
'violating the validation law'?


What's a person to do?  When is it appropriate to use one of the XHTML DTDs and 
when to use HTML 4.01, and what about those XHTML Transitional DTDs?  I guess I'm 
looking for a bit of a summarization  clarification of this concept.

Leslie Riggs


Maybe, but if a site that is XHTML served as text/html were actually
served correctly as application-type/xhtml+xml, any validation errors
would cause the site to STOP working entirely. So this kind of can't
win them all attitude is okay when we are talking about html 4, but
with xhtml, it's not acceptable. When I see an html 4 site with
validation errors, I don't mind at all, but when I see an xhtml (or
wannabe xhtml) site with validation errors, I think that's a problem.
I know it sounds elitist, but in the xhtml world, validation is the
law.

This is why on my latest project, a wordpress template for a friend of
mine, I am designing the template to be html 4. Even all those
wordpress-generated img / tags are valid in html 4, and I don't have
to lose sleep over my friend's mistakes when she uses html in her
posts, because I know the site will still work.

As much as I like seeing a decent adoption of xhtml by so many
websites, I still think many of them should roll back to html 4, if
they aren't going to bother to fix their errors.

--
--
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
**

 



**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Paul Novitski

At 10:24 PM 1/4/2006, Nic wrote:

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance.  You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim!  Their css is a mess.

...

This upsets me on several levels.

...


Nic,

If you run into developers who are clearly flaunting W3C tags to 
attract naive clients but who have no intention of following through, 
what can you do?  Start a blog pointing out the worst 
offenders?  Pass them along to Vincent Flanders of 
http://webpagesthatsuck.com/?  Will the subsequent traffic to their 
sites help or hinder them?  You'll need to decide if they're really 
worth your time, when you could be out there creating elegant 
websites that work.


My suggestion is, don't get mad, get helpful.  If a website bugs you, 
write to its developer pointing out its flaws.  Most web developers 
in my experience are open to criticism because we're all always 
trying to improve our craft.  Don't be too quick to judge -- many of 
us are so over-extended that we don't have time to do everything on 
our to-do lists.  (I don't know about you, but I'm so busy working on 
my clients' sites that my own suffers from inattention.)  If there's 
anything about an erroneous site that you LIKE, I'd point that out as 
well so your comments will more likely be seen as friendly.


Regards,
Paul  


**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

Leslie Riggs wrote:

I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional;


 and what about those XHTML Transitional

DTDs?


Not going to start the debate on whether one should use HTML 4 strict or 
XHTML 1.0 strict / 1.1, but as far as transitional doctypes go, i'd say 
that they should only be used when you're indeed transitioning, 
retrofitting old pages (which may, depending on author or user 
contributed content, not be 100% yet) but have a firm plan to move to 
strict. I.e. they're not an end in itself. Any new developments should 
really be done in a strict doctype, IMHO.


--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Christian Montoya
On 1/5/06, Leslie Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would
 be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as
 application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done
 has been rather confusing, particularly when I go and see sites served
 as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and text/html. Does that mean those sites are
 'violating the validation law'?

 What's a person to do?  When is it appropriate to use one of the XHTML DTDs 
 and when to use HTML 4.01, and what about those XHTML Transitional DTDs?  I 
 guess I'm looking for a bit of a summarization  clarification of this 
 concept.


Well, if you have a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transisitional served as
text/html, and you like the way it looks, it works great, serves it
purpose, etc, then what you really have is an HTML 4 site, because
that's how the browsers are processing it and that's how the css is
handling it. The validator is the only one that thinks the page is
XHTML. So you can just as well change the doctype to HTML 4 and you'll
see that visually, nothing changes. Trust me, I've done it.

It isn't to say that it's wrong to serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html, and I
still do that, sometimes, but what I do think is wrong is having an
XHTML 1.0 page, served as text/html, that has validation errors. That
is, it's wrong in principal, obviously the page still works.

So as to spare everyone a lengthy discussion of this, there's a lot of
information in the archives on the subject of XHTML as text/html. Back
to the main discussion...

--
--
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread kvnmcwebn
Patrick wrote:
Any new developments should 
really be done in a strict doctype, IMHO.

How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and 
crossing your i's?

-best
kvnmwebn





**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Ben . Winter-Giles

Hi Nic,

good rant.

valid points.

if someone wants to put their unholy neck on the line and say I'm
compliant then good for them. They need then to be braced for the
subsequent onslaught of did you know comments from actual professionals
who work in that space.

Its like any compliance statement.

Look at motorcycle helmets, the SNELL standards are uniform in testing
procedure across the world. Subsequently the stamp can only be put on
through the product having gone through actual testing, otherwise they can
actually be prosecuted.

The CE stamp that you see on everything from PC's to kids toys, does
actually mean something too, but in actual fact, there is a difference
between actual compliance (as tested by the authority) and self proclaimed
compliance or compatability. Additionally the standards for CE are not
exactly clear nor concise, and not necessarily relevant to many products.
But slapping the CE stamp on the product helps stem consumer fear of a
products quality.

Similarly, the WAI etc... stamps that are slapped upon many sites, I
believe are put there largely as a gimmick of pride, or marketting, or just
plain ignorance of the actual standards.

In many cases I would genuinely believe (wanting to think that I'm not a
cynical as I actually am) that most people who put that on their site
either:
1. were actually compliant at one stage of the sites life, but through poor
management practices, has since degraded or,
2. are ill informed about the standards, through poor resourcing /
education / training and or resources to effectively complete the job. (see
most american and australian government websites) This is of course not to
say that they don't strive to fix the problems, but in many cases the
supporting structures are not that supportinve towards actually achieving
what is needed to get qualified compliance with the standards.

so what do we do?

wear bike helmets if they are snell certified, don't buy kids toys, and if
you need compliance in order to wake up in the morning, don't go on the
internet.

or,

edumacate as many people in the field as possible about the realities of
it, and keep posting stuff to this community.

This is a cool thread Nic, keen to see where it goes.


Ben Winter-Giles
Design  Technology Team




|-+-
| |   Nic |
| |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
| |   Sent by:  |
| |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| |   dsgroup.org   |
| | |
| | |
| |   05/01/2006 05:24  |
| |   PM|
| |   Please respond to |
| |   wsg   |
| | |
|-+-
  
-|
  | 
|
  |   To:   wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
|
  |   cc:   
|
  |   Subject:  [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually 
comply  |
  |Classification:  |---|   
|
  | | ( ) In-Confidence |   
|
  | | ( ) Unclassified  |   
|
  | |---|   
|
  | 
|
  
-|




I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to
find more and more.

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance.  You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim!  Their css is a mess.  And as far as
WAI compliance, the number of sites claiming AAA that don't even meet A
level is mind boggling.  Then, there are those sites who actually
technically meet some level of WCAG, but in such a way the site is in fact
unusable...

This upsets me on several levels.  It can only impact negatively on those
of
us who actually do make sites that comply.  If non-compliant sites

Re: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

kvnmcwebn wrote:


How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and 
crossing your i's?


HTML 4 strict is really just dotting and crossing. for XHTML 1.0 
transitional to XHTML 1.0 strict you should really know what you're 
doing in terms of separating content from presentation, as many 
presentational attributes that transitional still lets you get away with 
are now removed from the DTD. and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to 
1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few more 
things to look out for (e.g. more attributes removed, having to ensure 
that form widgets are also enclosed in a block level element and not 
just in a form, not being allowed any character entities apart from 
the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and apo; - so things like copy; for 
instance will not be valid).


P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

kvnmcwebn wrote:

How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?


Not difficult at all in most cases - unless you need to 'target' links.
- Take a Transitional document and put a Strict DTD on top. HTML4 or
XHTML 1.0.
- Send it through the validator.
- Remove any non-strict presentational markup, restyle those parts in
CSS, and validate as Strict again.
That's usually it :-)


XHTML1.0 _is_ a different ballgame in itself, because in order to be
called XHTML at all it should work when served as
'application/xhtml+xml'. The fact that we can serve XHTML1.0 as
'text/html' in order to reach the masses (through IE/win amongst
others), doesn't really change that.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Nic
 Thanks for the great responses so far :)

Marco wrote:
 Most sites that bear these buttons were actually compliant when they were
launched / created.
 However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when stuff
is added / removed 
 / modified. 

That's a fair enough comment.  Thing do change and keeping track of changes
can complicate one's life.  

To me, though, those tags should be used on a per page basis, not
sitewide.  And one would think that if you make a change to a page on a
site, you'll either carry-on your work with ensuring the pages complies, or
you'll be able to take the time to remove/modify the button?  Dunno.
Perhaps I don't live in the real world... :)

 It has nothing to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' 
 and everything with having more inportant things on my mind 
 than making sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'. 

Yes, there surely is a difference between your attitude and that of people
who actually don't have a clue.  I'm sure there are many who think they
know, but don't know.  Heck, we're all humans and can always learn more.  :)

As to complying to the letter of the law...  Well.  To me, either you
comply, or you don't.  Either you're pregnant, or you're not :)  Of course,
there's always room for interpretation on some standards...  Many of the
level 3 requirements of WCAG are such.  Provide information so that users
may receive documents according to their preferences.  Where do you stop?
How many different language do you need your text translated into, sign
language as well?  Etc...  But still...

 I'm getting to the point where I feel minor validation errors that 
 don't cause any of the major browsers to break the layout aren't 
 really that important to spend so much attention on.

I'd agree with that.  In the end, full compliance and validation are not the
be all and end all of designing and maintaining a site.  That said, if a
site doesn't comply, then it shouldn't claim compliance. 

Georg asks:
 One question though: are those buttons important enough at any stage?

Probably not all that important.  It is a matter of pride, I think, in many
cases.  Perhaps because these standards are not as widely used/supported as
they should (and no, I'm NOT wanting to launch the debate about MSIE not
rendering to standards...).  But for those who do follow them, there should
be a certain amount of pride.  Displaying that on a page (your own or a
client's) is also a way to show the potential client that you know what
you're doing, and are (in theory) keeping abreast of the changes in
technology that mean a client's site is likely to be (more) future-proof.  

Paul said:
 My suggestion is, don't get mad, get helpful.  
 If a website bugs you, write to its developer pointing out its flaws. 

Yes, I do that on a semi-regular basis.  Sometimes it's well received,
sometimes I get a virtual kick in the teeth.  Most often, I get no response
at all...  shrug

 Don't be too quick to judge 

Oh aye.  I tend to live and let live.  Sometimes, I must admit, the
frustration of working on a site and make sure it complies, only to be faced
by sites slapping compliance labels on themselves that don't meet
criteria.  Not trully a big deal, but frustrating nonetheless.

 (I don't know about you, but I'm so busy working on my clients' sites that
my own suffers from inattention.)

grin  My own site's so suffering from innatention that it's not even up
yet!  Thank the gods for word of mouth ;)

Cheers, and thanks again for the great exchanges so far.

Nic

**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-05 Thread Rowan - RMW Web Publishing

Those coders that are knowingly writing invalid code (be it a trade off or
sheer laziness) should be honest with themselves and stop trying to kid their
viewers. Not only are you (like Nic said) weakening the value of the 
button for

everyone but you will likely be found out (and to me - that would do more harm
than good - it's not worth it).

On a personal note: I removed my [XHML] [CSS] links from my Blogger hosted
blog. Now these were never the W3C buttons (just text links), but I linked to
the validator, which was showing invalid due to the invalid code that
Blogger was inserting into my otherwise valid template

--
Rowan

**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-04 Thread Nic
I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to
find more and more.

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance.  You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim!  Their css is a mess.  And as far as
WAI compliance, the number of sites claiming AAA that don't even meet A
level is mind boggling.  Then, there are those sites who actually
technically meet some level of WCAG, but in such a way the site is in fact
unusable...

This upsets me on several levels.  It can only impact negatively on those of
us who actually do make sites that comply.  If non-compliant sites claim
compliance, it dilutes the effect of claiming compliance for those who do
comply.  But it also reflects on our competence.  If so many people who
claim compliance have apparently not a clue of what they are doing, how can
a potential client be sure that the next guy (you, me) claiming they know
what they are doing actually does?

Perhaps this is a pointless rant, but it's seriously getting under my skin
this week.

Thanks for any feedback on this :)

Nic

**
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] Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply

2006-01-04 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Nic wrote:

You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance. You
do a quick check, ...


Gosh. Don't do that!!!
Just think of all the hard work those poor web designers had to do
just to get hold of those buttons and create those links. Might have
taken them several minutes ;-)

Some of them even believe their own claims, while the others - well it's
hard to tell...
Cluelessness comes to mind, and claims are easy to make as long as
nobody holds one to them. Nobody does, you know.

My position is: never mind what others know or do or claim as long as
they don't ask for your opinion. It's most often a waste of time anyway.
It's what _we_ know and do that matters, and _we_ better know what we're
doing - or we better ask someone who have the knowledge we're missing.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**