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