The other problem with the validation logos is that they don't always
mean that the page is valid. In my experience, a large number of sites
with these logos don't serve valid code and fail the test that they link
to.
I think that this analog with the construction world is not really
satisfactory as the need for, and potential repercussions of, standards
and 'validity' and compliance when building a house is much greater than
when just serving data.
BEFORE I get shot down in flames for blasphemy, I DO think that web
standards are important and I agree that XHTML should not be abused.
BUT when a website fails, no-one gets injures (except maybe the
mainainter if they have a violent boss :) ).
I don't think that any suitable analogy can really be used for this case
because the potential benefits of Semantics and good data presentation
are immense and unique, but only for large data sources. There is a
reason why LaTeX isn't taught to 16 year-olds in schools to do essays
with, it may produce nice, accurate, readable layouts but to spend the
time and effort trying to beat it into people is counter-productive.
Stephen
Robert O'Neill wrote:
If I wanted new windows in my house I'd buy from the BS Standard
compliant company every time, wouldn't you ?
The thing is though, if I click on the BS Standard logo it can't prove
to me that the company is actually compliant , however in our
industry, we as web designers can use our W3C logos to prove the
point, by linking them to the validators.
Some might find this argument slightly flaky as a BS Standard is an
acknowledgment of quality rather than validity. The problem we have
though is that until the consequences of legislation fully kick in
(DDA etc) we are still being allowed to regulate ourselves and W3C
validation seems to be the only option available.
So I'll continue to add W3C validation logos to my sites until an
official Govt. Standard is set. Considering the UK Government bases
most of its current web standards (eGIF, NHS Standards etc) on W3C
recommendations, I'll hopefully be in a decent position should that
ever happen.
Rob O.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/12/2005 16:42:46 >>>
I thought of a number of points relating to this standards issue...
The icons by w3c and others are meaningless and are a problem. They
need to have meaning to the reader. The average web visitor doesn't
even know that the W3C exists, let alone that they make
recommendations or determine structure and validity. When I first
moved into the realm of writing better code (still honing skills) I
didn't know what they were.In order to create meaning it has to
represent actual value, ROI or benefit to users and buyers of our
services.
We, as developers need to be talking, not to the individual business
owner but to business leaders in each segment and show them, not tell
them how this will benefit them.
I belong to several business forums and nowhere are you going to see a
discussion of web standards and accessibility as most of these people
don't know what that don't know. They all feel that how a site looks
determines quality.
Like it or not -- the only measure of the success of a website is the
return on investment or an increase in profits or some other metric.
If a business can achieve that with tag soup they are going to be
happy. But most small business owners don't even consider this point.
They just want a website, so they hire a firm that has websites they
like to look at or that look good.
We as an industry need to band together and make standards mean
something that business owners can't live without. No FUD just a
commitment by a segment of our industry that support web standards and
that promotes the benefit to business consistently and continually. We
need to stop preaching to the choir and build broad awareness that
business is getting short changed but "design" firms who do website
design are playing jack of all trades (although I would argue that web
firms cannot be mutually exclusive to marketing). We need to create an
environment that will make decision makers say to themselves, "Where
can I get me a standards-based, accessible! site?"
This whole argument of licensing and regulation is ridiculous because
like most regulations there will be segments of the industry that
lobby to keep eligibility for the standards to an absolute low or
argue that this standard is designed to be protectionist. Why don't we
make it that the tag soup chefs have no choice but get on board by
creating client demand for clean efficient code.
Strictly on the topic of this thread, one point I make to clients is
that the code will be easily edited by anyone in the future and will
require no special software to modify and therefore cost less to
maintain. I don't usually get into these discussions with clients
though because my local competitors can't even make good looking tag
soup -- so I win be default. That will eventually change.
All the best,
Jay
Jay Gilmore
Developer/Consultant
Affordable Websites and Marketing Solutions for Real Small Business.
SmashingRed Web & Marketing <http://www.smashingred.com>
P) 902.529.0651
E) [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ric & Jude Raftis wrote:
You are absolutely correct Andreas. Bit the same as an Australian
Safety Standard, or Certificate of Electrical Compliance and the
myriad of other bits of pieces of terminology and standards that we
live with every day. But if we don't educate the public, how will
they ever learn. The tag soup coders certainly won't tell them!
I certainly don't think it's about designers "stroking" their egos.
If it's compliant then tell the world, the visitors but MORE
importantly.....tell the client! Make them proud to have the icon on
their site.
Regards,
Ric
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
These icons with "AAA", "W3C", "HTML", "XHTML" on it only confuse most
users. So often in usability tests I have heard users ask me: "What
does
this mean"?
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
*** IMPORTANT NOTICE ***
*** PPA DISCLAIMER ***
This e-mail and any attachments transmitted with it, including replies
and forwarded copies subsequently transmitted (which may contain
alterations), contains information which may be confidential and which
may also be privileged.
The content of this e-mail is for the exclusive use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the person
authorised as responsible for delivery to the intended recipient(s),
please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this e-mail
or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Network
Team at the Prescription Pricing Authority via e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] including a copy of this message. Please then delete
this e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses.
However, you do need to validate this e-mail and any attachments to it
for viruses, as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus
that might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
This e-mail is from the Prescription Pricing Authority whose principal
office is at Bridge House, 152 Pilgrim Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
NE1 6SN. Switchboard Telephone Number :- +44 (0)191 232 5371
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
