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 ******************************************************
