who cares about standards?

@amazing_andr3Mar 14.2005

I’ve validated 10 of the most popular sites:

google.com, yahoo.com, msn.com, bbc.com, cnn.com, NewYorkTimes.com, amazon.com, eBay.com, microsoft.com, wikipedia.com

The top three are these:
~~[url]~~http://en.wikipedia.com/[/url] — Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional
~~[url]~~http://www.bbc.com/[/url] — Tentatively Validates As HTML 3.2
~~[url]~~http://www.microsoft.com/[/url] — only 3 errors found

Although NewYorkTimes.com won the big prize with 640 errors.

I was going to say this on my site:
“Before choosing a web designer validate his site at validator.w3.org . If you get any error he doesn’t know what the heck he’s doing.”

Now, honestly, can I say that without making a fool of myself?

to post a comment

Full-stack Developer

12 Comments(s) _↴

@the_treeMar 14.2005 — #I'd say that more than 50 errors is a problem. A better idea would be to say run it through the Bobby checker and if they get "In need of repair", then they don't know what the heck they are doing.

@felgallMar 14.2005 — #There are lots of web sites that only function correctly in Internet Explorer and are totally stuffed up when viewed in any other browser (approx 11% of the viewing public). Having a web page meet the standards means that it should display correctly in all current and future browsers. It is a good way to future proof your page.

@spufiMar 15.2005 — #[i]Originally posted by amazing_andr3 [/i]

[B]I was going to say this on my site:

"Before choosing a web designer validate his site at validator.w3.org . If you get any error he doesn't know what the heck he's doing."

Now, honestly, can I say that without making a fool of myself? [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you talking your personal site, or your professional one? I wouldn't be caught dead saying something like that on a professional site. Even a personal one would have some rewording going on. I would mention comparing the sites after showing why it is better to have a standards compliant site, and just leave it to the user to decide if what you are saying has any worth.

@buntineMar 15.2005 — #Most large Web Sites predominantly consist on generated content. They use Web Services (often third party) and serv-side components to generate fresh content. This Web Site would cnot compile for similar reasons.

Regards.

@amazing_andr3authorMar 15.2005 — #Actually I wasn't gonna say it so bluntly...

But I was going to give the link to the w3c validator. But if they ran google.com through the validator I'd be the one looking like he doesn't know what the heck he's doing

@amazing_andr3authorMar 15.2005 — #[i]Originally posted by buntine [/i]

[B]Most large Web Sites predominantly consist on generated content. They use Web Services (often third party) and serv-side components to generate fresh content. This Web Site would cnot compile for similar reasons.

Regards. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't see how that is an excuse, since wikipedia has all its pages valid XHTML. I mean, if wikipedia can do it, why can't NewYorkTimes?

@buntineMar 15.2005 — #Like I said, they cannot rely on third party organizations and outourced applications to generate valid markup. Its just not deemed importany enough for larger Web Sites.

@PeOfEoMar 15.2005 — #[COLOR=deeppink]the webdevelopers for these sites seem to be a little more with the program... well atleast they mean well. They do not validate, but they have made the move to css and are using more 'current' markup.

www.lycos.co.uk www.macromedia.com www.espn.com www.sprintpcs.com http://www.ge.com/en/ http://www.kerr-mcgee.com/ http://www.novell.com/[/COLOR][COLOR=deeppink][/COLOR]

@the_treeMar 15.2005 — #[url=http://www.yahoo.com/]Yahoo[/url] have dropped the tables but they are using way too much javascript.

@David_HarrisonMar 15.2005 — #I disabled JavaScript and it was still possible to navigate around their site and even check my email (but I had to use the old skin as the new one requires JS apparently). If it's still possible to get around without JavaScript then that's all that matters.

@amazing_andr3authorMar 15.2005 — #I use yahoo mail on a daily basis and I can tell you the new version is slower than the old one.

That's why I disable JavaScript on purpose, so yahoo uses its old version.

I also tried blocking all the images from the new version to make it faster, but they come back from different sites so I just use the old one.

? Yahoo's redesign is not a good example

@toicontienMar 15.2005 — #The older, more established sites have designers and programmers who've been in the business for a decade or so. In the very least the upper echelon has been. They've been doing things one way for a while, so why should they change? They are also probably using content management apps that are three to five years old because many of them are expensive to upgrade or buy. And once you upgrade any sort of system, there is a period where all employees must be retrained, which costs money. As a result, most of those sites use invalid markup, or legacy markup as I like to call it.

It's not a sign of ignorance. It's a combination of having management that's been in the business for a long time and not knowing or caring about standards, having existing applications, and the fact that most people who post on this forum are in high school and college. Those of us who are educated in standards tend to be young or not as experienced as the people running Web sites. We're another generation of Web designers who are trying to change the industry. Give it some time ?