...

View Full Version : Validator



theMaster
05-16-2008, 04:30 PM
After a row with an ex-friend he moved his site away from me.

Someone-else has now done it and all the pages have the W3C XHTML logo at the bottom. But if you do a check, then most pages are not passed and have 10 errors. So this new designer is claiming that he has a perfect site - but I know that he has made an arse of things. What can I do? I believe that he is technicaly breaking the law by saying that the site is a pass.

oracleguy
05-16-2008, 05:07 PM
I believe that he is technicaly breaking the law by saying that the site is a pass.

No he isn't. Doesn't mean the site should have the logo if it doesn't pass but there isn't any law about it.

theMaster
05-16-2008, 05:10 PM
That's a shame!!!

So he can claim the site passes even though it doesn't - but that come under things like miss-representation doesn't it?

Can I do anything or report it to anyone for making a blatent lie?

gnomeontherun
05-16-2008, 06:00 PM
Can I do anything or report it to anyone for making a blatent lie?

Report him to Spookster. I'm sure he will find a way to take care of him, even if he isn't on this forum.

I <3 Lamp
05-16-2008, 06:08 PM
Call The Internet Police!~ We've Got Ourselves A Real E-goon!~

theMaster
05-16-2008, 08:37 PM
Assuming you're serious (and I'm not judged the goon myself!) - how do I report it???

gnomeontherun
05-16-2008, 09:38 PM
You don't. Browsers barely support these things, there are no oversight groups who check if there are people claim to be valid but aren't. What makes them look like an idiot is that link which goes to the validator and contradicts their claim. Of course, its pretty easy to get an error or two without realizing it from time to time.

If you are just mad at this person, validation is not the source of retribution.

harbingerOTV
05-16-2008, 10:03 PM
*cough hack it *cough

rmedek
05-16-2008, 10:34 PM
Do you know who cares about validator badges, other than big web nerds?

no one

Let it go. In my opinion nothing flashes the amateur hour sign quite as bright as one of those ugly orange W3C validator badges.

oesxyl
05-16-2008, 10:49 PM
After a row with an ex-friend he moved his site away from me.

Someone-else has now done it and all the pages have the W3C XHTML logo at the bottom. But if you do a check, then most pages are not passed and have 10 errors. So this new designer is claiming that he has a perfect site - but I know that he has made an arse of things. What can I do? I believe that he is technicaly breaking the law by saying that the site is a pass.
- remove the logo, it slow down the site and how rmedek said nobody cares about it, :)
- as oracleguy said, there is no low for that, but if you pay the designer, is your right to ask him to fix it. :)

regards

nicky
05-16-2008, 11:26 PM
I agree with rmedek... Not many visitors pay attention to a site's validation unless they themselves are nerds (like me!).

srule_
05-17-2008, 04:16 AM
I herd if you paypal me $50 bucks it will make him take down the W3C Logo.

Sman5109
05-17-2008, 04:23 AM
I herd if you paypal me $50 bucks it will make him take down the W3C Logo.
I'm sorry but I think your a little confused. Or you may be a liar just trying to steal peoples money.

But the truth is if you paypal me $35 bucks it will make him take down the W3C Logo and send him to internet jail.

gnomeontherun
05-17-2008, 04:27 AM
For $25 bucks I'll sign him up for all of the most annoying email lists and spam advertising lists you can imagine.

theMaster
05-17-2008, 12:39 PM
So, are we saying that putting a validated logo on a web site is bad? I thought that the public liked them (UK is where I am based)

gnomeontherun
05-17-2008, 05:17 PM
People tend to be skeptical when visiting a new site, and if they don't know what that badge is for (which I doubt the average user has even heard the phrase 'web standards') they will probably disregard it or think it is an advertisement box. Its not bad, its just to prove to other developers or web saavy individuals that you know something about development (maybe this is your target audience, which would make it more useful).

Just look at the thing though, it just has a big checkmark and says 'HTML 4.01 Valid' or something like that. My fianc&#233; doesn't even know what that means... Its kinda like seeing 'organically certified' in the grocery store (except that has health implications), but how many people actually know what that means? Only the few who really study health an nutrition, which is a shamefully small percentage of our society.

Bill Posters
05-17-2008, 06:31 PM
The more they're used, the more likely they are to be seen.
The more they're seen, the more likely it is that the people will start finding out what they're about.
The more people find out what they're about, the sooner users will/might start to appreciate them.
The more people appreciate them, the more website owners will want them applied on their sites.
The more website owners want them applied on their sites, the more web developers will use them.

So, whilst they may be a bit of insider jargon at present, and despite the fact that not every site which displays them is 100&#37; valid, anything which publicises web standards to users, commissioners and other developers can only be a good thing, imo.

Some time ago, I registered a domain specifically with a view to putting up a small site covering the reasons why we all stand to gain from web standards.
Unfortunately, I never got round to producing the site. I had thought the moment had passed, but discussions continue to pop up in which relative newcomers to webdev ask about the benefits of web standards - and I'm certainly in no doubt that website commissioners are still largely in the dark about the issue.

I may well revive my intentions and put that site up after all.
And yes, it will have badges.

Apostropartheid
05-17-2008, 07:54 PM
Tall order, seeing as most sites aren't valid and most that are only are out of pure coincidence. No one really cares. As long as it works. General human ignorance. If one were to know everything...

dniwebdesign
05-17-2008, 11:49 PM
So, are we saying that putting a validated logo on a web site is bad? I thought that the public liked them (UK is where I am based)

Most of the public wouldn't know that the validator is. As long as the website shows up in their browser they are happy and couldn't care less in how it's done or how valid the code is.

Like everyone said, the only ones who worry about it is web designers and nerds.


But you can always use a different image for your validator logo.

gnomeontherun
05-18-2008, 06:51 AM
We are only talking about an image, which links to the w3 validator, and essentially means nothing to the average user. I can't find where I read this, but many, far too many, people use search engines like Google or Yahoo! as if it is the address bar. Once we can prove that the average user can do something like use Netscape 4, then we can challenge them with phrases like validation and web standards. :)

Bill Posters
05-18-2008, 05:39 PM
We are only talking about an image, which links to the w3 validator, and essentially means nothing to the average user. I can't find where I read this, but many, far too many, people use search engines like Google or Yahoo! as if it is the address bar. Once we can prove that the average user can do something like use Netscape 4, then we can challenge them with phrases like validation and web standards. :)
Sorry, but imo, that's neo-luddite nonsense.

There are a variety of users on the web spanning the complete range of experience and understanding.
If we hold off on presenting web standards to anyone simply because some, possibly even the majority, have very little understanding of web browsers, then we'll never move forward and those with more advanced knowledge will never be provided with features which they may well appreciate.

By your logic, because some people don't know how to open a new window, browser developers shouldn't have devised and implemented tabbed browsing.
That's where your line of thinking leaves us. Is that really how you want the web to be developed - or, rather, not developed? Slow down development until the slowest amongst us is able to catch up and keep up?

Apostropartheid
05-18-2008, 05:40 PM
Opening a window just works, like our websites. See the logic?

Jeremy is not advocating disregarding validation. But he's right in the fact that visitors don't care. They never did. It's why a lot of web designers don't care, either. It doesn't mean we should give up the struggle, though.
Wow, did I just defend him?

rmedek
05-18-2008, 07:06 PM
many, far too many, people use search engines like Google or Yahoo! as if it is the address bar. Once we can prove that the average user can do something like use Netscape 4, then we can challenge them with phrases like validation and web standards. :)


Sorry, but imo, that's neo-luddite nonsense.

There are a variety of users on the web spanning the complete range of experience and understanding.
If we hold off on presenting web standards to anyone simply because some, possibly even the majority, have very little understanding of web browsers, then we'll never move forward and those with more advanced knowledge will never be provided with features which they may well appreciate.

As far as people using search engines as the address bar, unfortunately I can back that up with real-world experience from many, many clients. Clients who think themselves to be fairly savvy internet users.

As far as validation and the end-user…saying that developers can't move forward until users are educated is, IMO, naive. As developers it's our responsibility to build accessible, forward-thinking websites. I'm sure you're not aware of many new technologies and standards being incorporated into various products and services you use…why should the internet be any different? The industry should keep trucking forward and educate when necessary, not to pat its own back.

Bill Posters
05-18-2008, 07:15 PM
As far as people using search engines as the address bar, unfortunately I can back that up with real-world experience from many, many clients. Clients who think themselves to be fairly savvy internet users.
Just to clarify, I didn't question that such users exist.
I've seen my own family members do precisely that as well as one work colleague who's otherwise intermediate in his web usage.
It seems, for him at least, it's a habit, rather than something done out of ignorance.

gnomeontherun
05-19-2008, 05:19 PM
Sorry, but imo, that's neo-luddite nonsense.

There are a variety of users on the web spanning the complete range of experience and understanding.
If we hold off on presenting web standards to anyone simply because some, possibly even the majority, have very little understanding of web browsers, then we'll never move forward and those with more advanced knowledge will never be provided with features which they may well appreciate.

By your logic, because some people don't know how to open a new window, browser developers shouldn't have devised and implemented tabbed browsing.
That's where your line of thinking leaves us. Is that really how you want the web to be developed - or, rather, not developed? Slow down development until the slowest amongst us is able to catch up and keep up?

Let me just say that I'm a full advocate of moving forward on the web. It is just that most of the advances on the web will go misunderstood by the end user. They will need us to bridge the gap between what they understand and what we can begin to offer them as technology is developed.

My argument is that they won't understand, not that they won't utilize new technology. How many people understand the workings of a car, but know how to drive? Same principle. But if cars started putting too many labels on them which were specific to the auto industry, nobody would care.

People want a simple experience when visiting online. Read Don't Make Me Think! (http://www.sensible.com/) by Steve Krug and there were so many things I learned just from the way a page can be layed out to assist the user engage quickly with the content. Its a lot about usability in that book. If people can get their stock quotes, read their news, get their RSS feeds, and email, they are happy. It doesn't matter (to them) if its valid code or not.

As far as moving forward, its a trade-off. You cannot just run with new technologies that are available but are widely unsupported. Example: people tend to set their Flash movies back a version or two if they can without losing support for their code. Why? because the stuff they need to accomplish is better supported overall that way, not everyone updates their computer regularly and can access the latest in Flash stuff. Browsers are even worse, how can you truly support web standards when a large percentage of web users (the average users most likely) are still using browsers which don't support web standards (like IE 6)?

Know your audience. If they are a demographic which is going to use IE 6 and not even know what Flash is, you have some serious limitations in what technologies you can use. It has to be considered. If I'm making a website about retirement homes, I'm going to have to develop to support older browsers. If I'm making a site for business owners, I could probably stop supporting them if I wanted, but I'd probably still try to support them.

We won't hold back the wave of new technologies and what someone is going to eventually call Web 3.0 (and at which point I may try to just destroy all records of that phrase), but we won't be able to adopt them as soon as they are available either. There is a technology purgatory that exists between development and practical application. That is one truth about computer development, its just continually rolling out new technologies, some which get picked up and most which get dropped. Check out Ray Kurzweil (http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1), if someone is optimistic about the rapid development of computers, its him. Scary though somewhat...

An analogy to conclude: Web standards right now is like a child, probably in 3rd grade. It can fend for itself but can't survive away from its parents just yet. As it grows and matures, it will be able to survive without the browsers planning poor implementations or the organizations who advocate it trying to convince the web development world it will be the best thing for them, because at this point it will advocate itself largely and begin to improve itself by going to college. Then it will start to provide real assistance and strength to web development. It still has to grow up all of the way yet...

Thats my thoughts. Chew on that if you wish :) And yes Cyan, I read that as defense on my part :p

VIPStephan
05-19-2008, 06:01 PM
Know your audience. If they are a demographic which is going to use IE 6 and not even know what Flash is, you have some serious limitations in what technologies you can use. It has to be considered.

This is where progressive enhancement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Enhancement) (and/or graceful degradation) comes into play. Another aspect of design with usability in mind.

Bill Posters
05-19-2008, 08:30 PM
Read Don't Make Me Think! (http://www.sensible.com/) by Steve Krug
There are some valuable, worthwhile morsels in there, but in my opinion, the title's mantra a potentially hugely damaging attitude chugged down by legions of developers who need to be led by the nose through the decision-making process. It's perhaps not a little ironic that the book's readers are being told how to avoid making users think for themselves, whilst themselves often taking its contents as gospel in lieu of their own unwillingness or inability to figure things out for themselves.
(No offense meant)

I understand usability reasonably well, but it riles me to think that we're breeding a generation of developers, for whom Krug's book is a work bible, versed in pandering to users' reluctance to engage their own brains. (Yes, it's ok to admit that users are largely lazy, ignorant and unexercised in using their brains.)

So, whilst I respect the book and its author, I have reservations about whether the doctrine it imparts is as valuable and productive as some might think. I can't help but think that, in the grander scheme of things, an attitude/approach such as that might be doing more harm than good.

Just a thought. ;)



If people can get their stock quotes, read their news, get their RSS feeds, and email, they are happy. It doesn't matter (to them) if its valid code or not.
It's not an either/or situation. It's possible - and better - to be both valid and usable. There should be sufficient time in every project to attain both (at least, at launch).


…Then it will start to provide real assistance and strength to web development.
Given that code invalidity can knacker a layout in browsers commonly available today, potentially rendering a page ususable, I'd say that it's already an important factor which we should all be seeking to act upon, if only for the sake of maximising portability.

Apostropartheid
05-19-2008, 08:42 PM
I understand usability reasonably well, but it riles me to think that we're breeding a generation of developers, for whom Krug's book is a work bible, versed in pandering to users' reluctance to engage their own brains. (Yes, it's ok to admit that users are largely lazy, ignorant and unexercised in using their brains.)

Have you ever bought a TV and spent AGES finding out how the thing works so you can tweak just that one thing? I have. It's annoying. I don't want to have to think. I want it to work for me, and not be too complicated. My life's already screwed up; I don't need some lazy designer to screw it up more. That will, and shall always be my one view on usability. The web is made for people, not for code. I'd rather have both, but if I had to sacrifice validity for the good of the user, then I will.


Given that code invalidity can knacker a layout in browsers commonly available today, potentially rendering a page ususable, I'd say that it's already an important factor which we should all be seeking to act upon, if only for the sake of maximising portability.
It can, but we have Google. I hate that.

Bill Posters
05-19-2008, 09:27 PM
The web is made for people, not for code. I'd rather have both, but if I had to sacrifice validity for the good of the user, then I will.
If making it more usable for that person made it less accessible for others, then I'd probably err on the side of universality. (I don't mean 'accessible' in terms of impaired users. I mean it in terms of universality.)

It's always going to be a numbers game, but, like I say, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

I understand your's was a hypothetical statement, but I can't say that I recall ever encountering a situation, either as a developer or as a user, where a page/site has been made less usable due to it being made more valid.
At this very moment, I can't imagine one either.

With good code, we maximise the chances of more users being able to access it. Good code may be about pleasing machines in the first instance, but ultimately it's about reaching people. That's my point - good code is about serving people.

Without first being 'accessible', there is no 'usable'.


It can, but we have Google. I hate that.
Not quite sure what you mean here.

If it's a reference to the code invalidity of Google's homepage, then it's reasonable to say that if all pages were as simple as the Google homepage, then we'd probably run less risk by using invalid code.
Fortunately, very few sites are as simple as that, but a consequence of the increased complexity is greater exposure to the foibles and idiosyncracies of individual browsers.
We can help to minimise our exposure to those foibles and idiosyncracies by using standards-compliant, non-erroneous code whenever possible.


If that's not what you were refering to, what did you mean?



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum