Importance of Validation

pa007 · Mar 13th, 2007, 23:23

I'm basically wondering what everyone thinks about validation. Now I know we all think it's wonderful, best thing since sliced bread, responsible for the so much good on the internet and all that. But my question is: is it necessary?

Now don't get me wrong I'm not against validation, it's a good practice. It helps people get in the right mind for accesible coding/development and it can help you discover an unclosed tag or some other error you overlooked. But is it necessary for a site to validate if it's built with semantically corect, accessible code.

I mean I am getting sick of these sites with the little validation buttons for css and xhtml. Sure it's great that they validate but should we overlook the fact that the site is constructed with tables, has no skip links, dozens of images, no alt text, no link titles. These are the things that make a site accesible, validation just makes coders feel superior.

On the other hand should a site be cast off as sub-standard or less than it could be if it doesn't validate. There may be certain elements that you want included in the code that won't validate. It does happen, what then?

With css validation, warnings are common for me. I check my code, make sure it's ok, then ignore them. All validation does in these cases is waste my time. When I build a site I usually don't get many errors, and what I do get I would have picked up through testing and refining the site anyway. My main train of thought is as follows: I've built the site the right way, with the right principles and I know it's accesible so why need I bother with minor irritations like validation.

I'm doubt I'll bother anymore, I've got tools to check for errors in my software and my tags self close (the main error that popped up). But what do you think?

Pete.

mreine · Mar 14th, 2007, 05:05

http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html

karinne · Mar 14th, 2007, 11:22

Here's a few good articles on the subject

Validation alone is not enough

Beyond Validation and a quote

Quote:

Think of [validation] as a sanity check - just verifying that everything you’ve written accords with the language logic. It’s easy to write some pretty bad code which still validates - using tables for layout, for example, is a poor practice, but you can certainly still make it validate.
Beyond validation there’s a whole world of thought in considering image sizes, color contrasts, typography, navigation methods and semantics which can be the greatest aid to a user or user agent.

And like the w3 link mreine gave you, the validator is more like a spell-checker. Make sure you don't have a misspelled element/attribute or one you forgot to close.

It's always good to validate.

pa007 · Mar 14th, 2007, 21:35

It wastes time as I see it. And my real issue is with the whole validated sites are better than unvalidated ones. Ridiculous. It's the coders command of his language and his knowledge of web standards and their proper applications that makes a good accessible site, not a reasurring results page from a glorified spellchecker (as you pointed out karinne).

Pete.

karinne · Mar 16th, 2007, 17:29

Take the forums for example ... when someone comes in with a question about their site not working properly in certain browser you say ... "Alright, let's have a look at the code" So you go look at the code, maybe spenda few minutes or alot more trying to find what's wrong. CSS is fine and the element that calls the css is fine as well ... so ... you sit there cracking your brain about this silly little problem when all the while, you forgot to close a div! Ah!

Now ... tell me: is validation is a waste of time?

If this person would have validated the site in the first place, it would've fixed his problem and saved ALOT of headaches.

Not saying the validator fixes all the problems of course but at least you've weeded out "potential" problems.

pa007 · Mar 16th, 2007, 18:14

What I should have said is, Validation is a waste of time for me. I'm not saying I don't make mistakes but I don't tend to make mistakes like that cos the software I use closes tage for me. It still happens ocassionally, I won't deny the fact, but it certainly isn't regular.

And your post makes me think. I mean, is validation just a spellchecker or is it there to ensure you're using valid code. Let's face it, the sort of people who get errors for invalid (ie. out of date, inaccessible) markup aren't going to be designing with accessibility in mind are they. So even if they validate their sites they still probably won't be that accessible, better certainly but there should be no half measures when it comes to these sorts of things. Likewise, standards based designers with accessibility in mind wouldn't dream of putting invalid code in their site as long as they had the knowledge so don't particularly need to check if its ok.

I know I started this thread to both express and opinion and to gauge other's thoughts on the matter so I am not about to say that you are wrong; you're not. I also don't have a great problem with your (or anyone elses) working practices (who am I to judge?). If people want to validate then I'm fine with that but I am not impressed at all when validation is a developer/designer's 'accessibility bit'. It goes much further than that.

Likewise the fact that I don't validate (I do usually, I just don't do the checks) isn't me saying Validation is rubbish don't do it, even if it may have sounded like that. All I wanted from this thread is for people to think about why validation exists and tackle any issues from that angle. The critique pages of this forum are a good example, you get "that doesn't validate, sort it out" a lot more often than "where are your skip links, alt text and link titles?", which I think in many cases would be more beneficial than a perfectly valid site. Both would be preferable but this is not a perfect world.

Pete.

karinne · Mar 16th, 2007, 18:23

I don't have time for a long reply or I'll miss my bus but ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pa007

The critique pages of this forum are a good example, you get "that doesn't validate, sort it out" a lot more often than "where are your skip links, alt text and link titles?", which I think in many cases would be more beneficial than a perfectly valid site.

If you run you're site through the validator and you don't have an alt attribute for every one of those images you have on you're site, it will give you an error and won't validate.

Also ... "some" semantic stuff like having a <div> inside a <p> will give you errors ... deprecated elements and attributes too ...

I totally get your point tho

Although .... accessibility, IMO, is a different thing altogether. and I do believe there is a "validator" that can check your site for accessibility.

The HTML validator just makes sure you HTML is properly written.

pa007 · Mar 16th, 2007, 18:41

I know but this validation thing has totally become an accessibility tool and validation and usability/accesibility go hand in hand now - you won't often hear of one without the other. And the tools to check for accesibility are unbelievably strict on one hand and then rediculously lax on the other - they punish you for minor problems and then completely miss out more significant things. But it comes back to the whole thing of human judgement, a good thoughful, standards based coder will design a nice accessible site both visually and under the hood. And an ignorant developer won't.

In a way though I guess the whole conversation is pointless - as long as the finished result it the same the who really cares how people get there. Also instead of discussing the right way to make sure you site was done the right way we should really be organising a witch-hunt of some kind to oust the ignorant masses of web designers who blatantly ignore standards based code and force them to change their ways or burn like the heathens of old...(not sure about that last bit)

Pete.

mreine · Mar 18th, 2007, 07:25

Good grief, if you are this anal about validation then don't do it. I really don't think anyone truely cares if you do or not.

You have the reasons in front of you, take em or leave em.

JacobHaug · Mar 18th, 2007, 13:24

Mreine they have no reasons...this was a civilized discussion from what I have seen. Both have strong arguments, validation is a great TOOL to check your code, but from practical experience...like pa007 my code just tends to validate, so what is the point...well there's not...it is just a tool to help website developers and coders, and maybe even designers...lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by pa007

Also instead of discussing the right way to make sure you site was done the right way we should really be organising a witch-hunt of some kind to oust the ignorant masses of web designers who blatantly ignore standards based code and force them to change their ways or burn like the heathens of old...(not sure about that last bit)

Let's do it, wait...where is Ryan?

pa007 · Mar 18th, 2007, 18:00

[googlevideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1265081892192361895&q=star+wars+duration%3Along[/googlevideo]

I'm ready, any one coming?

Pete.

JacobHaug · Mar 19th, 2007, 01:12

hahaha...I am coming, were are all the bad website...to the worst websites archive...lol

Steve Mellor · Apr 10th, 2007, 23:49

I think that, with PHP (or any server side scripting) there is a greater need for validation. I often make mistakes in markup purely because it's being generated by the PHP script I've written and there is no way to test that properly in Dreamweaver (note to self: Must get new code writing software).

That said, the validation process is still just a tool. A useful one of course, but nothing more and you can choose to ignore it and still have code that works across all browsers (of course it is less likely).

JacobHaug · Apr 11th, 2007, 01:19

I find the number of mistakes I make when coding are slim. I still like to test myself and make sure though, but normally nothing is found. This is mainly because I code 100% by hand and DON'T use dreamwever, and because I have had lots of experience. So in short stay away from those God awful wissywigs.

Steve Mellor · Apr 11th, 2007, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobHaug

This is mainly because I code 100% by hand and DON'T use dreamwever, and because I have had lots of experience. So in short stay away from those God awful wissywigs.

I code 100% by hand as well but I do it in Dreamweaver. It's a throwback from the first job I had which demanded the use of the macromedia suite.

The problem that I have is that I started out as a Flash developer and then moved on to PHP (for database integration) before going on to HTML and now CSS. Essentially, I've done it in the wrong order

karinne · Apr 11th, 2007, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mellor

I code 100% by hand as well but I do it in Dreamweaver. It's a throwback from the first job I had which demanded the use of the macromedia suite.

And there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

If you stick to code view, DW is one of the most powerful tool you can use!

Now ... let's get back on the validation topic shall we?

pa007 · Apr 11th, 2007, 13:12

Validation is the first step. Knowledge of what elements and attributes exist and how to markup properly is just the beginning, the most important skill is how to use them. A valid but semantically poor page makes a mockery of modern web standards and it seems that afflictions such as divitis and spanitis are a groing problem. It's good that there are no tables but still poses a problem.

I don't tend to make mistakes with the code itself due to the way I work and the software I use. But I can spend hours deciding whether to use a h1 or just a p and whether or not to wrap element in div, which to me is the more pressing issue. I don't validate my code as such, but I am fully aware that it is valid.

A page full of divs and spans is no use to anyone, it gives no indication of meaning and is only a small step up from table layout, in my opinion anyway. And a machine cannot determine whether you code is good semantically that takes human judgement and even then is up for debate.

Pete.

karinne · Apr 11th, 2007, 13:16

Very nice post Pete!