Why be compliant?

[jpmitchell]

I have been thinking a lot today about this topic. It was raised by a fellow developer/designer and I thought I would ask everyone here.

I doubt anyone would put up a fight with this statement: xhtml and css compliance is an issue for developers/designers. However, to the average user browsing web pages, if it looks the way it is supposed to look they could careless if the site is compliant or not.

So with that logic, since 90% of the Web is not-compliant, and will likely never conform to a stringent standard ever, why be compliant yourself?

So why should we be compliant, it usually takes the bulk of our time to make our sites that way, clean code isn't really a big deal? or is it? Look at all the huge volume sites (ESPN, CBS, Yahoo, etc..) their sites dont validate. Is it really that important?

[Webforumz Staff]

I don't actually find it much harder to make a compliant site now that I've been doing them for a while.

I think one important reason is what you said, "if it looks the way it is supposed to look they could careless ".

Non-compliant sites tend to have more problems looking right across different platforms and browsers. Not that a good old table layout doesn't work well for a lot of that, but when you look at other browsing devices like cell phones, PDAs, PSPs, etc a compliant site really shines.

In the old days I'd spend an hour making a page, and 6 or 7 hours trying to get it to look right in Netscape. To this day Netscape is a swear word for me, and I still think they owe me money for all the time I wasted .

Anyway...

The other issue seems to be better ranking among search engines. Compliant code is clean code, which has a better chance of getting spidered correctly.

Finally, whether the end users cares or not, a coder who makes compliant sites is going to look better than one that doesn't when a business is looking for someone to make their site.

[herkalees]

Wow, are you serious? "Why fight pollution?" "Why fight crime?"

There are so many reasons to convert all web developers to write compliant code, but I'll list a couple here and link to more:

1. Bandwidth: Imagine if all sites on the internet were half their current file sizes...
2. Ease of Editing: Some retard makes a horribly uncompliant site for a small company, then quits. You come along as Joe WebDeveloper and have to make changes. Good luck...
3. Disabilities: Your dear old mother is blind, but still wants to visit web sites using her nice screen-reader program...

Soooo many reasons more. Never give up on making compliant code because it takes you longer.

The battle to fight crime takes a lot of resources and time, and imagine if it was determined that it wasn't worth it, and as long as "people don't see it, we don't need to fight it". (I know this is an extreme example, but I feel strongly about it).

Read this for a little more info: http://www.webstandards.org/about/

[jpmitchell]

Don't get me wrong, I am kind of playing 'devils advocate' here. I am not thinking of stopping as I am a compliance supporter. But the question was raised to me.

Think about it like this:

• Professional developers/designers are really the only ones who are concerened with compliance.
• The average user doesn't care as long as the site looks good. Most software developers are starting to make things more compiant, but it really isn't a priority for them either.
• You have several beginner/novice designers who do not want to learn.
• You don't have browsers that all work on the same standard and will likely never get a worldwide web standard.

Devils advocate: "So does it really matter?"

[GrannetDotNet]

Code that does not validate should not be compared to crime or pollution. Both of the previously mentioned items are detrimental to the population as a whole and invalid code doesn't really fall into that category.

Lower bandwidth consumption cannot be guaranteed by a W3C Standard. Just because a document is standards compliant, doesn't mean that the author's coding practices are ideal. Besides, the markup itself is not the dent in the bandwidth ship, images and multimedia content are what cause the bandwidth bloat.

HTML parsers are interpretters. Just as not everyone will translate Spanish to English in the same way, neither will all browsers parse markup the same whether there is a standard or not. So, if you get the translation to a level that all can understand (through browser testing), but you've used some poor semantics in your Spanish to English translation, was there really anything lost as long as the message was deliveried with it's initial intention? No, the message still got accross.

That being said, I've never met anyone who thinks that accessibility is a bad thing for disabled viewers. That is a part of the standard that is essential in the world of today's Internet audience.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that you should do your best to adhere to the standards for markup and you should always provide valid CSS. Unfortunately, many sites are driven by CMS systems that do not validate content before publishing and unless you're using only static HTML files it's difficult to be the validation police for this. And let's face it, in today's Internet, static HTML files are rare and a lot of overhead to tie up a developer simply to change markup.

[ivyholly]

I`m really glad you brought this up, DSMag; I`m a novice at webdesign, and I read all this stuff about xhtml and css compliance, and I think yikes, my site is worthless! (Made it in Dreamweaver- basic html using tables, which apparently is another nono).

Should webdesigning be restricted to professionals only and/or people who have the time to keep up with all the latest in terms of compliance? What about people like me who use it as a creative outlet/hobby (I find it to be a super-fun medium) and don`t make a living from it, and other people who are not all that concerned about rankings in search engines and such; maybe people who just want to post some useful info. or whatnot.

Is there room for people like us who don`t have the time/inclination to learn/keep up with all the latest compliance rules/etc.?

This being said, I have work to do- I`m gonna try to get at least one css element on my site! (see, I`m trying )

[Webforumz Staff]

I guess I'm not sure where the problem is. Compliance isn't forced on anyone. Writing clean code, indenting your nested levels, commenting - those are all "good practices" just like compliant code. There are benefits to doing all those.

Besides compliance is based on the doctype you choose for your file. Pick an old HTML doctype and you can get away with all sorts of stuff. If it's your choice to go with something like XHTML-strict then of course it's going to be pickier. I still use tables for some design purposes, but I pick a transitional doctype for those pages. When CSS does everything I need then I'll stop doing that.

The standards market is driven by us developers. If we choose to use a standard and demand industry support for that standard then we'll get it - they want to make us happy. This is actually happening - the new DW has full CSS support, IE 7 is targeting standards compliance. When we all do our own thing companies have no one to target, and they make their guesses and come up with their own ideas about what to do.

[herkalees]

Originally Posted by GrannetDotNet

Code that does not validate should not be compared to crime or pollution. Both of the previously mentioned items are detrimental to the population as a whole and invalid code doesn't really fall into that category.

I agree, which is why I said

(I know this is an extreme example, but I feel strongly about it)

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little fanatical about validity, standards, etc.

[GrannetDotNet]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little fanatical about validity, standards, etc.

You won't find me arguing that standards are a bad thing. Standards are good. They provide guidelines for us to follow as developers. But as a Web Applications Developer, I know that if I am building an application that is performing tasks such as intense database communication, swapping data with a service or Web Service, and providing elegant and robust navigation; validation of markup is very low on the priority list in the grand scheme of the application development. Cross-browser testing is crucial, but spending the time to go through and ensure that your application validates (no matter what the dynamic content is that is being pumped into a page by an external source) adds little benefit to your app, but can significantly increase cost.

When developing the UI for such an app, you should do your best to adhere to the markup standard, and you should always adhere to the CSS standard. But if I finish developing an application and my pages don't validate but everything looks good in cross browser scenarios, I won't spend the time to validate the offending pages. But while I was building it, you can bet that I was doing my best to adhere to the standards.

[D3mon]

IMHO

The multitude of benefits arising from a properly constructed, valid and accessible web site can not only be realised by someone capable of understanding the concepts, but also site owners who appreciate a return on their investment.

It will be these criteria that will provide the much needed clarification of the web design and development market into two clear 'camps':

1. Cheap, "churn em out", "fire and forget" WYSIWYG merchants.
2. Professional designers/developers.

Our clients are business people in the main. A business person has a principle interest: Invest for Return. Websites and the Web in general show very little statistical evidence of a solid return on investment, so from a business/commercial point of view, a website is a risky venture.

Initially, as we have all seen, concerned clients plump for the cheaper option (1) and often go through several of these 'companies' before finally landing at the door of a Professional outfit, who then face, not only a much disenchanted customer, but also the 'excuse' for a website that he has already 'spent thousands on.'

Of course, clients cannot be blamed for this. With very little available guidance on which of the multitude of companies to choose, they opt for the economically 'safer' alternative of choosing the cheapest/cheaper option. Naturally, they are usually disappointed with the results.

Compliancy, Validity, Accessibility and doubtless other future standards will become the 'markers' by which our future clients can make that important distinction between developers/designers who:

1. 'Can't be bothered' to understand and successfully implement these important concepts

or

2. Are able to fully understand and implement new standards for the mutual benefit of their client AND their portfolio

In summary: Compliancy, validity and accessibility seperate the 'men' from the 'boys' in the world of web development.

In addition and to qualify the point about newcomers to the development scene - By all means, learn at your own pace and even ignore these standards while you improve your knowledge of the basics. But when you reach that point, where you want to cross the line between hobbyist and Professional Webmaster, have the wisdom to remind yourself that you are not yet a 'Professional Webmaster' and in order to successfully sell your new found skills, you will have many more skills to learn. The market is already saturated with 'boys'.

[GrannetDotNet]

In summary: Compliancy, validity and accessibility seperate the 'men' from the 'boys' in the world of web development.

Ok, I agree that compliancy and accessibility seperate, but validity is subject to debate. This page doesn't even validate, but I think we'd all agree that this page is doing what it is supposed to and rather well at that.

Validity is tough for any site that uses CMS systems such as Mambo (which I think Mambo is really cool stuff). A site may be largely compliant (which is already miles ahead of most other sites) and fail validation checks, but still be seen as accessible and compliant, or compliant enough at any rate.

Microsoft didn't help either with their lack of valid XHTML support in ASP.NET 1.0/1.1. As I said in my previous post, when I finish building a web app, it's nearly impossible for me to completely validate the whole application. Most of this is due in large part to the non-compliant code generated by the ASP.NET server controls. Please don't turn this into an MS bash fest. That's not the topic here, but an important thing to note is that MS is building standards compliant server controls into ASP.NET 2.0 and it's scheduled to be available at the end of this year. Most MS control vendors are also jumping on board.

I don't believe we'll ever truly "get there" as far as a fully standard web, but that doesn't mean we should quit trying. We're all works in progress and so are the standards and software we live/develop by.

"Brick by brick my citizens..."

[Webforumz Staff]

The ASP.NET 2 beta is sweet.

[Colleen]

Originally Posted by herkalees

I agree, which is why I said

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little fanatical about validity, standards, etc.

I feel as strongly about this topic as you and you voiced by exact thoughts.
Your sites look great btw.

Kalina