Valid this and Valid that...

[n3tFl0w]

Hi all,

I know this is an old post but I thought I'd see what people thought of it as I came across it today?

?Valid CSS? and Similar Claims AreUnprofessional ? Jens Meiert

Personally, I'm all about raising awareness. The more people have these the better but what do ye think?

 

[Forbairt]

a few years back I thought ... cool ....

Now I think ... hmm...

With so many other people editing the content on sites ... they will be adding in their own errors ...

For the most part as well .. those buttons feel like you're trying to say ... look at me .. I can design ... as was said in that article ... you don't expect to see a badge saying .. I can cut hair at a barbers do you ? (In oranmore at the moment there is a barbers called ... Professional Barbers ... I mean .. hello ... as opposed to a company thats going to call themselves Unprofessional Barbers or what)

 

[n3tFl0w]

I dunno. I like to see some qualifications around the place... I wouldn't go to a surgeon if I didn't see B. CH. after their name unless I was very familiar with the industry and knew the people involved.

That same barber shop example. Say there were two barber shops in the town... and you'd never been in either. Both the same price and looking at the outside you could see that they both looked like they seemed to be able to cut hair fairly well. However, on the outside of one, they had a few of those medals that barbers win.

I reckon most people go into that one, cause we like to think that it means that they will definitely cut hair properly. Its a silly example I know.

I get what you mean for multiple people editing sites and stuff as this has happened to me or more than one occasion!

 

[Briask]

The general punter, they couldn't give a toss if the site is valid or invalid as long as it works and gives them what they want.

It means something to us as designers, developers etc and so influences our opinion of the site and of the creators but most people would not know what it means and to be honest they do not need to know.

 

[tomed]

I dunno. I like to see some qualifications around the place... I wouldn't go to a surgeon if I didn't see B. CH. after their name unless I was very familiar with the industry and knew the people involved.

That same barber shop example. Say there were two barber shops in the town... and you'd never been in either. Both the same price and looking at the outside you could see that they both looked like they seemed to be able to cut hair fairly well. However, on the outside of one, they had a few of those medals that barbers win.

I reckon most people go into that one, cause we like to think that it means that they will definitely cut hair properly. Its a silly example I know.

I get what you mean for multiple people editing sites and stuff as this has happened to me or more than one occasion!

I think it's wrong to compare standards compliant websites with either a surgeon or a barbers for that matter.

Having a standards compliant icon at the bottom of the screen doesn't mean that a website/web firm are professional.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of web development can create a standards compliant website - so it is no guarantee of professionalism.

Awards are different than compliance, you get awards for achieving something (nowadays you generally pay for them). Compliance is about quality stanards.

I'm still on the fence about standards compliance in the "web" industry. I believe we should have them, but I don't believe we are going the right way about it. For me, standards compliance on the web is al about ego at the moment.

 

[n3tFl0w]

I think it's wrong to compare standards compliant websites with either a surgeon or a barbers for that matter.

But I'm not. I am however comparing the outward images of both examples. And I think its fair.

Having a standards compliant icon at the bottom of the screen doesn't mean that a website/web firm are professional.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of web development can create a standards compliant website - so it is no guarantee of professionalism.

True on the top point - However I believe it shows a certain delligence. And on the bottom point, I think you and I have very different ideas on the meaning of basic. It is quite an amount of work to get a complicated, well designed website to be web standard compliant and valid. Most people I know with basic web skills are still throwing table based websites at the general public.

I'm still on the fence about standards compliance in the "web" industry. I believe we should have them, but I don't believe we are going the right way about it. For me, standards compliance on the web is al about ego at the moment.

I don't understand what you mean about it being about ego... I don't think anyone is out there under the impression that just because they made their website standards compliant that their somehow a legend among men?

I believe that most people who are interested in these things do it to raise awareness. To try and get more people on the road to standard, better written and designed websites that enable the content to be shared by everyone and is not excluding any group of people through laziness or lack of understanding.

 

[tomed]

But I'm not. I am however comparing the outward images of both examples. And I think its fair.

Well you did use the analogy of the barbers with medals outside and it's likely to "win" the customer.

True on the top point - However I believe it shows a certain delligence. And on the bottom point, I think you and I have very different ideas on the meaning of basic. It is quite an amount of work to get a complicated, well designed website to be web standard compliant and valid. Most people I know with basic web skills are still throwing table based websites at the general public.

I never said anything about a complicated design being easy or basic. I said that anyone with basic web development knowledge would be able to create a standards compliant website.

I don't understand what you mean about it being about ego... I don't think anyone is out there under the impression that just because they made their website standards compliant that their somehow a legend among men?

I believe that most people who are interested in these things do it to raise awareness. To try and get more people on the road to standard, better written and designed websites that enable the content to be shared by everyone and is not excluding any group of people through laziness or lack of understanding.

Well to be honest I do feel that it's a pure ego thing - at the moment. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of standards compliance and hope that one day the whole web will be compliant, however, in the real world you don't need to be standards compliant to have a successful, attractive, functional website. Raising awareness is a good thing and I like that trail of thought.

I don't agree that non-standards compliance is a lack of understanding. And I really hate hearing people say that it's laziness. How is it lazy? Because it takes longer to do you think people aren't interested in doing it? I don't think so.

There are a number of reasons when running a business. Speed of delivery, the amount of time it takes to develop a complicated site in CSS over HTML and of course, the cost of that time.

 

[n3tFl0w]

Well you did use the analogy of the barbers with medals outside and it's likely to "win" the customer.

I did indeed but based on the outward appearance to the customer. Anywho, I said it was a silly example at the time...

I said that anyone with basic web development knowledge would be able to create a standards compliant website.

And I was saying that I don't believe this is true. And the internet proves it. In abundance.

however, in the real world you don't need to be standards compliant to have a successful, attractive, functional website.

However you should be standards compliant. Even one WAI priority 1 issue makes a site very difficult to navigate using a screen reader or text only browser. However you don't need to go nuts and start ripping your site apart to try and fix it. Look at your demographic and the people who are going to use it and then try as hard as possible not to exclude anyone.

I don't agree that non-standards compliance is a lack of understanding. And I really hate hearing people say that it's laziness. How is it lazy? Because it takes longer to do you think people aren't interested in doing it? I don't think so.
There are a number of reasons when running a business. Speed of delivery, the amount of time it takes to develop a complicated site in CSS over HTML and of course, the cost of that time.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. If you understand the issue then you should be doing it. It doesn't take long if you have the knowledge.

We have to stop treating the internet as a place full of perfect people. It isn't. We have to be more inclusive, and try to reach as many people as we can with our content. I feel that in Ireland we have a very inclusve culture and society. For example, we have better public transport access for wheelchair users than any other city I've been in. Every single new building has ramps or lifts etc. So I feel that we shouldn't ignore various groups on the internet because the time it would take to complete it.

 

[tomed]

And I was saying that I don't believe this is true. And the internet proves it. In abundance.

I'm sorry but it doesn't. The Internet proves that not many people are interested in building standards compliant websites. It doesn't prove that people with a basic knowledge are not capable of doing it.

However you should be standards compliant. Even one WAI priority 1 issue makes a site very difficult to navigate using a screen reader or text only browser. However you don't need to go nuts and start ripping your site apart to try and fix it. Look at your demographic and the people who are going to use it and then try as hard as possible not to exclude anyone.

However why?

A common misconception between many people is that you need a standards compliant website to be accessible, this is not true at all. You can have an accessible website without being standards compliant.

It's an interesting point you make about "not to exclude anyone" - Accessiblity is about "access for all" - now go explain to people who use old computers, with old browsers why they won't have access to your website.

WAI 1 is way too restrictive and WAI 2 are proof of that. WCAG 2 will be more like section 508 which is a more practical and common sense approach. No longer will it revolve around code, but whether it actually works or not.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. If you understand the issue then you should be doing it. It doesn't take long if you have the knowledge.

It still takes longer than doing it the old fashioned way.

We have to stop treating the internet as a place full of perfect people. It isn't. We have to be more inclusive, and try to reach as many people as we can with our content. I feel that in Ireland we have a very inclusve culture and society.

For example, we have better public transport access for wheelchair users than any other city I've been in. Every single new building has ramps or lifts etc. So I feel that we shouldn't ignore various groups on the internet because the time it would take to complete it.

Yet again getting confused with accessibility and the latest coding standards. I will say it again... a site does not have to be coded in the latest coding standards to be accessible.

Oh I would disagree that "every single new building" has accessible options. I'll give you an example, a wheelchair ramp at the back of a building is NOT accesssible. Yes you may be able to get in in a wheelchair, but because it's at the back of the building, it is excluding wheelchair users.

So this is kind of similar to web accessibility. Just because WAI WCAG 1.0 says it's accessible doesn't mean it is. And it definitely doesn't mean it's accessible if it is coded to the latest coding standards.

 

[n3tFl0w]

I'm sorry but it doesn't. The Internet proves that not many people are interested in building standards compliant websites. It doesn't prove that people with a basic knowledge are not capable of doing it.

What?! As I said already I think we have very different feelings on what we are considering basic here?

A common misconception between many people is that you need a standards compliant website to be accessible, this is not true at all. You can have an accessible website without being standards compliant.

True. But why not use the guidelines that are there? That the applications that are built to aid accessibility use to base their products on?

It's an interesting point you make about "not to exclude anyone" - Accessiblity is about "access for all" - now go explain to people who use old computers, with old browsers why they won't have access to your website.

Its all about percentages. and specifically demographics. For my website, or any website that I am involved in, very few people read or connect to it using a browser older than IE6. In fact I think it was less than 1% the last time I checked. However with 7% of internet users using some form of accessibility aid - this is a large percentage to ignore.

WAI 1 is way too restrictive and WAI 2 are proof of that. WCAG 2 will be more like section 508 which is a more practical and common sense approach. No longer will it revolve around code, but whether it actually works or not.

Excellent. However at the minute we can only work with what we have.

It still takes longer than doing it the old fashioned way.

What exactly is the old fashioned way that is so much quicker than then current methods?

Oh I would disagree that "every single new building" has accessible options. I'll give you an example, a wheelchair ramp at the back of a building is NOT accesssible. Yes you may be able to get in in a wheelchair, but because it's at the back of the building, it is excluding wheelchair users.

Can they get to it? Is there a note on the front to say that the ramp is at the back? Probably. But this is beside the point. I was merely pointing out that in Ireland we make an effort.

 

[tomed]

What?! As I said already I think we have very different feelings on what we are considering basic here?

I'm sorry, but your point was the Internet proves that people with a "basic" knowledge can't do a standards compliant website - which is a completely untrue statement.

Our interpretation of what basic means doesn't come into it.

True. But why not use the guidelines that are there? That the applications that are built to aid accessibility use to base their products on?

Well for me there are many reasons - mentioned above.

Its all about percentages. and specifically demographics. For my website, or any website that I am involved in, very few people read or connect to it using a browser older than IE6. In fact I think it was less than 1% the last time I checked. However with 7% of internet users using some form of accessibility aid - this is a large percentage to ignore.

Well you see - that's where you are wrong again. Accessibility is about access for ALL! Not just for 99%........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility

Excellent. However at the minute we can only work with what we have.

Well if that's your approach - why should we use standards at all?
The point here is that you can have an accessibile site without sticking strictly to WAI WCAG 1.0

WAI WCAG are exactly what they are called - GUIDELINES.

What exactly is the old fashioned way that is so much quicker than then current methods?

eh... older standards???

Can they get to it? Is there a note on the front to say that the ramp is at the back? Probably. But this is beside the point. I was merely pointing out that in Ireland we make an effort.

And this is the problem with people spouting out about how great the latest coding standards are for accessibility. They completely miss the whole concept of what accessibility actually is.

Accessibility is about "direct access" - not "go around the corner", and certainly not "click here for text only version".

These approaches alienate people with activity limitations and make them feel different from the able bodied person.

But still on the web, we have plenty of people like yourself, that talk all day about coding to the latest standards and how great it is for accessibility etc. Yet they don't even fully understand what the basic definition of accessibility means.

 

[n3tFl0w]

Listen, I don't come to this site for arguments. Or insults. Or to be spoken to as a child that cant read a dictionary or understand various words in the english language. Never once did I insult you, merely pointed out the benefits to using the standards that we have in place.

I'm sorry, but your point was the Internet proves that people with a "basic" knowledge can't do a standards compliant website - which is a completely untrue statement.

Our interpretation of what basic means doesn't come into it.

I feel my statement was true. There are millions upon millions of badly coded sites out there. And I'm not even talking about standards compliance here. I'm talking about the basics being missing.

Well you see - that's where you are wrong again. Accessibility is about access for ALL! Not just for 99%........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility

I am not wrong. Or wrong again for that matter. Find me a single website that works in every single browser on every single computer and I will show you a page with nothing on it.

eh... older standards???

What? I fail to see how these older standards are any faster than the ones we use today.

These approaches alienate people with activity limitations and make them feel different from the able bodied person.

true. However often there is no other way.

But still on the web, we have plenty of people like yourself, that talk all day about coding to the latest standards and how great it is for accessibility etc. Yet they don't even fully understand what the basic definition of accessibility means.

I do not spout all day long about anything let alone about coding to the latest standards. I merely pointed out the benefits of using the guidelines in place and that people should aim to use them. Never once did I say any one was wrong not to use them. Because, and this is the important point, I do not care what you do. I do not care how you code your site. or anyone else. However, I do hope that more people code in a more accessible way but at the end of the day, not having access to any particular site would not bother me, as there is nothing on the internet that is important enough to warrant the effort, except for maybe sending/receiving a few emails.

 

[tomed]

Listen, I don't come to this site for arguments. Or insults. Or to be spoken to as a child that cant read a dictionary or understand various words in the english language. Never once did I insult you, merely pointed out the benefits to using the standards that we have in place.

Woah, hang on I didn't insult you at all and I'm certainly not here for an argument either. I'm merely stating some points.

I simply disagreed with your arguments over the benefits of using the latest coding standards.

I feel my statement was true. There are millions upon millions of badly coded sites out there. And I'm not even talking about standards compliance here. I'm talking about the basics being missing.

And I disagree with you. A website will work in a browser without being standards compliant - so most people don't see the need to. In fact, there's a lot more people that don't care if it only works in one browser.

I am not wrong. Or wrong again for that matter. Find me a single website that works in every single browser on every single computer and I will show you a page with nothing on it.

You were wrong in saying "Its all about percentages. and specifically demographics". Accessibility is about much more than that.

A website can work and function in EVERY browser. For the designer, it's about understanding what the capabilities of each browser and designing accordingly. You certainly WON'T have a page with nothing on it - unless of course you're using a text only browser

What? I fail to see how these older standards are any faster than the ones we use today.

In a nutshell, you can build a site much quicker the "old fashioned way" as in tables for layout for example.

true. However often there is no other way.

Ah but there is...

I do not spout all day long about anything let alone about coding to the latest standards. I merely pointed out the benefits of using the guidelines in place and that people should aim to use them. Never once did I say any one was wrong not to use them. Because, and this is the important point, I do not care what you do. I do not care how you code your site. or anyone else. However, I do hope that more people code in a more accessible way but at the end of the day, not having access to any particular site would not bother me, as there is nothing on the internet that is important enough to warrant the effort, except for maybe sending/receiving a few emails.

I am definitely on the same hymn sheet with you in terms of hoping more people will code their websites in an acccessible fasion.

Yet, you still refer to Accessibility as if it was all to do with the latest coding standards... Accessibility and coding standards are two completely different things.