Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Brian]

Brian wrote...


Get a better browser then

Gee, you're just full of witticisms today, aren't you?

 

[Whitecrest]

Gee, you're just full of witticisms today, aren't you?

Today? Everyday

 

[Whitecrest]

Insults are not a fair substitute for a coherent argument.

Sorry, you seemed to be having a hard time following the thread. I was
just trying to help.

How does that justify such a site ignoring the
need to be listed in search engines? Sure, they could do it, but then
how would anyone know to find the site? And if noone can find it, why
put the work into creating it?
And now, you're off on a wild tangent. What has flash got to do with it?
If a site author has content that requires something more than text,
then use it.

Search engines, flash and standards are all part of this topic.

You have a misguided notion that the internet is solely the domain
(SCNR) of corporations. BTW, I'm sure the rest of the world is very
grateful that you included them, albeit as an afterthought.

Not at all, re-read what I say.

to quote you [yawn...]

More dodging.

Ignoring the real world?

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Can't go there using my default browser. The file "is of type
text/x-dtd, and Mozilla does not know how to handle a this file type."

Mozilla offers you the chance to save the file though, right? Thus there
is "some way for users to get a copy of the author's MyHTML4 DTD."

 

[kchayka]

But all my pages work as designed.

Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.

We figured they probably thought it was easier to develop the crap
design than to do it right from the beginning. Re-engineering is too
hard, too. Not so different from web design, methinks.

 

[kchayka]

Maybe 10% of the problem, but 3/4?

This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, whitecrest.
Maybe the only time I ever will, too.

Standards themselves don't make much difference with bandwidth issues.
You can have 100% validated (X)HTML and still have bloated code, or lots
of graphics that weigh a page down.

Perhaps spaghetti was suggesting that those who validate their code are
more likely to use structured markup, fewer layout tables, more CSS
layouts, which probably make a bigger dent in bandwidth use than just
the fact that it's validated code.

 

[Whitecrest]

Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.

Nope, but bottom line is that it does in fact function as designed.

 

[Whitecrest]

We figured they probably thought it was easier to develop the crap
design than to do it right from the beginning. Re-engineering is too
hard, too. Not so different from web design, methinks.

Welcome to the real world of software (and web) development. ;-}

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed".

Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Nope,

You got that part right, at least

but bottom line is

It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".

that it does in fact function as designed.

See above.

 

[Whitecrest]

This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, whitecrest.
Maybe the only time I ever will, too.

This is a milestone! ;-}

Perhaps spaghetti was suggesting that those who validate their code are
more likely to use structured markup, fewer layout tables, more CSS
layouts, which probably make a bigger dent in bandwidth use than just
the fact that it's validated code.

I completely agree, and if you (generic you, not you specifically) read
what I have been writing for the last 2 years or so, I say, validation
and W3c recommendations are good things. But they are not the ONLY way
to do things.

Sometimes you have to push the envelope to make your web site appealing
to your audience. That is all I say. One size, on something as fluid
as the web, just does not fit all.

 

[Whitecrest]

Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).

Nope never heard if it. And by definition it can not be true...

 

[Whitecrest]

You got that part right, at least
It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".

Sure it is.

See above.

Well since you are wrong in the assumption that a designer does being
able to declare the bottom line, your "see above" is meaning less.

 

[Brian]

Standards themselves don't make much difference with bandwidth
issues.

I thought there was a point, that it would make some difference if taken
literally. Remove invalid markup such as <font> and replace it with the
only alternative left for changing e.g. text color, and you will reduce
page weight in not a few pages on the www.

However, on looking at the recommendations, I did not find <font> in
html 3.2, but did find it in HTML 4/transitional as a deprecated
element. I was not aware there was anything in HTML 4 loose that was not

You can have 100% validated (X)HTML and still have bloated code, or
lots of graphics that weigh a page down.

No argument here.

 

[Shawn K. Quinn]

However, on looking at the recommendations, I did not find <font> in
html 3.2, but did find it in HTML 4/transitional as a deprecated
element. I was not aware there was anything in HTML 4 loose that was not
in 3.2. Thus <font> is valid for that one dtd.

The <font> element *is* in HTML 3.2. Look again.

 

[Andreas Prilop]

Is there a standard for the definition of "standard"?

ISO/IEC Guide 2 defines a "standard":
<http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/gen_inf.html#Whatisstd>

 

[Mark Parnell]

most of the early
sites built by large corporations were farmed out to their regular graphic
design contractors or departments and hence weren't built by people with
any significant web design experience

Surely most of the early sites were built before _anyone_ had any
significant web design experience? ;-)

 

[Mark Parnell]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:14:51 -0400, Whitecrest

Nope never heard if it. And by definition it can not be true...

Why not? Are you saying it is impossible to come up with a design that
is inherently broken?

 

[Mark Parnell]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:14:03 -0400, Whitecrest

Why?

Imagine if on the roads everyone decided on their own "standard" of
driving rules. Each person decided which side of the road to drive on
(if any), what speed they would go, whether to use headlights,
indicators, seatbelts, etc.

Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
everyone.

 

[Whitecrest]

Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
everyone.

I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.) I think it
takes away from these people to accommodate others.

If the site is an ecommerce site where the owner NEEDS to make money
from the site, then by all means, follow standards, stay away from css
that is not rendered the same in all browsers, don't use flash or
javascript for anything that is needed.

All other cases must be evaluated individually based on what the owner
wants to present, and how he/she wants to present it.

The web is too big and has way too many uses for a set of standards to
accommodate all of its uses.

A perfect example is Webex, or Webentations. Are they web pages? Yep,
do they (could they) validate, or even be accessible (beyond alt tags)
to everyone? Nope.

Are they a valid use of the web? Sure are, and probably one of the
fastest growing sectors of web applications right now.