icons for valid css and html

Discussion in 'HTML' started by tom watson, Sep 16, 2003.

  1. tom watson

    tom watson Guest

    is it worth putting these on a website?
    it may say that the pages are valid, but what does this mean in the real
    world
    I would be interested in views

    do people still validate? should they?
     
    tom watson, Sep 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tom watson wrote:

    > is it worth putting these on a website?


    It's a, not very good, way to promote standards.

    > it may say that the pages are valid, but what does this mean in the real
    > world


    It (hopefully) means that you care that your pages are accessible and
    efficient.

    > do people still validate?


    Experts do.

    > should they?


    Most webpages are not created by experts - unfortunately.

    --
    David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
     
    David Dorward, Sep 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tom watson

    m Guest

    tom watson wrote:
    > is it worth putting these on a website?
    > it may say that the pages are valid, but what does this mean in the real
    > world
    > I would be interested in views
    >
    > do people still validate? should they?
    >
    >

    Use a link if you want. It can even be smaller
    than the other links on the page, perhaps at the bottom with
    copyright and address information.

    The buttons are just too big and klunky for my taste.
    Supporting a thing doesn't mean you have to give it more
    visual space on your site than you want to.

    m
    http://www.mbstevens.com/
     
    m, Sep 16, 2003
    #3
  4. "tom watson" <> wrote:

    > is it worth putting these on a website?


    No. For reasons, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
    (Regarding "Valid CSS", the phrase itself is a misnomer, so there's even
    more confusion.)

    > it may say that the pages are valid, but what does this mean in the real
    > world


    It means that the author has learned that such icons are cool. Hardly much
    else. In the real world, those icons often appear on pages that have
    invalid markup and incorrect CSS. Usually it's not a deliberate lie - the
    author once checked some version. (Sometimes it's really a lie; the author
    might think that a few errors don't count.) But it's worse than useless
    even if it's true.

    > do people still validate?


    Surely some people do.

    > should they?


    Only if they understand what they are doing. Most don't.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 16, 2003
    #4
  5. tom watson

    Isofarro Guest

    tom watson wrote:

    > is it worth putting these on a website?


    If you attached "Valid Spelling" and "Valid Grammar" icons at the bottom of
    all your emails and word documents, why not?


    > do people still validate?


    Yep.

    > should they?


    Well, they could do it all by hand - although, I don't see the benefit of
    doing it manually when a validator can catch quite a number of errors
    faster.

    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
     
    Isofarro, Sep 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > (Regarding "Valid CSS", the phrase itself is a misnomer, so there's even
    > more confusion.)


    The word "valid" *does* have a meaning outside DTDs you know, Jukka!

    It is entirely possible for a piece of CSS to be valid. Or some C++ code.

    This argument is even valid! :)

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Sep 16, 2003
    #6
  7. tom watson

    DU Guest

    tom watson wrote:
    > is it worth putting these on a website?


    Yes, definitively. If you later have visitors reporting to you problems,
    then you know that your markup syntax is complying perfectly with the
    DTD. It's a sign that the markup code is in its optimal condition.

    > it may say that the pages are valid, but what does this mean in the real
    > world


    For non-initiated people, it might mean lots or not much. I personally
    rewrite the title attribute of the buttons and indicated that the users,
    visitors can verify by themselves the markup syntax of the page and
    verify the css code of the page.

    > I would be interested in views
    >
    > do people still validate? should they?
    >
    >


    People should validate for hundreds of reasons. The most important
    reasons in order of importance are:

    - speed of parsing and rendering: no need for error-corrections
    mechanisms, browsers are geared to render compliant pages, browsers
    "know" what to expect from a perfectly validated page. The size of a
    validated page is usually significantly (25% - 50%) smaller. Just
    imagine here: no <font>, no <img src="spacer.gif"...>, no tag soup.
    Still there are several other techniques, tricks which can speed up the
    parsing and rendering of webpages.
    - layout consistency across compliant browsers (visual UA)
    - interoperability with other W3C web standards compliant application,
    softwares, medium, devices since these "know" what to expect from a
    perfectly validated page, since these are also geared at interacting
    with perfectly validated pages. Valid pages work better, more
    consistently, page rendering is more predictable throughout a wide range
    of context, machine, softwares, since all those softwares, machines, are
    trying to support web standards to begin with. Mutual reliance is
    mutually beneficial to compliant parties.
    - increased accessibility; there are more laws now covering this aspect.
    In some cases, you could pay a fine. Some companies were sued
    successfully for not making their pages accessible.

    There are more reasons for validating your pages. I have written a
    document on this and never decided to make it public.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
     
    DU, Sep 16, 2003
    #7
  8. tom watson

    DU Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > "tom watson" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>is it worth putting these on a website?

    >
    >
    > No. For reasons, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
    > (Regarding "Valid CSS", the phrase itself is a misnomer, so there's even
    > more confusion.)
    >


    I would prefer to see these buttons (and none others) if the page is
    validated and compliant. When placed, done correctly, it's a clear and
    clean promotion to comply with standards.

    FYI, I read somewhere (still trying now to find that page) that I-Cab
    used to report errors and problems with a page. I think this is a
    marvelous idea; it would get the users much more involved in the web
    standards compliance on-the-web issue. Validation report could be done
    on the browser itself; that would tremendously help compliance on the
    web... as no one would like to see his own pages being considered as
    full of errors, invalid by visitors. There are signs that this trend is
    advancing.
    Opera 7, via a context-menu, allows users to validate a page. Netscape 7
    Composer allows users to validate their pages on the W3C validator.
    Mozilla's Checky (add-on) allows users/authors to validate a page in all
    kinds of dimensions with access to 50 different validators. There is
    even an MSIE version being developed. These are more convenient than
    bookmarklets.


    >
    >>it may say that the pages are valid, but what does this mean in the real
    >>world

    >
    >
    > It means that the author has learned that such icons are cool. Hardly much
    > else.


    You can not read the people's minds. You have a negative pre-conceived
    idea of these people and of their intent and good-will.

    You could have said that such people are in the process of learning HTML
    and trying to create the best webpages they can. I've been coding HTML
    for the last 5 years and I'm still learning today through my imperfect
    skills and knowledge. What's wrong with that?? What's wrong with such
    attitude???

    In the real world, those icons often appear on pages that have
    > invalid markup and incorrect CSS.


    Invalid markup happens to anyone, even to you and to your own website. I
    once passed a few of your pages at the validator and found out several
    surprises myself. So what should I have thought of your "authoring for
    the web" webpages?

    These buttons should be considered for what they can output; these
    buttons should be considered as an easy way to verify a document's
    markup syntax and adequate CSS code. (1) I think they certainly could be
    entirely replaced by browsers functionalities, browsers reports on the
    compliance of pages visited... just like I-Cab was (is still?) doing.
    Doing so would eliminate the calculated "lies", deceptive certifications
    and ignorance condemnation you do.

    Usually it's not a deliberate lie - the
    > author once checked some version. (Sometimes it's really a lie; the author
    > might think that a few errors don't count.) But it's worse than useless
    > even if it's true.
    >


    There is so much deception, illusions, scams, viruses, worms, spams,
    etc.. and lies on the web that "lying" about validation should not be
    treated as harschly as you do here. Lie per definition is making an
    incorrect, false statement that the author knows to be incorrect, false:
    it's a deliberate action, a calculated one.
    Of all the pages I visited with such buttons, I would say that a large
    majority of these pages had no errors and no warnings: that's my experience.

    >
    >>do people still validate?

    >
    >
    > Surely some people do.
    >
    >
    >>should they?

    >
    >
    > Only if they understand what they are doing. Most don't.
    >


    A typical assessment of these people intents and actions and an
    unsubstantiated one coming from you.

    (1) On this precise issue, I changed the title attribute of these
    buttons to reflect this. The buttons are best serving the purpose of
    promoting web standards when they become a link to the W3C validator to
    validate the [referrer] document rather than "certificate" of
    compliance. On this point, we should agree.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
     
    DU, Sep 16, 2003
    #8
  9. [Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:48:24 -0400/DU]
    > tom watson wrote:
    > > is it worth putting these on a website?

    >
    > Yes, definitively. If you later have visitors reporting to you problems,
    > then you know that your markup syntax is complying perfectly with the
    > DTD. It's a sign that the markup code is in its optimal condition.


    You mean "It's not me! It's your browser!"? This would help you,
    but not the visitor. Most People even don't know anything about
    w3c. All they can see is a broken site. Better than a stupid w3-
    logo would IMO be a short problem-page, where the visitor gets
    explained, why it could be broken - togehter with some links. This
    is more user friendly than just a logo, wich just says "Me? You are
    the problem".

    And why the hell do you think, a visitor would check your site to
    ensure, that his browser is the problem? :-DD


    regs
    michael
     
    Michael Weber, Sep 16, 2003
    #9
  10. DU wrote:

    > Mozilla's Checky (add-on) allows users/authors to validate a page in all
    > kinds of dimensions with access to 50 different validators. There is
    > even an MSIE version being developed. These are more convenient than
    > bookmarklets.


    Plug:
    Opera 7 W3-Dev Menu
    http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=10

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
    playing://semisonic/all_about_chemistry/02_bed.ogg
     
    Toby A Inkster, Sep 16, 2003
    #10
  11. tom watson

    DU Guest

    Michael Weber wrote:

    > [Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:48:24 -0400/DU]
    >
    >>tom watson wrote:
    >>
    >>>is it worth putting these on a website?

    >>
    >>Yes, definitively. If you later have visitors reporting to you problems,
    >>then you know that your markup syntax is complying perfectly with the
    >>DTD. It's a sign that the markup code is in its optimal condition.

    >
    >
    > You mean "It's not me! It's your browser!"? This would help you,
    > but not the visitor.


    First of all, I should have said "It's a sign that claims that the
    markup syntax is in its perfect condition" rather. A webpage full of
    nested tables, <img src="spacer.gif"...>, and poorly, awkwardly designed
    could still be perfectly "valid", you know.
    Second, you're partly right about the reaction it could create on
    people. Most layout/rendering problems, differences are caused by either
    old browsers or very complex pages. When a page is compliant, valid, the
    more chances (much higher chances) it will be rendered consistently on
    compliant browsers.

    Most People even don't know anything about
    > w3c. All they can see is a broken site. Better than a stupid w3-
    > logo would IMO be a short problem-page, where the visitor gets
    > explained, why it could be broken - togehter with some links.


    Of course, that is more instructive, instructional, pedagogical, fruitful.

    This
    > is more user friendly than just a logo, wich just says "Me? You are
    > the problem".
    >


    It does not say explicitly this but I agree that people seeing rendering
    problems should associate the problem they see with the
    "certification"-ish logo. The original purpose was to do more than give
    a notification of html purism also: it was to invite people to check the
    page for themselves.

    > And why the hell do you think, a visitor would check your site to
    > ensure, that his browser is the problem? :-DD
    >
    >
    > regs
    > michael


    A lot of webpages (99% of over 3 billions indexed webpages according to
    W3C and google.com) are not valid (complying with valid markup syntax).
    OTOH, 96% of all browsers in use out there overall can render
    accordingly valid and validated markup code. So I don't see the problem
    as the browsers here: the large part of the problems on the web is very
    much related to html source code, not browsers.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
     
    DU, Sep 16, 2003
    #11
  12. > is it worth putting these on a website?

    I find it useful during the testing phase. For example, when I mention a
    page of mine for help on this newsgroup, I'd put the icons on so people
    either know they are valid or can at least double-check it easily.
    That way, they don't say "validate your site first, then ask for help!".

    Nick.
     
    e n | c k m a, Sep 17, 2003
    #12
  13. tom watson

    DU Guest

    DU wrote:


    >
    > FYI, I read somewhere (still trying now to find that page) that I-Cab
    > used to report errors and problems with a page.


    Got it!:

    http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/staff/handbook/tasks/syntax_checking/

    I think this is a
    > marvelous idea; it would get the users much more involved in the web
    > standards compliance on-the-web issue. Validation report could be done
    > on the browser itself; that would tremendously help compliance on the
    > web... as no one would like to see his own pages being considered as
    > full of errors, invalid by visitors. There are signs that this trend is
    > advancing.


    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
     
    DU, Sep 17, 2003
    #13
  14. DU <> wrote:

    > I would prefer to see these buttons (and none others) if the page is
    > validated and compliant.


    You haven't explained what the users would possibly gain from it.

    >> It means that the author has learned that such icons are cool. Hardly
    >> much else.

    >
    > You can not read the people's minds.


    Yes I can, from what they do and write. The situation is pretty obvious:
    when the usefulness of the icons is questioned, nobody can present any
    real use that users would have. Yet, they are used. Authors who use them
    either never thought about their usefulness, or decided to continue using
    them even after realising that they are just a nuisance to users.

    > You could have said that such people are in the process of learning
    > HTML and trying to create the best webpages they can. I've been coding
    > HTML for the last 5 years and I'm still learning today through my
    > imperfect skills and knowledge. What's wrong with that?? What's wrong
    > with such attitude???


    What are you babbling about? How would your or my learning something make
    the icons any more useful? If you are thinking about Web authors as
    targets of validation-evangelism, you forget that the vast majority of
    users are not authors (or author just very casually and couldn't care less
    about validation propaganda). Besides, validation-evangelism tries to make
    a trivial tool much more than it can possibly be.

    >> In the real world, those icons often appear on pages that have
    >> invalid markup and incorrect CSS.

    >
    > Invalid markup happens to anyone, even to you and to your own website.


    You keep missing points. The point is that those icons claim pages to be
    valid when they actually aren't. Sometimes, even as deliberate lies. But
    the icons even fail to perform the task most commonly attributed to them,
    namely signalling that a page is valid - the icons cannot tell that
    because the claim is false so often.

    > These buttons should be considered for what they can output; these
    > buttons should be considered as an easy way to verify a document's
    > markup syntax and adequate CSS code.


    Why would that be the _user's_ job? And that would be different from the
    most common argument, namely _informing_ users. Both arguments are faulty,
    _and_ mutually incompatible - yet many advocates present _both_ of them.

    Should a user wish to validate a page, he can surely do that without those
    icons. The icons just make it possible to validate a page without having
    the slightest idea of what the process is about, or even by accident
    (e.g., on the "click on everything, it might do something" principle).

    > There is so much deception, illusions, scams, viruses, worms, spams,
    > etc.. and lies on the web that "lying" about validation should not be
    > treated as harschly as you do here.


    Well, now you are back to the "informing" argument.

    So do you think it is acceptable to include information that has no
    tangible use for users, that is incomprehensible to the great majority of
    users, and distracts from the page's content and purpose, _and_ present
    information that is known to be false at that?

    >> Only if they understand what they are doing. Most don't.

    >
    > A typical assessment of these people intents and actions and an
    > unsubstantiated one coming from you.


    Which part of my statement do you refute? Or do you just dislike the facts
    I mention. There is little doubt about general lack of understanding of
    what validation is, but admittedly you need to understand it yourself
    _and_ have open eyes to realize this. But to take a simple example,
    different forums like newsgroups and mailing lists are full of people
    complaining that a validator rejects something that they regard as
    perfectly OK and working. They simply fail to see that the validator is
    doing its very job and the very thing it was asked to do. They often
    require strongly that the validator be changed to accept something because
    they think it's OK and works on both browsers, etc. (which might casually
    be even true). Little do they realize that it's _their_ job to change the
    DTD if they really want to continue validation game.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 17, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Luigi Donatello Asero
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    3,618
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    Jan 4, 2005
  2. Luigi Donatello Asero
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    750
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    Jan 5, 2005
  3. Johannes Reese

    Icons in css-file?

    Johannes Reese, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    2,328
    Steve Pugh
    Mar 13, 2005
  4. Richie Williams
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,566
    Richie Williams
    Oct 25, 2007
  5. Larry Lindstrom
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,358
    Jonathan N. Little
    Jun 12, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page