icons for valid css and html

[tom watson]

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?

 

[David Dorward]

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.

 

[m]

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/

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.

 

[Isofarro]

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.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

(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!

 

[DU]

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]

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 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.

Surely some people do.




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

 

[Michael Weber]

[Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:48:24 -0400/DU]

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

 

[Toby A Inkster]

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

 

[DU]

[Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:48:24 -0400/DU]

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

 

[e n | c k m a]

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.

 

[DU]

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

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.

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.

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?

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.