Is W3c validation woth the money?

Simon · Jun 14, 2005

Hi,

I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
rules given by W3c.

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
reject them if their site does not validate?
Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?

My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
page validate.

So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

Simon

Els · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
Hi,

I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
rules given by W3c.

No, not all validating sites are good ones. I bet I can make a really
crappy site, with lots of peek-a-boo bugs to annoy all the IE users,
and still have it validated.

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
reject them if their site does not validate?
Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

Can't speak for you, but I would.

Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?

Depends on the type of error. Most errors are better avoided though.

My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
page validate.

So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

I reckon it should.
And if a designer can't make their dreamweaver code valid, they don't
know how to use the program correctly? There is of course a difference
between someone who allows certain 'errors' to exist, and someone who
simply doesn't /know/ how to make a validating site. Hasn't got
anything to do with dreamweaver afaik.

Jukka K. Korpela · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it
follows the rules given by W3c.

If you think so, you do not know what validation is. For an
explanation, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
(Validation does not imply that W3C rules are followed. Neither does
it, or following the rules, imply that the site is a good one. As a
trivial proof of the latter non sequitur, consider a site that consists
of a single HTML document that fully conforms to HTML specification and

has an empty body said:
But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I
automatically reject them if their site does not validate?

If you are about to hire a technical editor, would you reject any
application that contains a spelling error?

what about css, should it validate?

CSS is not an SGML or XML application, so "validation" is an
incorrect/misleading word in that context.

Surely the crucial questions are: Do you intend to require that _your_
pages validate? As a different question, do you intend to require that
they conform to W3C recommendations? Which of them? (HTML? Which one?
CSS? Which one? WAI?) Do you understand the consequences?

(And what makes you think validation costs money, as you suggest in the
Subject line but fail to explain or even mention in the message body?)

Simon · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
If you think so, you do not know what validation is. For an
explanation, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

personally I prefer the details given by w3c themselves.
http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.htm

(Validation does not imply that W3C rules are followed. Neither does
it, or following the rules, imply that the site is a good one. As a
trivial proof of the latter non sequitur, consider a site that consists
of a single HTML document that fully conforms to HTML specification and
has an empty body, say <body><div></div></body>.)

Of course it implies that rules are followed.
It might not look good, or even be useful, but the rules are followed.

CSS is not an SGML or XML application, so "validation" is an
incorrect/misleading word in that context.

Again , w3c seems to believe that is a validation. They even offer a tool to
achieve it.

(And what makes you think validation costs money, as you suggest in the
Subject line but fail to explain or even mention in the message body?)

What I was trying to imply is that a good, 'valid' page would cost more to
develop rather that one put together by a student with limited knowledge of
dreamweaver.
Is spending the extra money to validate really worth it.

Simon

Els · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
What I was trying to imply is that a good, 'valid' page would cost more to
develop rather that one put together by a student with limited knowledge of
dreamweaver.
Is spending the extra money to validate really worth it.

Yes. (imo of course)

Simon · Jun 14, 2005

I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the

No, not all validating sites are good ones. I bet I can make a really
crappy site, with lots of peek-a-boo bugs to annoy all the IE users,
and still have it validated.

Sorry, I did not mean good as good to look at, but rather that it followed
the rules and was likely to work as expected on a well behaved browser.

Depends on the type of error. Most errors are better avoided though.

I reckon it should.
And if a designer can't make their dreamweaver code valid, they don't
know how to use the program correctly? There is of course a difference
between someone who allows certain 'errors' to exist, and someone who
simply doesn't /know/ how to make a validating site. Hasn't got
anything to do with dreamweaver afaik.

I don't know dreamweaver myself, I just thought it was one of those editor
that was not very flexible.
Unless you edit the templates directly.

Simon

Els · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
Sorry, I did not mean good as good to look at, but rather that it followed
the rules and was likely to work as expected on a well behaved browser.

Unfortunately, the majority of visitors uses a not so well behaved
browser. Also, validating, following the rules, still doesn't mean a
good web site, even in Opera or Firefox.

I don't know dreamweaver myself, I just thought it was one of those editor
that was not very flexible.
Unless you edit the templates directly.

I don't use Dreamweaver myself either, but I've been told Dreamweaver
has settings, which I think means it can be as flexible as any editor.
If the designer blames Dreamweaver's supposed inflexibility for lack
of validation, s/he shouldn't be using Dreamweaver.

Reminds me of myself when I was 6 years old, learning to write. I had
to write an 'n', and the second leg needed to have a nice round edge
at the bottom. I couldn't do it, the edge didn't want to be round. I
blamed the pen. ;-)

Steve Pugh · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
rules given by W3c.

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
reject them if their site does not validate?
Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

Probably. A developer who is _incapable_ of creating a validating site
isn't worth hiring.

However, there are often good reasons why not every site in their
portfolio validates (most of mine don't, usually because some muppet
has ruined after I've left the project).

Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?

Depends on the errors and whether the developer can give a satisfactory
justification for each one.

My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
page validate.

Define 'normal'. I've built lots of validating sites with DW.

So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

CSS should usually pass the "validator" on the W3C site (note that
technically it is not validation as validation has a specific technical
meaning when dealing with SGML/XML based languages and thus applies to
HTML but not CSS).
Again some exceptions may be allowed but they should be justified.

To answer your question. No validation is not worth the money - if
someone tries to charge more for a validating site than for a
non-validating one then they're a poor choice.

OTOH developers who produce validating code by default may well charge
more by default because they're more skilled and experienced.

Steve

Thomas Weller · Jun 14, 2005

Hi Simon,

I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
rules given by W3c.

well, you can include the "validates (x)html ..." on your site - that does
not mean, it's a good site!

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
reject them if their site does not validate?
Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

At least, there should be a validation process included. There may be
reasons why the site does not validate. We can start a lenghty debate on
this, but normally a site should validate (and should not be more expensive
either ...).

Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?

Define "handful" ...

My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
page validate.

I have seen valid DW sites, lazy (incompetent) developers come up with very
"funny" excuses sometimes ...

So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

See above. Final opinion: Yes, pages should validate, think about what all
the others said in this thread. Most common browsers (ie. IE) bend the
validation rules to a large extent, but you normally are on the safe side
when your site validates. Experienced developers even know on how to deal
with this behaviours of browsers on different platforms. Instead of putting
too much effort in W3C-validation, think about accessibility guidelines
like 508 or WAI.

HTH - best regards from Germany ...

Jukka K. Korpela · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
personally I prefer the details given by w3c themselves.
http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.htm

Even if they are completely wrong? Your choice, of course.

Of course it implies that rules are followed.

You can decide to remain ignorant, but even the W3C documents say,
though perhaps obscurely, that validation does _not_ imply conformance
to the HTML specification.

<a href="get a life"></a>

is valid, in a suitable context, as you can easily check; yet it
definitely violates the HTML specification, since "get a life"
does not comply with the URL syntax.

Again , w3c seems to believe that is a validation. They even offer
a tool to achieve it.

This is constant source of confusion, and you seem to wish to
contribute to the confusion.

What I was trying to imply is that a good, 'valid' page would cost
more to develop rather that one put together by a student with
limited knowledge of dreamweaver.

Have you made some comparisons, or are you just guessing?

Adrienne · Jun 14, 2005

Hi,

I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows
the rules given by W3c.

As Jukka says, just because it validates, it's not necessarily good. It
could be filled with gramatical or spelling errors, erroneous information,
etc. But, yes, as a first check, it should validate.

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I
automatically reject them if their site does not validate?
Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

I would not automatically reject them, but I would a) see why it wasn't
validating, b) ask the designer if there is some specific reason why.

Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?

It depends on the errors. If it's a lot of <td height="100"> <spacer>

My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal'
dreamweiver page validate.

Frankly, I would probably want the person to be able to hand code in a
plain text editor. If you need server side, you really need to know how to
hand code, how to debug, etc.

So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

Yup the CSS should validate, except for maybe scrollbar stuff that some
designers like to do. Obvious problems like not selected a background
color when a color is selected, etc., or not selecting a fallback font, or
putting font sizes in pixels (validator won't catch that).

I'm also a developer, and I see a lot of scripts writing HTML, instead of
just coming out of the script and writing the HTML yourself. Things like:
<% response.write "<td>"
response.write "</td>"
response.write "<td Height='100'> <spacer>"
response.write "<FONT COLOR='#000000'>"
response.write "<Input type='text' name='StrName1' value='" & StrName1 &
"'>"
response.write "&nsbp;</Font>"
response.write "</td>"
%>
To me that's just a waste of server resources, not to mention bloat, bad
markup, etc. And you don't even want to see the rest...

I would also suggest that whomever you hire comments their work, especially
if it's anything server side.

simon · Jun 14, 2005

What I was trying to imply is that a good, 'valid' page would cost

Have you made some comparisons, or are you just guessing?

All I was doing was ask a few questions in the hope to have a mature
conversation about validation(s).
Instead of a civil discussion you chose to be rude, I am sorry you hate w3c
so much.

Unfortunately I do not wish to be drawn in your little contest, I haven't
played those little games since I left primary school, nor do I wish to play
them again.

So, well done, you are right, you are clever, I am wrong. case close.
Thanks for your valued input.

Simon.

simon · Jun 14, 2005

I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows

As Jukka says, just because it validates, it's not necessarily good. It
could be filled with gramatical or spelling errors, erroneous information,
etc. But, yes, as a first check, it should validate.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, by good, I meant technically good.
It might not 'look' good but it will work as expected on all 'ok' browsers.

I would not automatically reject them, but I would a) see why it wasn't
validating, b) ask the designer if there is some specific reason why.

It depends on the errors. If it's a lot of <td
height="100"> <spacer>
<font color="#000000">&nsbp;</font></td>, then I would run away very fast.

Frankly, I would probably want the person to be able to hand code in a
plain text editor. If you need server side, you really need to know how
to
hand code, how to debug, etc.

It's a bit hard to tell really.
If they used DW and claimed they did it by hand, it might not be so straight
forward to tell.

I would also suggest that whomever you hire comments their work,
especially
if it's anything server side.

Thanks

Simon

Els · Jun 14, 2005

simon said:
It's a bit hard to tell really.
If they used DW and claimed they did it by hand, it might not be so straight
forward to tell.

If they managed to make the source code look like hand coded, my guess
is they know how to hand code as well. If they don't, and completely
rely on Dreamweaver, the code won't be as clean.

Jukka K. Korpela · Jun 14, 2005

simon said:
All I was doing was ask a few questions in the hope to have a
mature conversation about validation(s).

I pointed out that you do not know what validation is. If you took that
as an insult, too bad. In any case, you cannot participate in a mature
discussion on a topic if you do not understand its basics.

Andy Dingley · Jun 14, 2005

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
reject them if their site does not validate?

Are you employing them to write valid sites ?

Would you employ them if they were colourblind ? This is a serious
issue for web design, but as part of a team it's a non-problem. Equally
for validation - most sites just don't care about it, but if yours does,
then it's not much of an extra requirement to impose in addition.

You may also be recruting the best developer you can find, only to have
them actually working with some crappy Dreamweaver rubbish, copying out
PSDs (been there, done that). Never recruit for better skills than
you're planning on using.

Only if you really _need_ someone with an understanding of semantic
structure in HTML, the benefits of CSS, and the usefulness of valid
code, is it really important to find someone who already knows how to
validate. Anything else, such as "Is <foo> valid within <bar>?" is just
being a language-lawyer and you can pick that up as they go.

I don't think I've ever had a client who understand what valid HTML was
anyway. I was speaking to one this morning who almost_ did -- they knew
there was _something_ they ought to be thinking about, but their actual
understanding was at such a poor level that they really weren't in any
position to judge competence anyway.

simon · Jun 14, 2005

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically

Are you employing them to write valid sites ?

Well, in a way I guess I do.

At the company where I work, they usually employ a designer and a
programmer.
The designer makes sure the site 'looks' nice and the programmer makes sure
that it works on most browsers. Of course they work together.

But, that brings me back to my original question. Is validation worth the
extra cost, (the programmer).

Would you employ them if they were colourblind ? This is a serious
issue for web design, but as part of a team it's a non-problem. Equally
for validation - most sites just don't care about it, but if yours does,
then it's not much of an extra requirement to impose in addition.

I am not sure I follow, I thought that all designers should try and get the
code to validate.
Only the more qualified, (and in turn more expensive), coders managed to
achieve it all the time.

You may also be recruting the best developer you can find, only to have
them actually working with some crappy Dreamweaver rubbish, copying out
PSDs (been there, done that). Never recruit for better skills than
you're planning on using.

I see, but it is a bit hard to tell.
I am sure everybody says, "I want a good site that will be accessible by
most".

My assumption was that, the more you spend the more I can expect. Like
validating css/html.

Simon

Lauri Raittila · Jun 14, 2005

It's a bit hard to tell really.
If they used DW and claimed they did it by hand, it might not be so straight
forward to tell.

It is very easy to see what code is produced by DW, and what it produced
with DW. It is very easy. FP has different signs, and MS Office is hard
to miss. I bet that other software has similar charasteristics, and if I
had seen more code by them I could tell difference.

Travis Newbury · Jun 14, 2005

Simon said:
I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
rules given by W3c.
But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
reject them if their site does not validate?
Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

You should evaluate them on the ability to get the job done the way you
need it to be done. If every site they have ever worked on validates or
not is completely irrelevant. Can they make the site that you need them
to make? If so, then they are a candidate for the position.

Leonard Blaisdell · Jun 15, 2005

Are you employing them to write valid sites ?

Well, in a way I guess I do.[/QUOTE]

Well written HTML and CSS are done by people who are well versed in
writing the two. The majority of the stuff on the web is done by people
with a bare knowledge of DW or other graphic page generators. Making
them learn more of DW in order to comply with your wishes will cost you
money.

But, that brings me back to my original question. Is validation worth the
extra cost, (the programmer).

Who here charges more to validate sites? I'm not asking you, I'm asking
them. It's a matter of pride to many here. This isn't the real world.

I see, but it is a bit hard to tell.
I am sure everybody says, "I want a good site that will be accessible by
most".

The vast majority of business people don't even know what you're talking
about. Selling a sloppy solution with no options for plenty of money is
what sales is all about to the vast majority of businesses engaged in
pushing "internet solutions".

My assumption was that, the more you spend the more I can expect. Like
validating css/html.

Regardless of all else, your gut instincts to validate are true. There
is a vast difference between a site cranked out by a DW guy in a cubicle
and someone who cares.
Hell, buy DW yourself. Force someone in your organization to learn 20%
of it and publish better stuff than is mostly on the web.

leo

Even McMahon fails validation	21	Nov 17, 2011
W3C complience checker and conformance	45	May 3, 2006
W3c Validation and Yahoo map URL	10	Aug 12, 2004
Nearly The Whole Of The Internet Is NOT W3C Valid	9	Nov 16, 2005
Web development best practice	2	Aug 24, 2023
W3C Validator Icon and W3C Valdiator page	9	May 2, 2004
Validation errors. How to rid?	16	Mar 1, 2008
Where To Put Validation Logic?	5	Dec 31, 2010

Is W3c validation woth the money?

Simon

Els

Jukka K. Korpela

Simon

Els

Simon

Els

Steve Pugh

Thomas Weller

Jukka K. Korpela

Adrienne

simon

simon

Els

Jukka K. Korpela

Andy Dingley

simon

Lauri Raittila

Travis Newbury

Leonard Blaisdell

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest Threads