Is W3c validation woth the money?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Simon, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. Simon

    Simon Guest

    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
     
    Simon, Jun 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Simon

    Els Guest

    Simon wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Fleetwood Mac - Need Your Love So Bad
     
    Els, Jun 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Simon" <> wrote:

    > 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, say <body><div></div></body>.)

    > 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?)

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 14, 2005
    #3
  4. Simon

    Simon Guest

    > "Simon" <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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


    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
     
    Simon, Jun 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Simon

    Els Guest

    Simon wrote:

    > 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)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Human League - Together in Electric Dreams
     
    Els, Jun 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Simon

    Simon Guest

    >> 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.


    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.

    >
    >> 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.


    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
     
    Simon, Jun 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Simon

    Els Guest

    Simon wrote:

    > 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.

    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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. ;-)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: David Bowie - Suffragette City
     
    Els, Jun 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Simon

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Simon wrote:

    > 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
     
    Steve Pugh, Jun 14, 2005
    #8
  9. 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 ...

    --
    Tom

    "Ich mach mir die Welt, wie sie mir gefällt" - Pippi Langstrumpf,
    Programmiererin?
     
    Thomas Weller, Jun 14, 2005
    #9
  10. "Simon" <> wrote:

    > 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.

    >> 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.


    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?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 14, 2005
    #10
  11. Simon

    Adrienne Guest

    Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Simon" <>
    writing in news::

    > 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">&nbsp;<spacer>
    <font color="#000000">&nsbp;</font></td>, then I would run away very fast.

    >
    > 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'>&nbsp;<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.


    --
    Adrienne Boswell
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne, Jun 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Simon

    simon Guest

    >> 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?
    >


    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
    #12
  13. Simon

    simon Guest

    >> 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.


    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">&nbsp;<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.

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

    >

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


    Thanks

    Simon
     
    simon, Jun 14, 2005
    #13
  14. Simon

    Els Guest

    simon wrote:

    >> 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.


    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.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: The Velvet Underground - I'm Waiting For The Man
     
    Els, Jun 14, 2005
    #14
  15. "simon" <> wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 14, 2005
    #15
  16. Simon

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:52:18 +0100, "Simon" <>
    wrote:

    >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.
     
    Andy Dingley, Jun 14, 2005
    #16
  17. Simon

    simon Guest

    >>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 ?


    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
     
    simon, Jun 14, 2005
    #17
  18. in alt.html, simon wrote:
    >
    > 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.

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Utrecht, NL.
    Support me, buy Opera:
    https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/buy-opera.html?AID=882173
     
    Lauri Raittila, Jun 14, 2005
    #18
  19. Simon wrote:
    > 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.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Jun 14, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    "simon" <> wrote:


    > > Are you employing them to write valid sites ?

    >
    > Well, in a way I guess I do.


    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

    --
    <http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/
     
    Leonard Blaisdell, Jun 15, 2005
    #20
    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. Fredrik Elestedt

    W3C validation

    Fredrik Elestedt, Nov 25, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,164
  2. xyZed

    W3C validation site ltips?

    xyZed, Jun 26, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    922
    Isofarro
    Jun 27, 2003
  3. William Tasso
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    745
    William Tasso
    Aug 22, 2003
  4. Frank
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,577
    David Dorward
    May 3, 2004
  5. Paolo

    Problem woth ObjectDataSource and Dataset...

    Paolo, Sep 9, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Web Controls
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    112
    Paolo
    Sep 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page