How has the message of the web standards community somehow been boiled down into a concentrate of your website must only validate to be standards compliant? Is this the result of a horrible game of web telephone? Sadly, this reduced definition of web standards makes it quite easy for someone to dismiss the positives of standards compliance. Why should making my site pass the muster of the W3C’s validators take precedence over creating new features for my audience/client/web application?
I’m currently in the process of evaluating open source ASP.NET content management systems. Important to me, of course, are adherence to web standards (coding and accessibility standards), cross-browser compatibility, simplicity/ease of use, etc. While, I was trying DotNetNuke (DNN) I became increasingly concerned about adherence to standards and cross-browser compatibility (among other things). I went searching on the forums for more information. I came upon a thread devoted to the topic of standards compliance in which a user inquires as to the timeline for web standards compliance in DNN. The replies were mixed. Some from users linking to tutorials on jumping through the hoops (sadly) necessary to make DNN produce valid XHTML code. Others, even more concerning, came from DNN team members. A few examples.
I will tell you that in all the work I get asked about, no one asks about CSS and XHTML compliancy, unless it’s a designer who went to do a multimedia course and was forced to some XHTML compliant site.
I’ve posted in forums before about my view on all this - and while I am no means an expert in every field, I’m looking at DNN right down the line from installing, hosting, advising, assisting, learning, you name it, and I think you need to also get this into perspective as well.
A final note, I am not saying it is not important to be XHTML compliant. I believe people should be able to use tabless or tabled designs, I personally have no preference for one or the other and have worked with both. I do think in terms of priorities, this is something I would consider to be lower on my list of must haves for the DotNetNuke framework.
However, IMHO the issue of accessibility compliance is much more important than xhtml compliance.
The above quotes, to me, show a serious misconception of web standards and the point of web standards — not to mention near contempt for standards compliance. To be fair, the users in the forum thread had themselves boiled standards down to code validation or css-based design versus table design. To me, web standards is about the entire approach to the architecture and design of a webpage/website. It’s not simply about creating XHTML that validates. It’s a way of thinking. Well-structured semantic code thoughtfully organized and designed leaves a smaller bandwidth fingerprint, loads faster for people on slower connections, and goes most of the way in making a website more accessible. A website that follows web standards is easier to maintain, and we all know maintenance is the real kicker in website development. I also think DNN missing the boat on web standards will cause them to lose the standards community (which isn’t small). As a standards-minded web developer, will I run the DNN obstacle course necessary to make a DNN website standards compliant (and for each upgrade after that)? Or would I turn to a product like Cuyahoga where the team is concerned with standards compliance and making it easy for developers to maintain website sanity?
Ultimately, this must be our own failure. How can the web standards message be improved? How can we fix the misconceptions that have propagated as a result of our own zealousness?
14 responses so far ↓
1 JC // Jun 1, 2006 at 8:11 am
I guess I’m just not a web geek anymore. So far as I’m concerned, if it renders in major browsers, works with screen readers, and isn’t screwing over colorblind people, I’ve done my job. Whether it strictly validates as XHTML or anything else, I really couldn’t care less as long as it does what it’s supposed to do for the people it’s supposed to do it for. If I miss one guy using an offbrand mobile device because its browser is set to only allow strict XHTML to pass through, well, I’m sure he’ll be used to seeing that and know it’s ultimately the fault of a non-user-friendly phone, not a million different web developers.
Let’s be honest now… the origin of the “standards compliant” argument was a wedge for the mozilla people to attack IE. It was primarily a marketing tool for Firefox, and it worked great… which is fine, Firefox is an excellent browser, typically much better than IE; and IE has been somewhat improved by the push as well. It pretty much did its job there. I can pop open any modern browser and pretty much everything will render fine.
But past that, I really don’t care about the W3C’s standard of the day. They put out a ridiculous number of “standards,” most of which never see any meaningful implementation. I happen to think it’s a tremendous waste of time and collective brainpower, but it’s theirs, not mine, so they’re welcome to spend it however they see fit. Just don’t expect me — or most other people — to be impressed when some standards zealot throws a fit of self-righteous indignation because someone doesn’t particularly care about the finer details of XHTML standards.
And really, people should stop using the “web standards” moniker when they’re talking about XHTML and company. HTML 2.0 was a standard, too.
2 Señor Webster // Jun 1, 2006 at 8:14 am
I see three clear groups of people in our industry. “People who get it”, “People who don’t get it” and more commonly “People whom don’t get it and don’t care to get it”.
Some people I work with and have run into during my adventures in technology (commonly more senior engineers and framework specialists) see the HTML/XHTML markup language as a simple byproduct of finely tuned engines (framework and logic expression languages) that are produced by finely tuned servers which run the most current and up-to-date software.
They have had this message crammed into their heads for the past 10 years that only the framework matters — and for a long time they were correct — because un-standard sloppy markup and correct markup produced the same result.
The younger generation (us) will soon supersede them and make them realize that they were creating Ferrari’s with wooden wheels — a great engine with and output device with no traction whatsoever which sits there and spins in neutral.
I have no pity for any company whom somehow employees close minded engineers. Web Standards is a very broad term (buzzword) used by sales and marketing folks to pitch ideas which they cant begin to understand.
If we were to call it what it is it would sound more like “creating semantically accessible valid markup which separates content from presentation by leveraging Cascading Style Sheet technology and Document Object Model scripting” hardly a buzzword that people can latch onto … maybe “CSAVMwSCfPblCTaDOMS.” will work?
I say if possible — find a new vendor and tell them why you are leaving.
If not possible — fight to good fight as I have had to do. As a “web standards” developer that comes with the job — to help promote its success.
Good Luck
3 Señor Webster // Jun 1, 2006 at 8:47 am
J.C. — Say it isn’t so — you too?
You fall into the group of “People whom don’t get it — and don’t care to”
It’s not about validation or selling browsers.It’s about everyone deciding what is the norm and following that so that things are forward and backward compatible. There are standards in every industry — and this idea is somehow new to ours.
It’s about creating documents which are coded and stand the test of time vs. documents written to work specifically in a browser IE4.0 (or other favorite post-modern browsers) rather than a “standard” which all browsers new and old will be graded for their support.
Have you ever opened up a “modern” web page in IE4.0? Good luck with that — “Sorry uncle Hal — you need to buy a new PC to see this web page — its developers were ignorant of changing times” But sure its going to work fine on your $2,700 brand new fangled mac book so who cares right?
Writing documents for a specific web browser which blatantly ignores any idea of a common practice is so 1994 — get with it JC.
What if tomorrow M$ decides tomorrow that it doesn’t like “APPLICATION A” anymore and writes support out of its browsers, then we would now need to use a new tag and special Microsoft special plug in app to do XYZ now which only works on M$ browsers. Seems like like a way to sell new pc’s installed with new browsers to me.
This sounds vaguely familiar — of yeah its called VBscript. That was a huge success lets not back the web standards movement.Code forking is fun!
What if there was no standard in carpentry or plumbing? You may go to the hardware store to buy a doorknob and the doorknob you wanted wouldn’t fit in the size hole cut in your door. Thats what not having a standard means. Thats what the W3C creates — not specifically for the engineers writing the documents — but rather the engineers writing the browser.
Theres more to web-standards than creating a document that is valid. Its creating accessible documents so that people NO MATTER OF DEVICE or AFFLICTION can view the resource.
Some people are blind, some are hard of sight, some are color blind, some don’t have mice, some people are on cellphones and pda’s, some people are on old computers, some soon will be in cars — who the fuck knows who else is out there.
Besides handicapped people love to get in their handi-bus and struggle through a mall to buy a hairdryer — they wouldn’t rather just flick on the internet and have it shipped to them — thats just silly.
But JC — you keep writing webpages whom only work on IE6 (and don’t screw over color blind people) — one less person competing for a good job in the industry that I need to deal with.
Sorry about getting all my panties in a bunch — its just that “it doesn’t matter” attitude that brought about the dark age of many industries — not here — not now — not on my watch.
Soon — just like there are government mandated handicapped ramps, elevators etc — soon accessibility will be REQUIRED on major commercial websites. It’s going to take a few lawsuits but it will get there soon (ask Target)
Thats it for now. I need some air.
J.C. I don’t mean to attack you. Just your indifference. This stuff matters — at least I think so. Please mind the grammar and misspellings — I don’t have time to proofread — I’m at work.
4 Nicole // Jun 1, 2006 at 9:26 am
See, you’ve boiled web standards down to code validation. As I mentioned, in my mind, it’s about an entire way of thinking. If I architect a standards compliant page where everything is marked up in a meaningful way, I’ve just made it easier for a page to do what “it’s supposed to do.” It will degrade nicely for those using older browsers, it will automatically nicely format itself for print or easily reformat for viewing on a mobile device, and context will be provided for a screen reader. Additionally, concise, well marked up code is easier to maintain — bonus! (Have you ever tried to maintain a website flooded with tables and spacer gifs? Ack.)
I personally don’t care if a site validates as XHTML Strict (more power to you if you get an entire corporate site to validate as this) or HTML 1.0. I share the philosophy of Mike Davidson — it’s not about validation.
But I also see, JC, how you were turned off my the whole standards thing. The validation zealots ruined the idea of web standards for a lot of designers and developers. It’s time for a different approach to the movement.
5 Doug // Jun 1, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Wow. I just dusted off my web developer hat after many many years. I had no idea how much had changed. It’s good to see this discussion. I’ve been charged with “maintaining a site flooded with tables and spacer gifs. ” All (2) of the books I’ve looked at to brush up have really stressed what you’ve talked about here: semantic markup and separation of content from layout. It seemed like a pain at first, but now it makes working with the code much easier.
6 Señor Webster // Jun 2, 2006 at 9:24 am
Doug — welcome to the “People who get it group” glad to have you aboard.
7 JC // Jun 2, 2006 at 6:48 pm
I’ve boiled it down so because that’s what it is for everyone who rants about it, Nicole.
All this stuff about degrading nicely and being easy to maintain, etc… to me that’s just good design, not some crap to wave a big banner and get huffy over. As for maintenance, I’ve maintained tabled sites that were both static and database driven; there were painful moments here and there, but those mostly went away when I learned regex, and css layouts probably wouldn’t have fixed them. It wasn’t that big a deal, particularly if you used template-style global includes to focus large chunks into a single file reused through the site, so you’d only have to change it in one place. Not really all that different from how I use CSS files now.
People like webster here acting like I pissed on their kitten because I don’t think the topic is even worth making a fuss over are more a part of the problem than people who don’t care, I’d say.
And webster… I think you’re more in the “people who don’t get it group”… where the big picture is concerned. Websites aren’t a damned crusade. People aren’t being sold into slavery here. They’re tools. Or they’re advertisements. Get some goddamned perspective.
And for your epeen stroking and dipshit assumption that I code specifically for MSIE6 just because I think this web standards rant crap is a waste of time… god, just bugger off.
Sorry to swear on your site, Nicole, but jackassery gets *my* panties in a bunch.
8 Mike // Jun 3, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I rather enjoy the quiet, some might say elitist understanding of the importance of web standards. For those who do think that standards compliance is rubbish and the idea of accessibility/usability is just a buzzword solely for web designers to stroke their own egos, I say “Good on ya.” Keep thinking that way. More and more (corporate) folks are coming around to the importance and, in light of a few recent lawsuits (Target anyone?), the eventual legal necessity of web standards, the afore-mentioned old world, table-loving, standards-hating web developers will become obsolete.
I’m thinking and moving forward - designing for the future. No need to get on a high horse or rant over one side or the other. Standards-based design/development and philosophy are here to stay. Believe it.
9 Nicole // Jun 4, 2006 at 9:17 am
I have to say that I’m not keen on calling following web standards an “elitist understanding.” In my opinion, that won’t help anything. I also don’t believe it’s about tabled vs. tableless design. Strides can be made in tabled design as well by using web standards.
10 Señor Webster // Jun 5, 2006 at 2:41 pm
JC –
Here are some big picture thoughts for you.
Just so we are clear what I’m talking about “Web Standard” is basically designing with accessible, semantic markup which separates presentation from markup and leverages the CSS 2.0 specification.
Here are a few FACTS:
- Maintenance on Web Standard documents is faster because they are better organized and less redundant.
- Web Standard sites are faster because 90% of the site is cached in included css, js and images.
-Web Standard documents are also on average about 75% smaller than “tag soup” counterparts
-Because these documents are smaller it also uses less bandwidth which costs less money and clogs up less of the Internet.
- Web Standard documents are accessible to all users no matter on device, handicap or settings.
- Web Standard documents are inherently Search Engine Optimized
The “Big Picture” here is that Web Standard documents cost less to create and maintain, they are faster and more accessible to everyone which improved the quality of the user experience. Thats what I’m talking about — not just buzz words.
Designing documents so that they can only be displayed on a 1024×768 browser window and require a modern browser which has javascript enabled (which I assume is the coding practice you employ) — you have instantly have cut your user base to about 80% of the Internet population.
If a traditional Best Buy location only allowed 80% of the population to enter their building they would lose MILLIONS in sales. The Internet is no different.
I see the big picture — it actually couldn’t be more clear. The goal is to allow EVERYONE to access the document and let them decide on what to do with it.
My statement was not intended to create a flame war. Rather to have you reassess the situation.
JC — How much investigation into web standards have you actually done? Did you read one website — decide it was too much work to change therefore you decide to bash what you don’t understand?
Have some pride in your work.
11 Nicole // Jun 6, 2006 at 7:34 am
Exactly, JC. It really does all come down to “good design.” Unfortunately, there’s a lot of “bad design” and thus why people have taken up the web standards push.
And, Web, besides the fact that I don’t think the “you must be ignorant and stupid” approach to web standards is a good one, I believe you’re misunderstanding JC. He’s not saying he purposely codes eight layers of nested tables just to piss you off. He’s saying (correct me if I’m wrong JC) that well-marked up and easy to maintain code is good design and doesn’t need a whole calvary of zealots pushing it.
12 Señor Webster // Jun 6, 2006 at 8:25 am
I’m just saying that this is not about selling browsers. It’s about writing documents correctly and the benefits it produces.
There is still lots of misconception in the Internet technology — point in case this postings subject of validation — thats why zealots exist — to help spread knowledge and understanding.
Zealots will continue to cry for support from the browser manufactures and the general Internet populous will reap the benefits.
13 EL // May 2, 2007 at 9:54 am
Great Post, Great Discussion!
I have been evaluation DNN to use for a current client of mine and I have to say I encountered the same problem with Joomla for a php backend which is:
It took me more time recoding the framework to make it XHTML Compliant than to use it. So I will be looking in the Cuyahuga alternative
Thank for the heads up.
And as for the main discussion on XHTML Comliant web apps & site….
Senor Webster hit it on the nail and explained it better than I ever can.
I work in a multilingual, multi backend, multi-multi… environment (not unlike the real world ever had a client still using a Cobol DB???) Adhering to Web standards had made me a better developper period. Saved (and still saves) me a lot of headaches and especially for my employees and other developper updating my sites & apps.
14 Nicole // May 6, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Thanks for stopping by EL! I did end up going with Cuyahoga for the project I mentioned in this post, so feel free to contact me with any questions you might have.
Leave a Comment