Validate, Smalidate
- Started
- Last post
- 13 Responses
- ********
- jevad0
can I get an amen?
- jpea0
amen.
- tny0
ah, men
- ********0
praise allah!
- poomoo0
just because those named sites dont validate does not mean that validation is wrong.
validation provides the rules to proper mark up much like the manual to building a shelf tells you how to do it.
ignore the manual and the shelf may go up but it will not be assembled properly.
like ive said in the past; an engineer conforms to set standards and web developers should be to.
- ********0
poomoo injects some passion into the debate!! woo-hoo!!!
Well, what if the standards are impractical? What if, by trying to adhere to every standard you extend the development time and thus the cost of a project when you could of gotten it out the door sooner?
(playing devil's advocate here..)
- hiten0
i believe engineers also work with laws that are universal. Web designers dont in the fact that all browsers seem to display sites differently. No? that should be taken into account alittle i think.
- mg330
We have a meeting next Tuesday with the consultants that will be designing/building our firm's new site (sadly, it's not me anymore, but oh well, there are worse ways to spend $60K).
No need to name the company, but I'm troubled by their list of client sites, none of which validate. All their sites are asp.net built.
I'm now the lead on this project under my direct boss and really the only one here who knows all this stuff.
I'm totally calling attention to the unvalidated sites. I'm sure on one hand maybe it doesn't matter, but on the other, to me it 110% spells trouble if they can't get the details right, no matter how big they are.
- digilee0
i validate and so does my wife.
- ********0
well, let's put it this way - can some category of sites get away without validating? And if so, what are the detriments other than the size of the files?
Odd that as higher speed connections become increasingly prevelant the argument over saving a few k per file in terms of code bloat becomes an issue...
- jevad0
I validate, therefore I am.
- mg330
If you've got sites that have unclosed tags and bad structure to the code, it's going to be a bitch of a time trying to figure out what made it break.
So better to just get it right and grin when you see that little green checkmark in FireFox.
- poomoo0
in my experience i have found that conforming to standards has lengthened project development but not extensively. it has not impacted negativley on what i could achieve.
and just because it lengthens a project cycle doesnt not make it a negative thing. if it takes longer to do something right then so be it.
but the rewards i have gained from it out weigh the lengthened time.
you wouldnt accept driving across a bridge that didnt conform to safety standards would you?
clients will start to demand thier sites be inclusive and standard compliant.
thoughts
---------having a site that conforms to standards will be more future proof.
standard compliant sites are nicer on search engines.
standard compliant sites are lighter.
standard compliant sites will become mandatory for any big institution, prof company, public body or govt site over time. (this is already the case in the uk with govt tenders)
standard compliant sites will become the norm in the future.
standards compliance will become part of web2.0
standard compliance makes your site adhear to a world wide principle of recognized proficient code; a standard.
standards are used throughout society as a bench mark and as a measure of quality . this is why it is important to follow standards.