Web Standards Discussion Group

I'm interested in web standards. iqcontent sometimes orgainse seminars about that sort of stuff. I have not been to any of them.

I read up a good bit about accessible and standards-compliant design. My site (which I have been reliably informed is dire form a design point of view) does nonetheless conform to these standards. I also was developing a graphical alt tag editor, although that's been on hold for a while). Anyways I might be able to answer questions if you have any or point you toward some decent resources.
Suckerfish dropdown menus are the only decent accessible drop down menus that I could find. There are a lot of excellent css techniques outlined on that site by the same people too.

This has been one of my arguments for a year or so now. Nearly 90+% of web sites are technically illegal due to what I personally term 'Get By Coding'.

Last year a disabled user succesfully sued a regularly used website because his use of the site was severely restricted by bad coding or incorrect coding. Under International and National disability laws concerning media and the availability to the disabled. All of those sites are technically 'Illegal' due to this!

The thing is most web designers in Ireland (and Internationally) still use the antiquated (and fecking horrible nightmare)html 4.0/4.01 and most very poorly indeed. 99% do not even know how to even identify there document correctly or how to costruct the head correctly. Allready any speech synthesis software is in trouble and it hasn't even got to the content area of the page!

Again, mostly to blame for this is microsoft and there bloody monopilising attitudes hence the reason for the box model problem that still abounds because ms in there infinate glory refuse stead fastly to follow a basic set of guidelines set out by W3C. This btw way headed by Tim Berners-Lee, the guy who invented html basically or web browsing.

That aside why use an 8-9 year old out dated coding standard? xhtml/css is far easier to learn IMHO and far easier to implement across systems and thats without the more advanced control it gives you over page content.

Returning to my original point on legality and accessibility though, if you code xhtml/css wrong and it is not compliant, your site/web-system will still be inaccessible to the disabled and therefore technically illegal.

As I said, this mostly occurs by the incorrect document identification (the dtd) and just as important, incorrect header construction. I code strictly within W3C current standards of xhtml1.0/1.1/and css1.0/2.0. Currently I am upgrading my standards to xhtml 2.0 (Forms controlled 'Off Browser' - ? YIPPEEE! At last!) to maintain compliancy.

Mostly this occurs because most 'Wannabe' web designers don't even have a clue as to how a browser 'Reads' a web page and are only interested (As stated above) In getting summit up and the 'moolah' in. (No offence intended there btw) but it is a true factor. The other problem is these stupid 'wysiwyg' editors. Due to these incompetant pieces of junk, we have just about anyone calling themselves web system designers. Stick them in front of notepad and tell them to write even the basic start of an html document and they'd look at you gaga.

I may be being obtuse there and rightfully so IMHO. Some really good sites are ruined because of these people and the sooner a regulated body along with 'Qualifications' needed like any other job is put in place the better.

I'm probably going to get a load of derision for all of that and so be it. But in defence, I spent hours reading over the W3C guidelines and 99.9% of my work validates to the current standard of xhtml 1.0/css 1.0 or xhtml 1.1/css1.0 (css 2.0 is strictly for xhtml 2.0 really).
I see no reason why a job should be half done. If you are going to do a job then do it properly is my motto. I mean seriously, what would you say if you took your car to the garage for the brakes to be changed or the tyres and paid for a 2hundred quid job but only got a 50quid job? Yeah - you'd be up in arms about it straight of. Same principle applys here IMHO..

Sorry this is one of my pet rants - I cannot abide lazy half done half learnt jobs. What people get away with charging people for and the results that most get is deplorable. Any other service doing it would find themselves in court! Case in question is a site I am currently redeveloping to the correct standards. The old site was using a modifide dreamweaver 6.0 template (Which with a very quick simple repair job is actually xhtml though is identified as html 4.01). It was utilised very poorly to boot and inoperative at 800x600 resolution. Most sites constructed today are notorious for resolution problems hence the use of the stupid java script as a remedy when all you need do is write your css correctly and use percentages instead of fixed pixel alignment.

I have found only a handful of web designers in Ireland who take the time and care to ensure that they deliver an up to standard, fully accessible product to there clients. Finishing with that, it really is a disgusting situation and one that does need to be remedied as soon as possible!

My last comment is more a question. What are you html 4.0/4.01 'Get By Coders' going to do when html 4.0/4.01 becomes so depreceated that browsers will have been configured to ignore it? It's allready happening as browsers and code advances and old depreceated code is used less and less the ability of the browser to render it has been excluded/switched of?

I'm gonna love all that extra work in the next few years - can't wait

edit: just looked at that link kstanl you supplied. Whilst it is valid 'Get by' xhtml (Transitional xhtml) the header is a complete mess. keywords, description and css link are in the wrong place. meta tag order is totally dis ordered. heh Great start - And they are what? Going to promote correct coding standards? Thinks they need to go back to Web School

edit 2: WTF! What the hell is

br clear="all" / (brackets excluded <>)

Where'd they get that crap from? Some bloody coding standards there gonna set allright - not impressed!

richardo wrote:

But the IIA have set themselves up as THE association representing the Internet in Ireland. Para 6 implies that they are promoting excellence, yet they fall at the first hurdle themselves. They at least should have checked the coding on their own site before accepting it from the developers.

Fair point, doing as they preach...

But I, like most I know, simply code pages that work on the major browsers/platforms, sometimes with escape hacks.
There are Standards - and there is Reality.
Granted it's a route that needs watching - like maybe having to change coding as new browser versions etc appear - but at the end of the day the major concern is that Joe Soap can see the site the way you intended.

Usability, including access for say visually impaired users, can remain important in that goal:
But that still doesn't mean you have to code to standards.
I'm aware of W3C standards and try to follow them, but unfortunately 100% compliancy will never occur between Microsoft/Mozilla/Opera vying for market share with proprietary features, features that webdevelopers may find useful
and W3C not sanction.

The other thing is that W3C often follow what the major browsers have implemented (and that's proved popular) ie the cart leading the horse, in terms of standards implementation.

Bracciano wrote:

Usability, including access for say visually impaired users, can remain important in that goal:
But that still doesn't mean you have to code to standards.
I'm aware of W3C standards and try to follow them, but unfortunately 100% compliancy will never occur between Microsoft/Mozilla/Opera vying for market share with proprietary features, features that webdevelopers may find useful
and W3C not sanction.

The other thing is that W3C often follow what the major browsers have implemented (and that's proved popular) ie the cart leading the horse, in terms of standards implementation.

microsoft/mozilla are free and opera free unless you want rid of there ads. Point is that unless the folk who code sites follow a basic set of standards and thereby force the (idiot) browser manufactures (microjerkle) to follow a standard set of compliancy the problem will continue.

I keep referencing microsoft and seriously, there usual knocks aside, it is them at fault. Every thing W3C tries to implement and is accepted by other browser mufactires is challenged time after time by them. In the South West, where I live, mention open source or microsoft alternatives and they look at you like your some sort of hacker or summit. The stranglehold they have on the area is unbelievable and trying to get work is a nightmare. I suffer, yes, because I set myself principles and I won't lower my own exacting standards just to comply with a bunch of ignorant end users. The clients I do have consistantly return each year and I have little or no problem with there systems. My mate, who is forced to use microsoft implemented systems lives in a virtual nightmare, with daily occurrances of some problem or another. The site is down more than it's up, yet my open source systems, coded correctly to the required standards as set out by W3C just keep chugging along merrily.

In reference to other points, copying word documents to online pages even via cms. Theres plenty of php stuff out there now that can 'Aggressively' convert to xhtml with little problem.

Tables? Well, IMHO, they are the worst of a bad thing and in no way can they ever compare to div/css styling. Nesting divs inside of tables is just so wrong and totally defeats the object. Simply nest divs within divs. Far simpler and far easier to style/control.

I don't think I've used tables now in over a year and no way would I return to them. The added advantage of xhtml standards compliancy over html 4.0/4.01 is that finally you get a life. It takes me now a quarter of the time to code a templare to what it used to take. I think myself that is a better reason than any to comply to standards.