Are you valid??

[siforek]

Alright, so many know there's great advantages of 100% validation. Many do not know that there's some errors/warnings that ARE OK. For example, many CSS3 elements are widely supported, and use of them is completely ok, just not valid YET.

My biggest peeve is when site show the "valid Xhtml/CSS" links but when clicked and their site is checked there's obviously been absolutely no attempt to validate(100+ errors) LOL..

 

[The-Pixel]

With CSS3 you can use some elements but not all browsers support them yet. I know Opera supports all new elements. My point is if you use CSS3 elements and then go to see if your XHTML / CSS is valid you will get errors.

I see the point in having your website XHTML and CSS coding validate. But, I also think as long as the website works - its fine. I go back to the old saying, "If its not broke don't fix it". Great topic.

 

[SenseiSteve]

My biggest peeve is when site show the "valid Xhtml/CSS" links but when clicked and their site is checked there's obviously been absolutely no attempt to validate(100+ errors) LOL..

You notice these things because you're a developer. Is validation something you normally bring up as a selling point, or do your prospects raise that question?

 

[Zachary McClung]

I have found from doing web design sales in the past that we give the whole kitchen sink when it comes to validation. Most small business owners either don't care or are uneducated.

However, I will say I have the same peev though. If someone can find the button they probably are educated enough to know how to fix it.

 

[shockym]

Good thing to know I am not the only one who thinks up that these kinds of things only drive me a little bonky. I remember fighting with one site for HOURS on end one day and I went through at least 10 places that 1/2 said it was ok and the other 1/2 said I was a fool who had no idea what I was doing.

 

[Zachary McClung]

Good thing to know I am not the only one who thinks up that these kinds of things only drive me a little bonky. I remember fighting with one site for HOURS on end one day and I went through at least 10 places that 1/2 said it was ok and the other 1/2 said I was a fool who had no idea what I was doing.

I do not know if I would go as far as arguing with them for hours in regards to them being valid. That might be a little extreme. My solution is, if I cannot see your site because it doesn't work, I just do not do business with them.

 

[siforek]

You notice these things because you're a developer. Is validation something you normally bring up as a selling point, or do your prospects raise that question?

They'll usually bring it up, but I'll cover it even if they don't. I guess it could be used as a selling point, but IMO a professional developer should do a good job anyways. It's one thing to have an error that will disappear once CSS3 is supported, but if you simply forget to close tags, add alts, etc then you're just being lazy.

As said before, so long as it works the way it should for everyone then it's ok. In the past I've found that validating things has actually fixed some cross-browser issues.

 

[csn-uk]

Being a programmer and developer, it always annoys me when large sites post W3C links and a few others as to validate their site and have large numbers of errors, in some cases it’s almost as if they post it because no one will click it and in one case a site styled text as a link... just as advertisement I can only presume.

Most clients as to websites I’ve talked to are unaware of W3C and usually after a small explanation are keen to be compliant , Colleges, Schools and businesses are often on the ball however about the various validation methods and compliances that they must meet so it doesn’t seem always the case with them.

Either way, a W3C valid site doesn’t ensure cross browser performance but none the less it does mean that most mainstream or popular complaint browsers will be able to access your site without trouble.

 

[Zachary McClung]

Most clients as to websites I’ve talked to are unaware of W3C and usually after a small explanation are keen to be compliant , Colleges, Schools and businesses are often on the ball however about the various validation methods and compliances that they must meet so it doesn’t seem always the case with them.QUOTE]

They are required by law to be valid and are required to test for usability for scree reads, etc. under Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There is a provision that you cannot deny individuals with disabilities access to goods, services, or faculties. A website would be a service and if the website cannot be viewed with proper adjustments your in violation.

 

[The-Pixel]

Bottom line - you will never satisfy all browsers. You can obviously try to make it look as neat and clean as possible but they will not look exactly the same in IE as in FireFox or as in Opera. Period.

 

[Exa_Ankur]

Bottom line - you will never satisfy all browsers. You can obviously try to make it look as neat and clean as possible but they will not look exactly the same in IE as in FireFox or as in Opera. Period.

Completely agree with this.
As long as it looks reasonably similar in all browsers, I think you can be satisfied on a job well done.
It will also help you retain your sanity

 

[siforek]

Completely agree with this.
As long as it looks reasonably similar in all browsers, I think you can be satisfied on a job well done.
It will also help you retain your sanity

Yep. At a certain point we all learn there's only so much you can do. IE6 plagued me for quite a while and being that I'm a perfectionist I pulled many hairs over it as I'm sure many others have & will continue to.

 

[SenseiSteve]

They are required by law to be valid and are required to test for usability for scree reads, etc. under Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There is a provision that you cannot deny individuals with disabilities access to goods, services, or faculties. A website would be a service and if the website cannot be viewed with proper adjustments your in violation.

While I'm not a lawyer, I suspect this is stretching it some. W3C is not a requirement, and many sites are viewed with no problems that are not compliant to W3C guidelines.

 

[siforek]

While I'm not a lawyer, I suspect this is stretching it some. W3C is not a requirement, and many sites are viewed with no problems that are not compliant to W3C guidelines.

Although it may be understandable to a certain point with government sites, etc, I agree that it's stretched quite a bit. I'd like to know the source of that info..