January 26, 2004 | View Comments (13) | Category: Our Thoughts
Summary: A rant about people, expectations, and validation.
Andy Budd has been going over some turmoil about standards, accessibility, and validation. The scary thing is I started to notice a small trend. Maybe I had been noticing this for a while and it is something I just didn't want to believe in. My thoughts are not really formulated as of yet, but I am going to write them down here and hopefully somebody can make something out of them.
When we all began to read about standards and validating web pages, the thought alone just seems so cool. You could proudly place a button on your site (if you wish) proclaiming to the world that your site validates. Initially, every new page you added you made sure it validated. I mean getting pages to validate nowadays is a seemingly minimal task (in most cases) once you know the intricacies of the different DOCTYPES. Then your site begins to grow and you become a little more popular. You tend to focus on the content because you wish to provide your audience with something useful to read. You don't validate your pages anymore because either you think it takes too much time or you just think they will validate because the rest of them did.
Of course there is another reason. You simply just don't care if they validate or not. You can see the site in your browser just fine and nobody seems to be complaining. Then you get an email from someone and they tell you how your site is not valid. You want to ask them does the site look fine in their browser. Of course they will say yes because you tested the site in their browser. So what is the problem then? Popularity is a possibility.
We preach about standards and accessibility because we believe in them. The majority of us do. When we become popular we continue to preach, but we are placed under a bigger microscope. If your site doesn't validate then you are a hypocrite. That is what they think of you. You are a fraud. It stings when people speak of you that way so you lash back with your reasons why every single page doesn't have to validate. You come up with these reasons more for yourself though because you knew there was a time where you would be saying what they were saying.
When you become popular in this community you are either really right or really wrong. There are no in betweens it seems. Sometimes you get so cocky about things that when someone disagrees with you, you don't respond like a leader should, but as someone who simply wishes to squash the pest. For some reason just because you get more visitors than he does you begin to think maybe you do know a bit more of what you are talking about. Why should he challenge you? You have forgotten that it was the challenges that helped you grow in the first place. Without people challenging what you think and what you do, how will you grow?
I get caught up in the ego many times. I like to see people post a link to this site. I like to hear people throw their compliments my way. I also like for people to challenge me. If I am not doing something that I say I am doing, then let me know. If I say something you don't agree with, let me hear what you have to say. I am 23, but in this community I am barely 2. I might get more people to my site than you do, but that doesn't mean you should believe what I say. I will throw out my opinion for you to digest. I will give you my thoughts and ideas for your consideration. But in the end the only thing that matters is what you believe in.
I think I am just saying this because I could only imagine someone telling me my pages don't validate (I think the comments kill my page validation). If it was one page or even a couple, then fixing them is no problem. When there are a hundred pages to fix then it becomes another story.
I understand what Andy is going through. I understand what Keith meant in his comments. I also know that there are people who look up to these guys and think that they should have perfect pages. I know there are people who look at Zeldman's designs and always expect the next coming of Da Vinci. I know these guys can get tired of hearing people call them hypocrites. I know it can get tiring trying to live up to the expectations that you never wanted built for yourself. We all know that accessibility, standards, and validating pages are important. To sound like my mom, as long as everyone keeps trying their best, I have no complaints (unless of course you run an acessibility site that doesn't pass accessibility test ;).
If none of this makes sense I apologize. If only one part of it makes sense then I have done a good job (I tell myself).
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/122
The debates over at Andy's site seemed to lose sight of his queries at times, which is a shame because I think he's been made a victim of exactly what this article discusses - expectation. I read Budd, Zeldman etc not for the hard line, not to be told what to do, but for the lines of enquiry, the leads, the suggestions - I think that is most of us.
Mark Fusco suggests an accessibility statement, which I've never used on a personal site, but after reading posts on the subject for the last three days, I have to agree that this seems the true way to explain your personal design approach. Otherwise, it's obvious that the use of validation buttons is just going to be misinterpreted.
Colly (http://www.yah.org.uk)
I check my validation everyonce in a while if I think about it. Because I edit my site manually, it is more prone to errors that would cause it not to validate than, say, a site powered by MT. Even then, someone may accidentally forget to convert all the "&'s" to " 's" in links to an external site.
Like Mark said, everyone is going to fail at some point.
Jeremy Flint (http://www.jeremyflint.com)
I like what you have to say here about the importance of standards. Proponents of standards who preach the benefits while only using them partially, make a weaker case for convincing the masses. If Mr. X can't get his site to validate, then why criticize others for not using standards?
The best known proponents of standards rightly acknowledge that it is difficult to do *everything* with standards, because the browser support is so poor. So where is the line drawn? We are impressed by sites which make the best use of standards as is possible. Where is the line drawn? Do we accept that it's okay to be lazy about encoding ampersands sometimes?
For me, the reason is at the core of why we advocate standards: lower-cost production and consistency and, at the same time, you get basic accessibility for no additional cost. It's just good business and economics. Small errors in code that go unnoticed should be a function of QA, but generally speaking, close is okay... but we all know how easy it is to be dead-on, so errors seem like laziness. Standards are do not deserve religious furor, unless you are fighting (for good reason) to make use of the benefits that standards offer. Even then it takes extra work because we're held back by Microsoft's lack of support for the standards they helped create. So for all the folks who are nuts about validation, get over it. Don't dare ignore it, but at least it won't kill you. So why do some people need to attack caring web designers who do their best to "fight the good fight?"
If browsers were more reliable, discussions about validation would be asinine. It's the expression of frustration that is important, not the criticism over the designers ability to make use of standards. Until we have proper browser support, use of standards is based on (1) pushing programmers to produce better browsers, (2) making the most of the efficiencies to save money - plain economics.
It looks like Keith has been victimized by his dedication to economic benefits, and the painful reality that sometimes we have to make do for the short-term. All we can do is complain bitterly for being caught between the browser developers and the end-users until big-business can't ignore the economic benefits that are being missed.
http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archives/mother_of_all_css_hacks_the_table.php
Justin (http://bluealpha.com)
You are right. The comments are killing you're validation.
But this problem seems to have more to do with what appears be malformed XHTML. In this case, it looks like your template isn't accounting for the fact that MT is wrapping comments with the P tags.
Outside of any circumstances, I won't care too much about validation until the tools I use allow me to control the output 100%. This includes easier methods for what people can do when they write comments.
Since MT adds things, and writes out the files using it's own set of write rules, then I don't worry too much about it.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
It seems to me that people are complaining about stray characters coming up in posts and comments. This seems like a great application of a parser like SmartyPants ( http://daringfireball.net/projects/smartypants/ ). A parser that turns < into <, > into > and & into & (and removing any characters not in your character set) will make your pages validate.
David House
Andrei, it was just simple extra set of <p>'s in my template. Should be all better now.
Hey my pages validate people, what's wrong with your's? ;)
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
I feel you Paul. To a lot of newer standards advocates there is no happy medium. I'm all for standards, but yes there are some times where you have to go outside of what the W3C says to accomplish your goals (an example of this is embedding a quicktime movie into a browser; there is no standards-compliant way to get it successfully working). Keep your head up and don't listen to the hypocrite comments; you were once all-standards too (as was I), eventually those people calling you a hypocrite will run into the same scenario and will have to make their choices.
PS: Most people don't even realize that a lot of Zeldman's designs still use tables. He does what he needs to in order to get his work done fastest, which is what standards are best used for.
Vinnie (http://blog.vinniegarcia.com/)
Oh the pain of validation.
I'm going through a bit of an upheaval about that myself. I'm converting a system's layout from clunky tables to clean XHTML and CSS... but I have some severe time constraints in addressing the matter and hundreds and hundreds of pages to go through. So, a lot of the system forms are staying in their tables, however those stripped-down CSSed tables may be. But then there is the mess that is the programmer's coding... As it is, I'm still fighting a battle with time and my employers on getting the whole system as converted to XHTML/CSS as is possible.
In the end? It isn't perfect, but it is much better.
Alanna (http://www.virginmoistness.com)
I just want to say—Mark, that was an awesome analogy. It's exactly right.
I'm not going to repost what I said in Andy Budd's comments, but you just can't go turning standards-based design into an exclusive, elitist club. You can't excommunicate people for having a non-validating page now and then.
I still check mine now and then, but it's a plain fact that sometimes an error will slip in. If the only thing noticing the error is the validator, who cares?
I'm not diminishing the value of valid code. But mistakes are inevitable, especially in a perpetually-updated website run by someone who also lives in the real world. Sometimes I wonder if those people who chastise designers for occasionally invalid pages have jobs. After all, they have the time to validate not only their own site, but everyone else's as well. Not to mention read entries and post comments complaining about the invalidity.
Nobody should be complaining if the site author at least makes an attempt at validation. After all, it's a lot better than what we've had in the past, right?
Chris Vincent (http://dris.webhop.org/)
I think what really makes this a bit of an emotional issue is the simple fact that there are people out her who put their heart, soul and quite a bit of time into their sites and what they have to say only to have people (usually anonymous cowards) nit pick them on little details and call them out for not practicing what they preach.
These sites take time. They take thought and lots of effort. Web design and development is a huge, ever changing field with more information than any one person can keep track of.
People should be commended for even making the attempt at maintaining a frequently updated, vibrant and information-full site.
We don't get paid for this. Many independent Web publishers (like myself) have a full time job as well as side work. Understanding that I don't think it's too much to ask to let the odd spelling error or validation error slip.
I know it doesn't bother me if Andy or Scrivs or Zeldman or whoever don't validate all the time. If I don't care why the hell should it bother anyone else? I've read enough and seen enough of their work to know that they realize where their sites have shortcomings. It doesn't discredit them in any way, shape or form.
Web design isn't black and white, it's not yes or no. Nobody "gets the Web" all the time. Not you, not me. Nobody. There is no such thing as perfect. There are at least two sides to every design and development decision.
Parts of my site are invalid. I know this. I don't care that much. To make my site valid I'd have to turn of comments -- and as much as I want to sometimes, believe me -- part of what make my site worth my time is the conversations, arguments and learning that takes place there in comments.
The irony kills me. Oh well, back to work.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
Hey Keith, you used double-prime marks in your comment instead of actual quotes marks. I don't think I can credit you as a writer, typographer, or designer. This has ruined my respect for you, and I'm sure masses of others as well. I can no longer read anything of yours without gagging up some foreign object in tribute to The Ring.
Just kidding, of course. I hope this shows how ridiculous these complaints are. People seem to think they're saying, "Damn the man! Down with the establishment!" with their fists of defiance in the air. They don't seem to realize that designers, even the well-known ones, aren't establishments; they're individuals.
Chris Vincent (http://dris.webhop.org/)
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
Paul -
It is interesting that you use the term "preach" in this post to state your point. If you'll allow me to draw a parallel, without sounding too "preachy."
Men (and women) of the cloth (preachers, if you will) are often criticized and ridiculed in public when their public actions fall short of their spoken word. Congregations, as well are subject to the same. However, those who would chastise apparently do not understand that the point is that the continual endeavor to meet the “standard” and the recognition that at times, unfortunately everyone falls short.
Those who strive to create websites that validate, understand that – at times – because of one reason or another, your website is going to fall short (or sin, if you will).
Those designers who are mature, and understand the ever-changing beast known as technology and the complexities of it will understand that a site will not always validate, but will probably appreciate the fact that you are aware and constantly fighting the “good” fight. Others, who are less mature in the art, are going to criticize you.
Like many converts to religion, it is easy for a web designer to start posting his beliefs and accomplishments of standard attainment like so many bumper stickers. As such, it’s just as easy to criticize those who wear their beliefs on their sleeve the second they “screw up.”
Truth is, other designers are going to look at your heart (the code) and ascertain for themselves where you stand. Again, if they are mature, they will see that maybe you do not validate right now – but at least you are trying. Clients (at least from my experience) do not understand and probably do not care - Just as long as their site is ranked high in Google and is otherwise suiting their purpose.
What I’ve started doing is putting an accessibility statement in the footer which lets others who are going to look at the code (which they will, whether or not you have an “official” button from the W3C) and clients (who haven’t a clue what W3C stands for) know what we’re striving for.
BTW: I am using "you" in a generic sense to apply to the industry as a whole.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)