Seriously, why is it so important to create valid sites (CSS/xhtml etc) other than conforming to some set standard?

 

Do end users really care? If a site works (across all browsers etc) and delivers what the user wants doesn't that automatically make it valid?

 

 

Is making valid sites really just a ploy to keep everybody inline?

Are we all just doomed to succumb to this 'new' rule for the internet?

 

 

Why are we being held ransom to validation?

You'll often find that if you don't validate your web pages, they will not load for all users and may have rendering issues. The whole idea of validation is not only to ensure clean code, but to ensure your webpage is accessible.

I am sure that the visitors that visit using a browser that doesn't show the site correctly care. So on that whole cross browser thing if you want to be seen as professional than you would have the site work on all browsers.

 

 

As for validation it isn't the be all and end all of coding, as you can get a really badly coded site to validate...now I am not saying you shouldn't validate your code as you still should. Valid code helps in so many ways but only if it is back up by clean semantic coding as well. Sorry to disappoint anyone but if you want your site to work well and be accessible to all and not just those using a browser, but also mobile devices and those who need screen readers then you will need to create sites correctly, not just a site that validates, but one that validates and is coded cleanly....if you don't take into account everyone's needs then you have no right to call yourself a professional web designer.

 

 

 

* I am using the term you as an everyone term and not an attack on anyone

validation is important to browsers. if a browser finds an error in your code it could mess-up the whole layout, displaying it to the user broken. also i think validation is important to make you see the correct code syntax. clean code means you are a good coder and your website will not brake in a browser

Standards are standards as they are across the whole field of computer science.

 

Computer technologies move quickly, things are invented, adopted, used and abused before anyone can really think about the consequences, the future or how this technology is going to work with that technology.

 

XML and thus HTML etc is a core example of this. The standards are applied far too late, but standards are necessary if we are every going to achieve really portable, interacting, inter-operating information systems.

 

HTML was invented and adopted, browsers appeared, everyone trying to make theirs the easiest to use, display the most code, have the most features etc etc. Microsoft as usual defined their own set of additional options to try to gain a monopoly. In hindsight, browsers which don't apply technology in a standard and uniform way were a bad idea, Validation is the come back, the way to get standards back. If you don't write standardised code you are opening yourself up to a whole host of problems further down the road, problems that none of us can imagine as the next gen technology isn't invented yet.

 

By writing code which validates, and is thus standardised you aren't just being a conformist. You are using the proper rules and techniques and writing code which is written as it should be, not taking advantage of the quirks of various browsers etc. Needless to say, if everyone refused to adhere to standards, we'd be in a pickle, nothing would work with everything. Can you imagine turning up to youtube or google and having to choose "Youtube for IE5 Mac" or "Google for Opera Wii". The web would be a mess. Normally it takes a war to get technology to advance like the web has, for once we're managing it peacefully

 

-------

 

On a real tangent but the same topic, I don't think many web designers/developers realise quite how far reaching this problem is and how fundamental and important standards, and therefore validation really are. Valid code is en vogue now, but in recent years SO many systems have been built using non-standard code. XML has become a default format for storing info, but because there is no default way to represent, for example, a person, every system was built differently. The effect of this has been catastrophic and cost millions. Think trying to share information about terrorists between countries, or even, think trying to find Maddy. Ok so you writing your portfolio using valid code won't help there, but being a developer/designer who uses standards by default will put pressure on everyone else to do the same. Perhaps I sound a bit crazy, but my point is as valid as validation itself

Standards are a widely adopted this in nearly every business, not just web design.

 

Imagine if your local plumber did a job at your home and left a couple of loose fittings which caused leaks - you wouldn't be very pleased. A good plumber will follow a set of standards to make sure his/her work is of a certain quality.

Seriously, why is it so important to create valid sites (CSS/xhtml etc) other than conforming to some set standard?

 

Do end users really care? If a site works (across all browsers etc) and delivers what the user wants doesn't that automatically make it valid?

Is making valid sites really just a ploy to keep everybody inline?

Are we all just doomed to succumb to this 'new' rule for the internet?

Why are we being held ransom to validation?

 

You don't have to adhere to standards, but in the long run it's for our benefit, to establish a stationary target when developing sites.

The underlying reason is not to thwart the liberty of web designers - but ultimately to free us from the whims of warring browser developers, which began with Netscape/IE. By adhering to and supporting the standards movement, we will (hopefully) be freed from the problems of cross browser development inflicted on us by browser manufacturers.

Having validated website code means that you are less likely to have cross-browser issues and I guess it also shows some level of competancy.

 

The W3C standards recommended. They are not essential, but it gives coders guidelines as to what is good practice and what is not.

@Thomas: validation does not equal accessibility.

 

They're both valid goals, but for different reasons and with different ways of getting there.

 

IMHO validation is useful because it increases the chances of your site still working when a new browser release comes out. But people should make up their own mind whether they should validate their sites. If you weigh up the pros, cons and knock-on effects, and decide you should validate, great. If you decide it's not important for a particular project, fine. Just be informed.

Imagine if your local plumber did a job at your home and left a couple of loose fittings which caused leaks - you wouldn't be very pleased. A good plumber will follow a set of standards to make sure his/her work is of a certain quality.

And if it doesn't leak but later breaks again, the next plumber will be able to find his way better to the issue if the previous work was done as it should have been done, by the standards.

Can you imagine turning up to youtube or google and having to choose "Youtube for IE5 Mac" or "Google for Opera Wii". T

 

Excellent post Eris and some excellent points from others as well.

 

Have to pick up on the above quote though, why not disable JavaScript and load up YouTube and get NO tube. Funny that.

 

One that interests me is the <embed> tag - what a hoot if this stops working in IE25 - at last I'll be able to prove to everyone who thinks streaming Flash is easy that it is but it won't work!

 

And if it doesn't leak but later breaks again, the next plumber will be able to find his way better to the issue if the previous work was done as it should have been done, by the standards.

 

Brilliant!

Brilliant!

 

Plus all the new plumber's parts will fit perfectly because they follow the same standards as the previous plumber's.

I bet the plumber that does a great job and also follows the standards will charge you more gets more money too

And if it doesn't leak but later breaks again, the next plumber will be able to find his way better to the issue if the previous work was done as it should have been done, by the standards.

 

Totally Agree!

 

Plus all the new plumber's parts will fit perfectly because they follow the same standards as the previous plumber's.

 

Exactly.

I find validating helps locate typos etc., which is useful. Id rather the parser do that than spend an hour or so doing it myself.

 

However, it might be worth asking, who are the W3C?

However, it might be worth asking, who are the W3C?

 

Are you serious?!

 

Back to the question. Has anybody mentioned that search engines care... a lot??

Good to hear everybody's opinion on this - sometimes I think people just blindly follow rules without questioning why they're following them

 

I understand the need for the standards (and try my best to get close to validated sites...) - but the lack of rules is what makes the 'net such a marvelous tool

Are you serious?!

 

Back to the question. Has anybody mentioned that search engines care... a lot??

 

 

Standards for whom. That needs to be asked. Where does the W3C want to take us? OK Validation does seem rather innocuous but where does it fit into their greater goal.

 

The web was invented by a hacker who was banned from using computers at Cambridge university because he was misusing them. Is that why the web is so open?

Seriously, why is it so important to create valid sites (CSS/xhtml etc) other than conforming to some set standard?

 

I take it you have not heard of WCAG (Accessibility Guidelines), in short, if your pages don't validate you will easily be breaking accesibility guidlines, making your website inacessible to many.

 

spot on shaun,

Back to the question. Has anybody mentioned that search engines care... a lot??

...a little somthing to give to the encoragement to comply is the simple fact that spiders read the code, why make it difficult for them to scan your site.

I take it you have not heard of WCAG (Accessibility Guidelines), in short, if your pages don't validate you will easily be breaking accesibility guidlines, making your website inacessible to many.

 

spot on shaun, ...a little somthing to give to the encoragement to comply is the simple fact that spiders read the code, why make it difficult for them to scan your site.

 

 

I don´t want to make it difficult for people to read web pages.

 

We also certainly don´t want Bill Gates running the W3C. We require the ethics of the hacker - more people like Nicolas Negroponte ? I’m sure good old bill has standards and I bet he gets his coders to validate but we all now know slime ball tactics to control the internet has resulted in people muffling their ears to the sound of the windows start up jingle.

 

 

Same goes for robots. If we are not careful the bots will be picking the earwax out of your ears to see if the beats of a notoriously hideous jingle have left their impressions firmly enough, if not you get penalised.

 

 

If the W3C is for the people Id be very surprised.

I think it's because some people just feel uneasy with the parse errors or pursuing perfection.