Validation - Opinions?

If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version (IE,
Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the site ranks well
for the keywords and topics do you think validation really matters? (I'm
feeling my way before poking towards a critique. Probably won't see that for
a while yet though.)

Galen

Galen wrote:

If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version (IE,
Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the site ranks well
for the keywords and topics do you think validation really matters? (I'm
feeling my way before poking towards a critique. Probably won't see that for
a while yet though.)


Galen
I think Validation is importent.

But it really depends on what you want too do with your site, if you
need too reach a wide range of browsers, on a host of different
platforms, includeing PDA and Mobile devices, then you need to make
sure you produce valid code.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Galen wrote:

If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version (IE,
Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the site ranks well
for the keywords and topics do you think validation really matters?

Valid code is easier to maintain.
Valid code is easier to find bugs in when they /do/ crop up.
New browsers and new versions of browsers will be released, and you
can't test in them in advance.
Valid code is less likely to get you insulted if you need to ask for
help.
Not everybody uses "any of four major browsers"

In news:MPG.1e39636e5bad6fd998982e (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11suk0393jbe306 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com
says...
If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version (IE,
Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the site
ranks well for the keywords and topics do you think validation
really matters? (I'm feeling my way before poking towards a
critique. Probably won't see that for a while yet though.)

Galen



Yes, it matters. First and foremost, valid code will help your site
maintain it's current look as new browsers are introduced.

Valid code will also help you find what you need quickly when updating
your sites..

A true web designer takes pride in all aspects of his work - including
the ability to write valid code.

But go ahead and ignore validation. 50% of my business is made up of
going into sites that others have created and fixing the code so that
it displays properly in all browsers, including AOL. You're the type
of designer that has created a very lucrative market for me.

Except I'm not the designer. I am the owner and noticed that it didn't
validate while checking the webmaster's work. <g>
--

In news:MPG.1e3b07fd49e2ba0a989830 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11t2e53h1noi93c (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com
says...
In news:MPG.1e39636e5bad6fd998982e (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11suk0393jbe306 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com
says...
If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version
(IE, Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the
site ranks well for the keywords and topics do you think validation
really matters? (I'm feeling my way before poking towards a
critique. Probably won't see that for a while yet though.)

Galen



Yes, it matters. First and foremost, valid code will help your site
maintain it's current look as new browsers are introduced.

Valid code will also help you find what you need quickly when
updating your sites..

A true web designer takes pride in all aspects of his work -
including the ability to write valid code.

But go ahead and ignore validation. 50% of my business is made up
of going into sites that others have created and fixing the code so
that it displays properly in all browsers, including AOL. You're
the type of designer that has created a very lucrative market for
me.

Except I'm not the designer. I am the owner and noticed that it
didn't validate while checking the webmaster's work. <g


Would you like a quote to fix the problems?

No thank you, not at this point at any rate. It's a low traffic site at this
point and not meant to be perfect I don't suppose. The whole layout's due to
change sometime soon anyhow and, according to the webmaster, will validate
at that point though it will look basically the same to the end-user as it's
converted to PHP. We get maybe 350 unique hits a day or so counting the
blog. I have no idea how many page impressions? Either way it's a low
traffic adventure. Thanks for offering though.

Galen
--

In news:MPG.1e3c1e2212df95eb989837 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11t2me0grlb6450 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com
says...
In news:MPG.1e3b07fd49e2ba0a989830 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11t2e53h1noi93c (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com
says...
In news:MPG.1e39636e5bad6fd998982e (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11suk0393jbe306 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com says...
If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version
(IE, Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the
site ranks well for the keywords and topics do you think
validation really matters? (I'm feeling my way before poking
towards a critique. Probably won't see that for a while yet
though.)

Galen



Yes, it matters. First and foremost, valid code will help your
site maintain it's current look as new browsers are introduced.

Valid code will also help you find what you need quickly when
updating your sites..

A true web designer takes pride in all aspects of his work -
including the ability to write valid code.

But go ahead and ignore validation. 50% of my business is made up
of going into sites that others have created and fixing the code
so that it displays properly in all browsers, including AOL.
You're the type of designer that has created a very lucrative
market for me.

Except I'm not the designer. I am the owner and noticed that it
didn't validate while checking the webmaster's work. <g


Would you like a quote to fix the problems?

No thank you, not at this point at any rate. It's a low traffic site
at this point and not meant to be perfect I don't suppose. The whole
layout's due to change sometime soon anyhow and, according to the
webmaster, will validate at that point though it will look basically
the same to the end-user as it's converted to PHP. We get maybe 350
unique hits a day or so counting the blog. I have no idea how many
page impressions? Either way it's a low traffic adventure. Thanks
for offering though.

Galen

Actually, I was joking. I would never solicit business in this forum.

Some advice - switching to PHP does not guarantee valid code. It
sounds like your designer either doesn't know how to hand code, or
has no idea how to fix the problems. Either way, a warning sign.

If you would like to share the URL, I could tell right away by what
program he/she used to create the page whether or not your web
designer knew what he/she was doing. In my experience, most
designers that use FrontPage, Dreamweaver or GoLive have no idea how
to make a page validate.

Before you WYSIWYG users flame me, remember that I stated earlier that
50% of my business is fixing those WYSIWYG sites because the original
designers were unable to do it themselves.

No worries - it's http://kgiii.info and, well, it doesn't validate at all.
It works, it's still in progress, and so I have no idea. I've looked at his
work, I've coded before but never with an application as those tend to make
bloated code and I tend to like simplistic things, but you're free to take a
look. I guess WYSIWYG editing can be good for people who don't really know
better but I prefer Notepad or maybe UltraEdit when I code anything -
including pages.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what the codes in? I think he uses HandyHTML or
something named something like that? He might even use another application,
I think he and I have spoken about 1st Page before. Of all the WYSIWYS-type
of HTML editors I didn't mind 1st Page too much because it was still coding
in plain text with a few add-ins to make life simpler.

Ah well, sure, take a gander if you'd like. Opinions wanted, enjoyed, and
will be utilized hopefully.

Galen
--

In news:MPG.1e3c77f02a101eda98983c (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11t57i11qic82a5 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com
says...
In news:MPG.1e3c1e2212df95eb989837 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11t2me0grlb6450 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com
says...
In news:MPG.1e3b07fd49e2ba0a989830 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11t2e53h1noi93c (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com says...
In news:MPG.1e39636e5bad6fd998982e (AT) newsgroups (DOT) comcast.net,
saz had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

In article <11suk0393jbe306 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
galennews (AT) gmail (DOT) com says...
If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version
(IE, Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the
site ranks well for the keywords and topics do you think
validation really matters? (I'm feeling my way before poking
towards a critique. Probably won't see that for a while yet
though.)

Galen



Yes, it matters. First and foremost, valid code will help your
site maintain it's current look as new browsers are introduced.

Valid code will also help you find what you need quickly when
updating your sites..

A true web designer takes pride in all aspects of his work -
including the ability to write valid code.

But go ahead and ignore validation. 50% of my business is made
up of going into sites that others have created and fixing the
code so that it displays properly in all browsers, including
AOL. You're the type of designer that has created a very
lucrative market for me.

Except I'm not the designer. I am the owner and noticed that it
didn't validate while checking the webmaster's work. <g


Would you like a quote to fix the problems?

No thank you, not at this point at any rate. It's a low traffic
site at this point and not meant to be perfect I don't suppose.
The whole layout's due to change sometime soon anyhow and,
according to the webmaster, will validate at that point though it
will look basically the same to the end-user as it's converted to
PHP. We get maybe 350 unique hits a day or so counting the blog. I
have no idea how many page impressions? Either way it's a low
traffic adventure. Thanks for offering though.

Galen

Actually, I was joking. I would never solicit business in this
forum.

Some advice - switching to PHP does not guarantee valid code. It
sounds like your designer either doesn't know how to hand code, or
has no idea how to fix the problems. Either way, a warning sign.

If you would like to share the URL, I could tell right away by what
program he/she used to create the page whether or not your web
designer knew what he/she was doing. In my experience, most
designers that use FrontPage, Dreamweaver or GoLive have no idea how
to make a page validate.

Before you WYSIWYG users flame me, remember that I stated earlier
that 50% of my business is fixing those WYSIWYG sites because the
original designers were unable to do it themselves.

No worries - it's http://kgiii.info and, well, it doesn't validate
at all. It works, it's still in progress, and so I have no idea.
I've looked at his work, I've coded before but never with an
application as those tend to make bloated code and I tend to like
simplistic things, but you're free to take a look. I guess WYSIWYG
editing can be good for people who don't really know better but I
prefer Notepad or maybe UltraEdit when I code anything - including
pages.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what the codes in? I think he uses HandyHTML or
something named something like that? He might even use another
application, I think he and I have spoken about 1st Page before. Of
all the WYSIWYS-type of HTML editors I didn't mind 1st Page too much
because it was still coding in plain text with a few add-ins to make
life simpler.

Ah well, sure, take a gander if you'd like. Opinions wanted,
enjoyed, and will be utilized hopefully.

Galen

It's hard to tell what he used. It doesn't look like FP or DW, but it
uses proprietary tags and allows poor HTML, so it is definitely
WYSIWYG.

This is a very simple design, and easily hand coded. The problems are
very, very easy to fix - this is just sloppy work.

IMO, your designer just has no idea how to fix the problems. If he
does know how to fix them you should insist he do it immediately, not
at the next redesign.

Out of curiosity, why are you switching to a PHP based site? I see no
compelling reason.

The reason being that I'll code a back-end content management facility to
ease updates to the site and to incorporate a search function that is sorely
lacking in the script that the host provided. I figure I'll do the layout
for the back-end and have him port it into the site. Being able to make
dynamic changes to the site, such as swapping in a new header.html to change
the left hand navigation bar, will make thing simpler and easier. As you can
see the site is due to contantly be growing. Having to only upload a single
file to swap in a new navigation bar will save a great deal of time and
lessen the chances of things being overlooked.

Well, I try to remain marginally incognito when I'm out in other newsgroups,
but I'm one of the Microsoft MVPs and the site's basic point is to provide
me with a collection of answers for people so that I needn't give them the
same cut/paste response every time but can, instead, send them to a site via
a link to directly answer their question. I doubt it will ever be very high
traffic though it seems to be growing in leaps and bounds. I suppose one
might imagine that I'd opt for ASP instead but, well, no... For hosting I
insist on a LAMP stack and don't have any need for Microsoft products as a
webserver.

It should be a fairly simple project to back-end a PHP CMS to drive the
site. The current process means the articles (now using InfoPath and
templates) are writen, forwarded via email or uploaded to a private
directory on the server, and at that point the webmaster downloads them and
converts them to HTML and imports them into the site in bi-monthly updates.
It's just a simple matter of it taking plain text (it's not that I can't do
web-language coding but that I don't really have time to actually) and
putting it into the proper folder with the proper headers and then *idealy*
having the navigation menu update itself. I've taken a look at some of the
CMS that's available - from blog scripts to full blown suites - and found
most suited to basic sites, wiki-style sites, or intranets.

It is a bit easier than I'd imagine. We don't really NEED to have it work in
Safari for instance. It does, I haven't the slightest idea HOW really,
render in IE, Netscape, Firefox, and Opera without any noticable problems.
It even renders fine on Vista with IE7. My guess is that it's just so basic
that there's really no room for error. I've even taken a gander at it in
OffByOne which is pretty darn strict. I've read his code and, well, I have
no idea what he's thinking. It seems to me that there wasn't any formal
training involved but the pay rate is, simply, unbeatable. It's seemingly
rather unconventional in the methods but amazingly enough it works. His main
talents seem to lie in image creation, he's a boarderline starving artist. I
expect that, within a year or so, we'll be in the low-end range and nearing
(if current projections stand true) the type of site where we have to
actually worry about things like traffic.

Design-wise it looks just fine and the work is good. The code is seemingly
pasta-based and so unconventional that, when I first started looking to see
how much it was going to cost me, in time, to rework the site, it took me
some time to really grasp what he was doing. Since it works, and I wonder if
maybe browsers have just become more forgiving, I've not had any reason to
actually attempt making any alterations.

I think I'll copy/paste some of the responses here and forward them to him
via email to see his thoughts on the subject, find out how difficult he
thinks it is to make it validate, and consider all the options.

Galen
--

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:38:25 -0500, Galen wrote:

If it renders fine in any of four major browsers in any version (IE,
Firefox, Netscape, Opera and who cares about AOL?) and the site ranks well
for the keywords and topics do you think validation really matters?

With standards-compliant code and a standards-compliant browser you can be
fairly sure about how it will display without needing to manually try/view
it for yourself. Over time, code will change and browsers will change but
as long as they're both standards-compliant, you know how it'll be
presented.

In contrast, when non-standards-compliant code or a
non-standards-compliant browser is introduced into the mix, then you'll
need to manually check each configuration to have any idea of how it
will display. All bets are off for browsers (current and future) you
haven't verified your site in. As code and browsers change this tedious
task of check/repair can take much time.

Hth,
--
Ben M.

To reply directly, remove all occurrences of 'remove' from the email address.