--=-/k9m+PYUaV+UN0SgbHOh
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 22:45, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> |2. Web develpment. I have yet to see a popular, and what most
> | folks would consider "nice" site that meets w3c standards.
> | Plug any of them into http://validator.w3.org/ and watch
> | it throw up all over your screen. Is it possible to meet
> | and pass the validator, yet keep the marketing dept. happy?
> | =20
> These are just 3 I checked off the top of my head. All of them do
> very large volumes of traffic and serve up a LOT of data, more than
> most company websites. Mostly it's a matter of priority not
> complexity. The above organizations are very committed to standards
> and so they make sure they prove it in how they act. Most companies
> could care less and are lazy so they just do what works and throw
> standards out the doors. It is certainly possible to make web pages
> that are usable (and nice looking) as well as functional that pass the
> validator.
I would agree with Derek on this - you need to decide what kind of
impression your website gives. Some of that is graphics, and some of
that is following the standards. Websites that are completely flash
look really nice, but I don't go to them.
If you want a mild sell on the strict complaince: I think I remember
when Carl spoke on Mozilla to PLUG he mentioned that when Mozilla sees
the strict header, it turns off all the workarrounds. This makes the
page render much faster. Everyone wants their website to render faster
right? Talk about the sort attention span of users today, and that you
need the there as fast as possible :)
--Ted
--=-/k9m+PYUaV+UN0SgbHOh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA/V2enLE335pRPGp0RAuDrAJ9sqlbff1CxuTYWvRv8ovUGJB4XOwCfb0nZ
Q72xBxgqEoGPF5KXY4rYut0=
=wSSd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-/k9m+PYUaV+UN0SgbHOh--
(text/plain)