Webstandards, Yay or Nay?

Page: 1 2
ID:186669
 
May 23 2005, 1:43 pm
When designing web pages, I always use the current web webstandards. As in, doing all my HTML tags in lower case, closing all tags in the correct order. Example:
Using this:
<p><h3>Stuff here</h3></p>

Not this:
<p><h3>Stuff here</p><h3>


And closing all tags, and confirming the doctype and so on.

I think everyone should use the webstandards when designing websites because it makes sites easyer to read, and navigate through the source.

And I also use CSS for my layouts because it makes sites smaller and render faster.

What are your opinions on this?
May 23 2005, 1:59 pm
Smoko wrote:
When designing web pages, I always use the current web webstandards. As in, doing all my HTML tags in lower case, closing all tags in the correct order.

That's not just a current standard; that's the only right way to do it. Overlapping tags rather than nesting them is always and forever wrong.

As for case, it doesn't really matter with HTML; HTML is not case-sensitive.

However, I would like to strangle the idiot who started doing this:
<font color = red>Hey, I can screw up HTML!
That's supposed to say color=red instead!</font>


I don't know why people started putting spaces between attributes and values, but that's always wrong too.

Lummox JR
May 23 2005, 2:07 pm
In response to Lummox JR
You should use CSS for all your design stuff any way.
May 23 2005, 2:24 pm
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
However, I would like to strangle the idiot who started doing this:
<font color = red>Hey, I can screw up HTML!
> That's supposed to say color=red instead!</font>

I don't know why people started putting spaces between attributes and values, but that's always wrong too.

Lummox JR

Shouldnt it be color="red".
May 23 2005, 3:01 pm
In response to Smoko
But always design the page so that it will work even if CSS is disabled. Some pages do not and are therefore inaccessible to users.

Also, misuse of CSS is pretty rampant, such as using bugs or flaws for formatting. That's a bad idea.
May 23 2005, 4:00 pm
In response to Jmurph
Jmurph wrote:
But always design the page so that it will work even if CSS is disabled. Some pages do not and are therefore inaccessible to users.

Redoing everything done in CSS with HTML kind of ruins the point of CSS. I say that if a user's browser can't support CSS, or the user has CSS disabled, well, then it's their fault!

Also, misuse of CSS is pretty rampant, such as using bugs or flaws for formatting. That's a bad idea.

Of course misuse is a bad idea! Misuse of anything is generally a bad idea. That, however, doesn't mean that CSS is a bad idea. =P
May 23 2005, 4:03 pm
Smoko wrote:
What are your opinions on this?

Web standards rule! They make things easier on anybody reading the source of your webpage, they make things easier on web browsers, and finally, they make things easier on the web site developer(s), allowing them to easily add new content, to port their page into different formats, and to easily send information back and forth. What's not to like about web standards? =P
May 23 2005, 4:12 pm
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
As for case, it doesn't really matter with HTML; HTML is not case-sensitive.

To clarify, with HTML 4.01, the standard is actually to capitalize element names, and to put attributes in lowercase. With XHTML, however, which is meant to replace HTML, the standard says that both elements and attributes should be typed in lowercase.
May 23 2005, 4:52 pm
In response to Jmurph
Jmurph wrote:
But always design the page so that it will work even if CSS is disabled. Some pages do not and are therefore inaccessible to users.

Also, misuse of CSS is pretty rampant, such as using bugs or flaws for formatting. That's a bad idea.

If your going to design the page so people who cant view CSS can get the formatting and design, why use CSS at all?

And people can misuse CSS as bad as they can formatting the site with attribute tags. -_-

As for IE's bad rendering engine, if people what to veiw a site the way it was made to be seen, they should compline to microsoft to fix it, not the website creator.
May 23 2005, 9:23 pm
In response to Infernal dragon
Infernal dragon wrote:
Shouldnt it be color="red".

Heh, owned. ;)


On topic, I try and use XHTML whenever I can...which is usually when fitting flash into HTML pages. I don't normally do a lot of HTML, but I do my part when I do.
an' all dat.
May 24 2005, 5:35 am
In response to Smoko
Smoko wrote:
Jmurph wrote:
But always design the page so that it will work even if CSS is disabled. Some pages do not and are therefore inaccessible to users.

Also, misuse of CSS is pretty rampant, such as using bugs or flaws for formatting. That's a bad idea.

If your going to design the page so people who cant view CSS can get the formatting and design, why use CSS at all?

I don't think he meant it should look the same without CSS, just that you should at least be able to read and navigate it.
May 24 2005, 8:01 am
In response to Flick
Exactly. Not all browsers can display CSS content (it is not the web standard- HTML is). Additionally, some users may have accessibility issues such as poor vision, etc. and need to override certain elements. If you deny content access based on these, you stand to lose viewers for no good reason.

Remember, your page can be as pretty as you want, but it all breaks down to communicating information.
May 24 2005, 8:12 am
In response to Flick
Flick wrote:
I don't think he meant it should look the same without CSS, just that you should at least be able to read and navigate it.

As long as the web developer uses HTML to display content, and uses CSS for the more presentational elements of the site, then that will never be a problem.
May 24 2005, 8:45 am (Edited on May 24 2005, 9:00 am)
Well, I always do something like this:
<HTML>

<HEAD>
<TITLE>blah</TITLE>
</HEAD>

<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=+2 FACE="Verdana" COLOR="Blue">blah blah blah</FONT></P>
</BODY>

</HTML>

I always close the tags in the correct order, but it doesn't really make a difference what case its in. I just find it easier to capitalize.
[EDIT]I seperate each section just because I consider it easier to read. I normally do that with each new section.
May 24 2005, 9:05 am
In response to Wizkidd0123
I don't do web design, I know the basics, but I don't care about it. But if I did, I'd probably use CSS just because it is more presentable, in my oppinion. But, as Jmurph pointed out, there are people out there who would prefer to see html than CSS because of vision impairment, their browser doesn't support it, etc.
The whole point in putting up a website is to make people go to it. Why would you want to do something that could mean less people will go see it?
May 24 2005, 9:14 am
In response to Jamesburrow
Jamesburrow wrote:
I don't do web design, I know the basics, but I don't care about it. But if I did, I'd probably use CSS just because it is more presentable, in my oppinion.

It isn't necessarily that CSS has a higher capability to makes things look better than HTML does, but that it's a whole lot easier and more organized to use CSS for the presentational elements of a website than it is to use HTML.

But, as Jmurph pointed out, there are people out there who would prefer to see html than CSS because of vision impairment,

That makes no sense. If they can't see a website whose presentational elements were done in CSS, then they won't be able to see the same website, but with the presentational elements done in HTML instead.

their browser doesn't support it, etc.

If their browser doesn't support it, then they need to go get a better browser!

The whole point in putting up a website is to make people go to it. Why would you want to do something that could mean less people will go see it?

Trying to cater to the absolutely tiny group of people whose browsers don't support CSS is like trying to make your state-of-the-art computer game compatible with the Commodore 64.
May 24 2005, 11:53 am
In response to Wizkidd0123
Wizkidd0123 wrote:
their browser doesn't support it, etc.

If their browser doesn't support it, then they need to go get a better browser!


I agree, even most TEXT-BASED browsers have CSS support so the pages show up like they should in the console if they use CSS over HTML. In fact, I don't know of any browser that's been updated in the past three years that doesn't have CSS support. Even the most basic of browsers have some kind of CSS support, but it's not always the same rendering, same as HTML.
May 24 2005, 12:11 pm
In response to Wizkidd0123
Wizkidd0123 wrote:
their browser doesn't support it, etc.

If their browser doesn't support it, then they need to go get a better browser!

Yeah but not everyone can take that road. Take the Coca-cola website. They get a lot of traffic from people who barely know how to operate a computer. So the idea of telling them to go out and get a new browser is just rediculous.
May 24 2005, 12:16 pm
In response to DarkView
Netscape 4 supports a good portion of CSS. I don't think you'll find many people using browsers older than that. :P
May 24 2005, 12:46 pm
In response to Nadrew
Nadrew wrote:
I agree, even most TEXT-BASED browsers have CSS support so the pages show up like they should in the console if they use CSS over HTML. In fact, I don't know of any browser that's been updated in the past three years that doesn't have CSS support. Even the most basic of browsers have some kind of CSS support, but it's not always the same rendering, same as HTML.

LinksBoks for the xbox doesnt support CSS, but it stil does the job nicly.

DarkView wrote:
Yeah but not everyone can take that road. Take the Coca-cola website. They get a lot of traffic from people who barely know how to operate a computer. So the idea of telling them to go out and get a new browser is just rediculous.

People can still navigate sites with out any styling, it just looks bad.
Page: 1 2