-
HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
In a recent thread that strayed off topic and ended with Remi highlighting errors within Xtreme generated script and John (Rayner) pooh-poohing the need for strict script adherence, I would be interested in members views on this matter.
From the outset I'll admit I avoid html wherever possible. I create my sites almost exclusively in Flash to avoid such matters.
My own personal view is that the greatest perpetrators of html anomalies are the browser software creators themselves and this has led to the need for this evangelistic validation of your html.
Beyond this, a lot of this validation code is to do with accessibility which is admirable but in a commercial world not always practicable. Often the devil is in the detail and the final part of achieving this accessibility can become an additional 40% of the build.
Who is going to pay for this extra work? The Client? You?
As a small example: If you run your brand new stonking site through "validation_r_us" or such similar site it often comes up with such errors as missing ALT tags.
Oh my, oh me, what am I to do, I wont get my site accredited with WC3 or whoever and have that snazzy little logo of theirs.
ALT tags are meant to give visitors who can't view an image an alternative textual information re that image.
So now, having noted the missing ALT tags, I add the ALT tag to every image on my site ALT = "bumf".
I rerun my site through "validation_r_us" and hey presto I pass.
Over to you folks .........
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Egg Bramhill
My own personal view is that the greatest perpetrators of html anomalies are the browser software creators themselves and this has led to the need for this evangelistic validation of your html.
This is not just your personal view - it's the truth :)
HTML validators shouldn't be taken too strictly. They're good for checking your HTML for errors that you want to and should correct. But You shouldn't aim to have your code 100% valid, because this will give practical problems which wouldn't exist if you wouldn't be so rigid in checking your code.
I've come across certain errors in the past and really wanted to solve them in order to place that neat little W3C-valid-icon-thingy on my webpage. But I found that there was really not much I could do: in trying to solve the errors, the page wouldn't render correctly in IE or other browsers (reason = what you pointed out above).
It's not until recently that I've become more flexible with the HTML validator and only fixed the errors that give the users (let's face it, it's all about the users) the wrong results when viewing the page. The rest of the "errors" are invisible to 99.999%, if not all, of the users. Screw teh HTML-Valid-icon.
E.g. the img alt="..." is only necessary in emergency situations where the image doesn't load and you wanna give the user an idea of what the image was supposed to display. The thing is that in being flexible, it means you need to make up your own mind about how much flexible you want to be: do (or should) you really care about the users who can't see the image because it didn't load properly or do you think these users can do without it? How crucial do you find this image is to your webpage etc.? Flexibility differs per person.
HTML-valid code is not practical code. Don't be a cyborg. Be more flexible. Correct your HTML code for the users, not because you want a W3C icon on your page :)
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
If the HTML validation is to support accessability, I recommend using some of the accessability features to test it for yourself.
Those Alt tags are sometimes more distracting than helpful when using a text reader.
A beautiful layout can make the site very difficult for someone using magnification to read the text.
Try turning off display of images in your browser and see how those style sheets render your site. Or how a text reader conveys the information.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Producing a correct and quality HTML code has nothing to do with being evangelistic. The reason for that is also not the W3C logo on your page.
Read the following text and learn about the true reasons:
btw: If you want to produce quality work, you has to know the rules to produce it. For creating a webside this means at least using correct HTML. I don't say, that it's always possible to code a webpage 100% HTML conform, but you shouldn't ignore the rules at all - unless "quality work" is not your thing or you are ignorant to people with disabilities (in my eyes they earns a proof of respect).
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
If the Internet and the Web had to wait on complying with W3C, 99.9 percent of the Web or the Internet wouldn't exist today.
W3C is guidance not the rule.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
welcome back james :)
if you provide a public service for example, then you need accessibility and validation is important, so as not to disenfranchise.
if you simply sell stuff, then its your marketing decision as to how far you go - who you wish to reach.
and if you simply put stuff up for people to look at, then you do your own thing period.
just my 2 bobs worth as they say.....
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
W3C is guidance not the rule.
- HTML is a markup language.
- Each language has a syntax with rules to follow them.
- HTML is standardized by the W3C and there exists some different HTML versions you can use for your projects.
- Some of the elements/structures of a HTML page are only "recommendations" from the W3C. Sometimes you "must" follow them, sometimes you "should" or it's only "recommended" or "optional". If you don't follow the constraints of their specifications, your HTML page is not valid HTML (then you break the rules and not a guidance). Sometimes there could be some good reasons to break the rules, but there is a difference if you know the rules and differ in some small points or if you don't know the rules or choose to ignore them.
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
java is not html nor governed by W3C.
PhP is not html nor governed by W3C.
SQL is not html nor governed by W3C.
SVG is not html nor governed by W3C.
FLASH Generated Site is not html nor governed by W3C.
Strict adherence to XML, HTML is a pipe dream and will always be ignored by innovators.
Making a Web page is an individual issue unless you work for some company or client that requires strict compliance.
If you are not restricted by employment, W3C is just three letters that is mostly meaningless to most people who do Web Work.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Interesting points of view!
I've no quibble about making sites open to ALL viewers and I understand the ideal behind such motives, at the same time I find drivel like this below infuriating ( From a validation engine) :
Quote:
1.1 Validate that the alt text does not use the word image When users add alternative text to an image they tend to add the word "Image" when it really says nothing about the image, but describes the object versus the meaning of the object. This check will fail a page for the use of the word image in the alternative text.
Taking Remi's point:
Quote:
.... but there is a difference if you know the rules and differ in some small points or if you don't know the rules or choose to ignore them.
99% of the web creators have no idea of the rules (Me included and Who's rules)
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
java is not html nor governed by W3C.
PhP is not html nor governed by W3C.
SQL is not html nor governed by W3C.
SVG is not html nor governed by W3C.
FLASH Generated Site is not html nor governed by W3C.
Sorry James, but I don't understand the logic behind your list. Java and PHP are programming languages. SQL is a computer language designed for the retrieval and management of data in relational database management systems, database schema creation and modification, and database object access control management. SVG is a XML markup language for describing two-dimensional vector graphics and animations. Flash is the better alternative of SVG together with ActionScript.
You can output HTML with programming languages like Java or PHP, but if you do that, you has to play with the rules of the HTML specification, which is maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) since 1996.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
Strict adherence to XML, HTML is a pipe dream and will always be ignored by innovators. ...W3C is just three letters that is mostly meaningless to most people who do Web Work.
I do not agree.
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
"For our Web developers, the No. 1 issue we see in our research is cross-browser compatibility," said Eric Ott, group product manager for Dreamweaver at Macromedia. "The browsers start off with standards but then build on top of that with their own bells and whistles. So developers pull their hair out trying to make things work in both browsers.
Macromedia, for example, said that 84 percent of its Dreamweaver users test their sites for Netscape's 4.x browsers, followed by 73 percent testing for IE 5.5. Sixty-six percent test for IE 5.0, 47 percent for IE 4.x, and 43 percent for Netscape 6.
But now the authoring tools do the time-consuming work, automatically spitting out code that renders properly on whatever browser a visitor might have. With authoring tools automating that ungrateful work, what's the point of Web standards?
Note that the Java SOAPElement is actually a subclass of Element )
SVG is a vector graphics format for the Web, developed by the W3C and has largely failed to be implemented.
The W3C's Xquery 1.0 moved to Proposed Recommendation status in November, bringing the prospect of a SQL-like approach to XML data querying one step closer.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Excuse me James, but the quotiation you found is from 2001 and we live in the year 2007. Furthermore the quotation is incomplete and shows a wrong picture. The whole quotation goes:
"For our Web developers, the No. 1 issue we see in our research is cross-browser compatibility," said Eric Ott, group product manager for Dreamweaver at Macromedia. "The browsers start off with standards but then build on top of that with their own bells and whistles. So developers pull their hair out trying to make things work in both browsers. It's really hard to get things to work across all the browsers in every environment, so moving towards standards is going to make things a lot easier for us."
(source: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-269804.html from July 11, 2001).
The first part of what Eric Ott said was a convenient excuse, why the old tools at Macromedia (since 2005 Adobe) didn't wrote standard HTML code in some cases. But the last sentence shows the insight, that the Browser producers understand, what all the Webdevelopers has demanded since them: moving towards HTML standards.
But as I said, this discussion is from 2001. In the year 2007 nobody uses Netscape 4.0 anymore (if you know one, you should tell him/her something about the security holes in this old browser).
Beside the discussions in the past, the fact remains that we have never had more Webdesigner who understand the modern concepts with HTML/CSS and the necessary to produce valid HTML pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
SVG is a vector graphics format for the Web, developed by the W3C and has largely failed to be implemented.
The W3C's Xquery 1.0 moved to Proposed Recommendation status in November, bringing the prospect of a SQL-like approach to XML data querying one step closer.
I don't understand the relation to our discussion. I thought, this discussion is about HTML Markup Validation?
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
That's right, you don't understand.
There is more to Web Authoring than being W3C compliant.
There is more to Web Authoring than HTML Markup.
With auto-generating tool, the last thing a productive person needs to meet deadlines is to futz around W3C compliance. It's pretty much an unsaddled horse no one wants to ride.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
There is more to Web Authoring than being W3C compliant.
There is more to Web Authoring than HTML Markup.
Sure, but this discussion was about HTML Markup Validation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
With auto-generating tool, the last thing a productive person needs to meet deadlines is to futz around W3C compliance.
I prefer to use auto-generating tools which produce valid HTML code. Another solution is to use a Content Management System and let a Webdesigner develop a valid HTML/CSS template. It's a common division of responsibilites in modern Web projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
It's pretty much an unsaddled horse no one wants to ride.
I disagree, again.
Remi
PS: We should move this discussion to the "Site design and publishing" forum. It's an important discussion and I'm sure, other Webdesigner are interested in leaving one or more additional comments.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
remi
Sure, but this discussion was about HTML Markup Validation.Remi
Okay, but if you talk about car paint and exclude factors that affect it, age, weather, storms and etc; you have discussed the purity of car paint but failed to address issues that exist in the reality of the real world.
You would exclude primers that underlay the paint, protective covering and of course design that goes on top of the paint.
When a person sees a Web page or a painted Car, they will probably not be very impressed with the red it is painted as much as the added ingredients that make it shiny or the detailing of the air brush design that make it stand out.
HTML Markup compliances is the equivalent of watching paint dry and then talking about it after it dries.
If you want to make a compliant site for those with special needs, then by all means do it.
However, Bozo the Fanatical who makes Flash Cartoons could care less about W3C compliance and HTML Markup. He'd rather put on a red rubber nose and make people laugh than bore them to death.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
I'd broadly agree with what Remi has said. Nobody is particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of writing syntactically correct html, but it's important that we do so and not be sloppy. If we don't do this we are relying on browsers interpreting our invalid markup the way we think they should, rather than the way they actually might.
There's no correlation between producing valid markup and styfling innovation.
Paul
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pauland
I'd broadly agree with what Remi has said. Nobody is particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of writing syntactically correct html, but it's important that we do so and not be sloppy. If we don't do this we are relying on browsers interpreting our invalid markup the way we think they should, rather than the way they actually might.
There's no correlation between producing valid markup and styfling innovation.
Paul
Perhaps the advent of the one-world browser along with the one-world computer then?
Rubber Stamping is compliant with each stamp pressed on paper, but it's utility makes it limited and boring.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
...make people laugh than bore them to death.
your comments have been noted
btw: Welcome back, James.
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
Perhaps the advent of the one-world browser along with the one-world computer then?
Rubber Stamping is compliant with each stamp pressed on paper, but it's utility makes it limited and boring.
I don't mind browsers being innovative and adding new features, but I really wish that if they do support a particular feature that they do it in a way consistent across all browsers.
It's a lack of consistency that makes CSS layouts particularly challenging.
Innovation in page design has nothing to do with compliant html. Boring pages have no relationship to compliant markup, though gambling on browser interpretation certainly does with non-compliant pages.
If you want to keep going on about rubber stamps, there must be thousands of different rubber stamp designs out there, so even in terms of rubber stamps, innovation is rife.
Paul
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pauland
I
If you want to keep going on about rubber stamps, there must be thousands of different rubber stamp designs out there, so even in terms of rubber stamps, innovation is rife.
Paul
But only one with W3C on it.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pauland
Boring pages have no relationship to compliant markup
Paul is right. The new techniques offers much more possibilities to design different websites.
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
But only one with W3C on it.
LOL, perhaps, but there are millions of pages with that stamp, and they are all different..
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pauland
LOL, perhaps, but there are millions of pages with that stamp, and they are all different..
Lemons are all different too, but they all have similar tastes. :)
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamesmc
Lemons are all different too, but they all have similar tastes. :)
If all you are seeing on the web is lemons, maybe it's time to go back exclusively to newspapers and old-style print. World Wide Web - who needs it?
That is tongue-in-cheek, of course. Obviously you like the WWW, because it gives you this great website, dedicated to your favorite program. It wouldn't exist without many different standards (computer, monitor, packet structure, bit alignment, power, production, quality, and many others...), and the html behind this site probably aims to meet the W3C standards as much as possible.
Best wishes,
David
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Egg Bramhill
I've no quibble about making sites open to ALL viewers and I understand the ideal behind such motives, at the same time I find drivel like this below infuriating ( From a validation engine) :
Quote:
1.1 Validate that the alt text does not use the word image When users add alternative text to an image they tend to add the word "Image" when it really says nothing about the image, but describes the object versus the meaning of the object. This check will fail a page for the use of the word image in the alternative text.
Ok, let's assume you are blind and use a braille output or a visually impaired user, who use speech synthesizers. You visit a new website and you know nothing about the content of this page. Your braille output or speech synthesizer isn't able to display images. For such users it's not possible to understand the structure of a webpage with tons of tables and 1px images like you'll find in old-fashioned HTML layout.
Another example: lets assume this webpage contains a more modern HTML code without table tag soup. But the next problem is, that the Webdesigner has inserted all the images without a ALT text. Without these ALT texts your output device isn't able to say something about the images and you don't know, if these images are only logos, decorating pictures for headings or paragraphs or important menu items to navigate through the website.
Third example: Our Webdesigner knows the HTML 4.01 specification and therefore he has completed the images with a ALT text. But the problem is, the Webdesigner was out of clever descriptions for all the images on his page and therefore he has inserted the lapidary text "image" as ALT text to all his images. Do you think, it's helpful to the visitors with braille output or text to speech output, if each image description contains of the same text "image"?
So, what's the solution for all these problems? Being lazy and forget all this stuff? Certainly not. Instead, there are helpful recommendations from the W3C how to specify ALT text:
"While alternate text may be very helpful, it must be handled with care. Authors should observe the following guidelines:
- Do not specify irrelevant alternate text when including images intended to format a page, for instance, alt="red ball" would be inappropriate for an image that adds a red ball for decorating a heading or paragraph. In such cases, the alternate text should be the empty string (""). Authors are in any case advised to avoid using images to format pages; style sheets should be used instead.
- Do not specify meaningless alternate text (e.g., "dummy text"). Not only will this frustrate users, it will slow down user agents that must convert text to speech or braille output.
" (source: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/stru....html#adef-alt)
Back to your question, Egg: It seems to be a very good validation engine, which reminds you to insert meaningful ALT text. In my eyes, the validation engines are helpful tools to enhance the quality of a website.
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Enabling those with special needs is noteworthy and most likely to be applied by Corporate, Business or Government Websites.
The Knights of Bocephus Website that sells spears, knives and other implements of war - probably not very interested in complying with the special needs standard.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Good day everyone.
I see valid points on both sides. I do have to say that I agree with Egg when he puts some of the inconsistencies with HTML in the browser creators laps.
I've been working with HTML since the mid 90's and although compatibility has gotten so much better between browsers, there are still times where weird issues crop up. I do have to say it's not so much with HTML anymore though. Most of my hair pulling is over CSS and such. Also, perhaps some blame can be cast toward the middle-tier languages like PHP, Coldfusion, ASPx etc. and the HTML they create on the fly. There are many sites not within the static realm these days.
Now, to agree with Jamesmc on some points, I don't work with HTML on a one size fits all, even though the W3C specs would like that, unless I'm working with a demographic where that's important, like being Bobby compliant, etc. I develop toward the demographic using the site. If the site is for the elderly, I'm concerned what large fonts will do. If the site will be used for PDA's, I want it look awesome on a handheld. A corporate Intranet, what's the company's browser of choice? Etc.
I'm frankly more worried about the Javascript, CSS etc., anymore than I am HTML.
At least this we aren't arguing the Mac PC thing again! :D
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Hi again,
Remi, as I said I've no objection to the accessibility thing, I believe it's admirable. The point I'm trying to make is that to achieve this WC3 accreditation it can be done by 'cheating'. All I need to do is ensure there's an Alt tag that's meaningless (and doesn't include the word "image").
But beyond this my original point was that you're a web designer, a client approaches you for a site and you put in a quote twice that of your competitors. The client asks why? You state that all your sites are WC3 compliant, guaranteed. Is the client concerned? Is he going to pay that extra money for your site or less for your competitors. I go out and buy a daily newspaper. It comes with fixed text, no braille or speech synthesiser. Don't you think it's time that these publishers were made to make their publications accessible to all? And at what price to newspaper costs?
Back to websites. There seems to be argument that because you can do something (in this case accessibility) you must do it. My wife suffers from a severe tremor of the limbs and face, so she finds it impossible to use a mouse or keyboard. She could use a keypad similar to the large button telephone she has to use. I could create my Flash sites with speech that says "For contact details" press 1, "for products press 2" etc. but who's going to pay for this extra development costs? The client ... no way.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
For what it's worth, the only thing I don't like about W3C is that it doesn't validate well if you use Javascript. Do the tricks on this page, and the validators barf over them, but the browsers parse them correctly. Anyone know a better way to do everything those tricks accomplish?
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Hi Egg,
I understand your points and agree with you, that it's possible to cheat, but as I said before, not the W3C logo on a webpage is important, but to follow the motives behind the most important rules within the HTML specifications.
The problem is, we have to distinguish two steps in this discussion:
The first step is, to produce valid HTML code. It's necessary in my eyes and one should know the Web Standards and follow them, in this case the HTML and CSS specifications (the HTML and CSS validation services are a great help in order to achive this goal). As I said before, it's not always possible to code 100% valid HTML code, but you can see it in the source code, if someone knows something about valid HTML or not. Producing valid HTML code comes without additional costs for the customers.
The second step is, to produce accessibility websites. This is often more cost-intensive for the Web Companies (especially during the first project). A good knowledge of valid HTML code and valid stylesheets is the fundament of accessibility websites for all target audiences, regardless of any handicaps. If a Web Company wants to work for authorities in the year 2007, it's only possible by creating accessibility websites, because of the current regulations in most countries. Beside authorities there are a lot of big websites out there, who has to offer accessibility websites because of the public criticism of some non-profit organisations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Egg Bramhill
I could create my Flash sites with speech that says "For contact details" press 1, "for products press 2" etc. but who's going to pay for this extra development costs? The client ... no way.
That's one of the problems with using Flash for a full website (we already discussed this in the past). If you use Flash only for some advertisings or animations within your page and produce your websites with valid HTML and some of the most important accessibility rules instead, then there are no additional costs on your side necessary (the braille output or speech synthesizer is then able to understand your content and your navigation).
But that a full accessibility websites costs more than a simpler to produce website is no question and my customers know that. It depends on them, what they are able/willing to invest. I talk with them about the backgrounds of all this different approachs to produce a website and the advantages and disadvantages.
Personally, I should be happy if some of the Webdesigner/-developer/companies aren't able/willing to offer standard conform Websites. I'm in the Web business since the beginning of the World Wide Web and I'm thankful, that I was always in the position of being invited to learn and use the most important technologies in this business. ;)
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
I have reopened this thread for informative discussion worthy of the topic.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
A dumb program checking for dotted T's a crossed i's is not a validator... It is a dumb program for dumb people. Why would I ever put an alt tag on decorative image?
Come on... reality check here guys.. Pull your heads out... Before you sufficate.:eek:
Remi, go right ahead and put alt tags one every slice and dice xara creates... then watch google throw your site in the spammer bin...
Personally, I keep the graphics to a mimimum and use text for navigation...
That is my entire take on this subject and I will not get drawn into a debate on personal preferences....:)
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raynerj1
Why would I ever put an alt tag on decorative image?
You are right, John - please don't do that, if it's only a decorative image! Use a empty alternate text (alt="") instead, to let braille outputs understand, that this image isn't important within the text. I've posted already the W3C recommendations with this point (see post #25):
Quote:
- Do not specify irrelevant alternate text when including images intended to format a page, for instance, alt="red ball" would be inappropriate for an image that adds a red ball for decorating a heading or paragraph. In such cases, the alternate text should be the empty string (""). Authors are in any case advised to avoid using images to format pages; style sheets should be used instead.
- Do not specify meaningless alternate text (e.g., "dummy text"). Not only will this frustrate users, it will slow down user agents that must convert text to speech or braille output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raynerj1
Remi, go right ahead and put alt tags one every slice and dice xara creates... then watch google throw your site in the spammer bin...
Another misunderstanding: Please don't use slice exports from Xara Xtreme or other tools which produce table tag soup! Use modern HTML/CSS code instead of such out-fashioned HTML code. To be clear: If you owns a tool, which produces correct HTML/CSS positioning, then use it, but if your tools produces bad HTML code leave them.
Why should Google "throw your site in the spammer bin" if you use ALT tags? This is wrong! :confused: :confused: :confused:
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raynerj1
Personally, I keep the graphics to a mimimum and use text for navigation...
That's a clever decision. Together with CSS you're able to layout nice navigations without the necessary to use images within your HTML source. It's not a must, but it's a good decision (but please use valid HTML code with this).
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
So - what recommendations would you give me?
I'm a cartoonist and not a web designer.
I cant really afford to pay anyone to do web design for me.
There are two possibilities:
a) a portfolio site of images and work that is not intended to be 'public' so ranking in search engines and the like is not a concern as far as I can see.
b) same as above but for 'general release', but with no specific demographic in mind.
Alt tagging a visual joke is like translating poetry, a virtual re-write from scratch.
Sadly I don't have the time, maybe not even the ability :o
How should I go about it?
I ran my prototype site through validation and it came out with a list as long as your arm, but it does the job it was intended to do - everyone who needs to see it can.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Hi Steve,
you could use a PhotoBlog or a Gallery Script.
If you want to learn more about HTML/CSS, there is a helpful "Web Design Resource Thread" in our "Site design and publishing" forum with interesting links to tutorials.
Remi
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Hi Remi
I'll look into that - thanks :)
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Excessive use of Alt tags are what spammers used to increase the positions in search engines. Get more key words used throughout the site. So... Search engines use this to filter on.
Your suggestion to use Alt= for decorative images is a waste of bandwidth. Might as well use a WYSIWYG editor( like dreamweaver )and put all kinds of extraneous code on the page and double the bandwidth. PHFFFFFT.... No way jose.
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raynerj1
Excessive use of Alt tags are what spammers used to increase the positions in search engines. Get more key words used throughout the site. So... Search engines use this to filter on.
Which is why everyone should use the alt tags as they were intended (as per the below W3C quote by remi):
Quote:
Do not specify irrelevant alternate text when including images intended to format a page, for instance, alt="red ball" would be inappropriate for an image that adds a red ball for decorating a heading or paragraph. In such cases, the alternate text should be the empty string (""). Authors are in any case advised to avoid using images to format pages; style sheets should be used instead.
Do not specify meaningless alternate text (e.g., "dummy text"). Not only will this frustrate users, it will slow down user agents that must convert text to speech or braille output.
Keyword stuffing spam in alt-tags is easy enough to detect --- frequency of words and the cost of those words. However, Google doesn't punish anyone for using alt-text properly.
As for this whole W3C discussion --- I have never bothered with the standards as it simply looks to be so much work. Also, the websites belonging to any of us here at TG are insignificant, and mere mouse dropping on the Web (in the great scheme of things). If I had site that generated thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars per month --- or if my site consisted of tens of thousands / hundreds of thousanda, or milllion of webpages... Well, then I would of course pay attention to ensure that I don't lose ANY money if a browser software is tweaked, or new plugins for the same developed.
However, if you are going to be a professional web designer (with all doors open to you) --- I can't see how you could do without the standards? Big businesses (especially big online sites) and government (and knowledgable) people will ask for it. It might not be required for by annashomemadecatfood.com but why limit youself if you intend to do it for a living?
Me personally: I'm lazy, and I couldn't be bothered. Then again, the better WordPress themes are closer in compliance than anything I have ever attempted --- perhaps that's my in for "compliance".
Risto
-
Re: HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.
Hi John,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raynerj1
Excessive use of Alt tags are what spammers used to increase the positions in search engines. Get more key words used throughout the site. So... Search engines use this to filter on.
Excessive use is not what I'm talking about. You shouldn't use it like this:
Code:
XHTML code:
<img src="v_i_agra.gif" width="7" height="10" alt="Yeah, you need PRODUCT A and PRODUCT B?? Really? Buy it on this page. Yo! And give us you're email address together with your bank account number. We have really interesting news for you. btw: We also sell some cheap software packages. Original software. cheap. Photoshop for $20,-. CorelDraw for $10,-. Don't pay more. We are the biggest Online-Shop worldwide! Trust us." />
If you use a meaningful alt text, then Google is your friend. If you use wrong HTML code instead, it could be, that the Google Robot visit your site and isn't able to interprete your HTML code and therefore isn't able to include your site into his fulltext index.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raynerj1
Your suggestion to use Alt= for decorative images...
I know it sounds pedantic, but please don't insert Alt= within your image tags, because that's a syntax error and produces invalid HTML code (as I said before, each language has a syntax...). Use instead alt="" (together with the question marks) for decorative images. The full syntax goes:
Code:
XHTML code:
<img src="decorative_image.png" width="10" height="10" alt="" />
After that, each braille output knows, that this image is only a decorative image and not important to understand the contents of the page.
Not sure, if it makes sense to repeat the same and same again from my side. In the end you're on your own, if you're able to produce valid HTML code or not.
Remi