HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.

[remi]

Boring pages have no relationship to compliant markup

Paul is right. The new techniques offers much more possibilities to design different websites.

• css Zen Garden - The beauty of CSS design
• CSS Remix - a fresh blend of the best CSS webdesign
• CSS Beauty - Gallery of CSS websites

Remi

[pauland]

But only one with W3C on it.

LOL, perhaps, but there are millions of pages with that stamp, and they are all different..

[jamesmc]

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.

[David O'Neil]

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

[remi]

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) :

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

[jamesmc]

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.

[RedWombat]

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!

[Egg Bramhill]

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.

[David O'Neil]

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?

[remi]

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.

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