Originally Posted by eric_bobbitt A lack of knowing standards is a problem - who is teaching non standards usage?

no one is saying "standards are bad". i'm saying 'overall they're not as useful as people make them out to be'. you're forcing them onto people for all the wrong reasons.

if a client or a coder doesn't know about standards, they will obviously not care or enforce them (if they're the anal type that would really demand it or bust) and you've got some justification in saying use standards because "x,y and z". standards can help under the right circumstances. but after bringing the point up, you're job is done. they'll ask for them or they won't. there isn't much you can do about it. getting pissed off and saying "you're not listening. X, Y and Z!" will just get you fired.

Originally Posted by eric_bobbitt I dont know how to respond to that statement about standards not making anything better, its just nonsense. As far as quality, standards has no effect on the visual or programming quality itself. That is up to the author, but do not think for one second that it hinders it at all. Ever.

perhaps a more detailed example will help you see. web design is not html development. it's design for use on the web. that's how there's a difference between a web designer and a developer. this is an old design of mine which i've revised since then, but it proves my point well. even if i optimize this as much as it can be, using semantic markup and stndards driven code, this website will be workable on a computer, but completely impractical for some of the new technologies like handhelds which is the entire point of the xhtml/css standards craze.

standards has nothing to do with IE sucking at rendering code. it's about optimizing for all available platforms. a design such as that simply can't be optimized for every platform, yet it can still be considered standards complient which is my point. it's standards as it will be, and it's only practical for computers, which is what standards are all about, which justifies what i said in every way it can be taken.

standards will not help bandwidth issues with that design, they won't help server sotrage space, they won't help IE render it better than if it wasn't standards complient (for the record, i had coded this design and it worked perfectly fine in IE and FF), they won't make it optimal for viewing on varying devices. the only thing doing standards complient coding on a job like this will do is impressing people who don't really understand the point of it and can doop them into giving me work instead of someguy who charges less because he doens't know what his time is worth.

i refer to this statement at this time.

Originally Posted by eric_bobbitt the simple fact remains that most people just do not understand the actual concept of standards, or more importantly, its purpose for the benefit of everyone.

you pretty much proved yourself right with your rebuttle and the intial point of this thread. you're throwing it on people for no reason. if they want it, they'll use it. if not, go about your day. if it truely has the impact you say it does, they'll come piling up at your doorstep because only use practice standards compliency despite your flaws in theory.

Originally Posted by eric_bobbitt you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on both sides of the fence. Ignorance is not an excuse for anything in life.

then why are you so one sided in your arguments? i'm a web designer before i'm a web developer. i find development to be more fun sometimes, but when it's up to me, presentation is what get's the highest rung, becuase that's what all the non-tech savy people will judge. i do my job to make the back/client end ad optimal as i can for personal benefit and for those who can understand it: that you can have both.

if you want to have empty, boring dull websites that can conform to every possible machine regardless of how many you really want to reach, then standards compliency (where you have as few images as possible in the layout design, and the visual presentation is 90% code based or greater w3.org for example) is right where you want to be. otherwise, there isn't much they can do for you. they didn't help my example one bit. i practice them because it's logical and in the event someone comes to me looking for that type of solution, i can prove i'm capable by having a wide range of work (from graphic heavy to completely code driven). it's a matter of choice. give your reasons of x,y and z and move on. there's nothing else you can do UNLESS PEOPLE COME TO YOU. this isn't the case here, which is why i'm attacking it.

people get pissed off when they're hassled about religion eing forced onto them, so why should this be acceptable? the points have been brought up time and time again, you've done your part, don't go knocking door to door handing pamhlets out. you'll get less across because people will refuse to read it despit you, regardless of who it may help them. i'm for using standards and i'm arguing against what you're saying. surely you see the problem with that?

i'm not trying to be an *******, but this kind of blind ranting just gives bad names to people. there's always 2 sides on this debate "for and against". why can't you people just recognize both sides have valid points and work in the middle like i do? there's standards for coding, but they don't have any benefit if the design itself (the photoshop layout for example) isn't engineered to make use of the benefits standards bring. which was my point all along and always will be.