Today's Posts Follow Us On Twitter! TFL Members on Twitter  
Forum search: Advanced Search  
Navigation
Marketplace
  Members Login:
Lost password?
  Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 24,254
Total Threads: 80,792
Total Posts: 566,471
There are 1311 users currently browsing (tf).
 
  Our Partners:
 
  TalkFreelance     Design and Development     HTML/XHTML/DHTML/CSS :

Standards, use them.

Thread title: Standards, use them.
Closed Thread  
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
    Thread tools Search this thread Display Modes  
03-06-2005, 07:58 PM
#21
Adam is offline Adam
Adam's Avatar
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Adam is on a distinguished road

  Old

can i just make a quote:


You code. And code. And code. You build only to rebuild. You focus on making your site compatible with almost every browser or wireless device ever put out there. Then along comes a new device or a new browser, and you start all over again.

You can get off the merry-go-round.
this is a quote from "designing with web standards" a book which funnyilly enough promote standards

with standards it prevents this rebuild only to rebuild method alot of sites seem to be in. surely if it saves you costs in rebuilding, software building websites with standard compliant code can only be a good thing

if every browser follows standards your site will look the same crosss browser be it ie, be it firefox

standard compliant code also lowers bandwith costs and ive noticed i can litteratly half the code in some pages using standard compliant code. this means less bandwith which means more money saved and also means your website loads faster for the end user!

but yes the fact remains not all browsers are standard compliant. this is why not everyone will join the standard parades until people like microsoft jump on the standards bandwagon

and also id like to add the reason microsoft are not going standards compliant at the moment is becuase alot of websites out there are built for Internet explorer and if they change this you will have alot of broken websites so they are infact at the moment stuck in the middle of 2 discussions with no way out to keep everyone happy.

all my sites will now be built standards compliant. reasons for this are:
1. future proof code
2. lower bandwith costs
3. quicker load times

so all we can do at the moment is promote standards and hope that most people will slowly move over THEN browsers can go standards compliant. then i will know that because my sites are standards compliant i wont have to worry to much because im already one step ahad of it all.

standards arnt there as an attack against microsft, nor are they there to make peoples lives harder they are there to improve the internet and make it more accessible for everyone!

03-06-2005, 08:13 PM
#22
Lord Kalthorn is offline Lord Kalthorn
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
Status: I love this place
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Greathanc
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Lord Kalthorn is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn

  Old

I personally write in Strict XHTML like Salathe. I have no problems with it in any browser - although I find if you're using MonoASP for a Linux Server Firefox merely loads up the code and displays it. Not very good for a fellow Open-Source Project...

I have never checked the Standards; I do not intend to. While my sites run on Internet Explorer, and at least load up on Firefox to show the use Internet Explorer Links and some Content I will live. If Firefox works with what works on Internet Explorer it would be a bonus - but a superfluous bonus. As I do not hold out any hope for Firefox being more than a fad, or gaining more than 8-9% of Browsers before the inherent Security problems in Netscape kick in and it can't keep up with the growing security of Internet Explorer.

03-06-2005, 10:16 PM
#23
Picard102 is offline Picard102
Picard102's Avatar
Status: BANNED
Join date: Aug 2004
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Picard102 is on a distinguished road

  Old

Originally Posted by Adam
and also id like to add the reason microsoft are not going standards compliant at the moment is becuase alot of websites out there are built for Internet explorer and if they change this you will have alot of broken websites so they are infact at the moment stuck in the middle of 2 discussions with no way out to keep everyone happy.
actually they could make it render backwards compatible, and add on new functionality and whatnot.

03-06-2005, 10:49 PM
#24
Lord Kalthorn is offline Lord Kalthorn
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
Status: I love this place
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Greathanc
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Lord Kalthorn is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn

  Old

You can make a new rendering system backwards compatable without also shipping the old system in with it - and having a piece of code, or MetaData that tells Internet Explorer to use the old Renderer.

It would make sense - but it again would be an inconvenience. I'm sure they'll just switch to the standards. Not that much looks different in Firefox; and it won't be too hard for people to move to XHTML. Everybody else has to.

03-07-2005, 12:56 AM
#25
derek lapp is offline derek lapp
Status: design rockstar
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: guelph, ontario
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

derek lapp is on a distinguished road

  Old

Originally Posted by eric_bobbitt
derek.l Ah Derek, what do I say to you. You obviously have a good direction on what you are trying to express, but I feel as though someone's you are just posting in an upset mood on the topic. I would love nothing more for you to keep posting, but as I said to Lord Kalthorn, I think you need to post more facts rather than hearsay. Please do not take that the wrong way, but I think if you research some of things in your last post you will see what I mean.
throughout highschool i was always encouraged to debate things when i saw a point worth bringing up, and through al that and the argumentetive essays (i forget the fancy tchnical term) i think i just developed a very defensive tone i don't notice at first. i don't have any ill feelings, i just like a good debate.

i didn't read much of the other posts because i'd like to discuss the topic, and i'd like to look @ it from different perspectives, so i'll throw some stuff @ you.

forst off, i noticed katharn referncing http and ftp and a few things, and ealier mentioning another set of standards, which questions the point of this topic. as a developer i knew you meant w3 web coding standards, but other points can be made about other standards sets. but i don't know much about them yet, so that fight will wait for another day.

web development coding standards, which i'll now refer to as w3 standards are really a case specific thing, like using flash or php (but w3 standards aren't as lenient).i use w3 standards for all my work because i agree wth the philosphies and theories they represent and i also find it to be good practice, but depending on the situation, the reprocussions will change.

it really depends on what your project is aimed towards. for me, my stuff is aimed at computer specifics. i'm not very concerned about how things will be displayed on other devices, because my audience is computer sites aimed at selling to other computers. in my area, the prime thing to target is downtown like bars and clubs and other entrepeneurs. in that area, coding development is targeted to the web on computers for people to acces through their computer. the upscale banker riding the subway to a board meeting checking his handheld isn't what i would consider their main audience, nor is it mine, so my stuff is optimized for computers. i've never used a handheld, but i don't expect my work to be very optimal for it. i code to w3 standards to keep my code free of clutter, because i deign and code, i cen produce the best combination of both allowing for the most code optimization into the visual experienceas i can reducing bandwidth and storage and desinging to a strict standard set, the work to keep cross browser compatbility is kept to a minimum - i don't optimize for varying devices, but i want to make as many computers as possible able to view my work. if hand held devices can view my work properly that's a great bonus, but it's not a concern of mine.

in my case, i'm aiming @ small to mid sized business and projects, who i don't expect to have a mass audeince of varying technologies. by coding to standards, i can create benefits for them and it keeps me up to date in the event i need to do so.

a large scale development firm dealing with fortune 500 companies i would expect to take a wider audience into consideration. someone like hewlett packard i would expect to want to reach the soccer mom on IE, the web developer on FF or opera, the graphic designer maybe on a mac with safari or IE, the bank rep on the subway going to meeting to downsize the company again and anybody else that could use a printer, monitor, mouse, keyboard.... anything hewlett packard makes. In their case, i would want to make a very felxible, code driven package that can be optimized for as many technologies as possible. i think this is why a lot of fortune 500 companies have a very simplistic look visually, because the development of the project was very sever that it wouldn't be practical any other way. then again, i may have totally mist something and this could all just be a coincidence.

but the impact standards plays in the different situations are indeed different. it's enirely possible the guy on the subway has a friend looking to open a small computer repair/custom shop and needa a web presense done. maybe the guy is going to be small time partner in it and is looking for somoene to create it. he could stumlbe upon my site on the subway. if it doesn't work on his device, i won't be horribly upset, because the guy on the subway isn't my audience - the other guy starting the store is - and if i hear about it, i'll go down and speka with them myself. if they're not located somewhere where i can physically meet with them, they're not a part of my target demograph and i don't expect their business to begin with, so i haven't lost much yet.

if he's looking for a new printer model to populate the office with (say hewlett packard is the bank's supplier) if he can't find a good model and make his descision, i'm sure he'll be pissed and hewlett packard could be out of a great profit. they have a lot more to lose than i do by not reaching a very diverse market than i do.

them following a very strict standrd set for both web development AND front end design is much harsher then any rules i would follow. so they have a lot more to lose if they don't follow a good set of standards.w3 standards have their uses, and depending on the situation, they can have a big impact (like the hp idea) or they can be completely meaningless (like a blog - it could just be a place to bitch about how you life ins't fair =( if nobody else can read it, it might not matter at all) and then there's the inbetween where i like to put myself where computer performance (or hand held) matters but the other doesn't.

now, i've brought up some points about the impact standards have - i didn't research hewleet packard, and i really don't know how hand helds interpret the web vs computers, so if i'm wrong, go a head and correct me - but the standards themselve are not as useful as some might think. like anything else, they can be abused, and to say something is "w3 standards complient" can mean two very different things.

i've made a portfolio that was 90% code driven - it had 3 images in the images folder that were about =>20kb in total, and it still looked fairly interesting visually. it was xhtml strict, and it was coded as anal as i could get it and still keep all the elements. if that wasn't standard complient nothing was. people could go validate it and see if i was right. but that doesn't mean much. validation is supposed to determine whether you followed the standards or not (to a degree, it doesn't yell at you for using html instead of xhtml). if you have an xhtml document and it validates it's supposed to be considered standards complient, but it is really? the validator doesn't know what the page does. instead of css classes and ids, i could style me entire page through the 'style' attribute - which would validate if i typed everything correctly, but i don't think that really follows 'standards'. instead of styling the html and body elements, i coudl make up a bunch of new divs that need to be rendered on top of the default elements and it could validate, but i wouldn't call it standards.

the w3 outlines standards to a point. after that, it's up to the individual to idenfity and set standards which will vary from person to person, which is why i disagree with people saying "follow w3 standards!' like an angry mother. all that really means is use xhtml and css. last time i checked, w3 standards didn't include using anal semantic markup. i do it because it makes sense to me, so i never bothered to check whether it's one of the reccomendations by the w3, because i could care less, i'm doing it either way, so feel free to shed some light on that issue. but, sometimes it's impossible to detemine when something is 'something' and not 'something else'. when you have a list for a menu, and sub categories underneath the parent item, when do the sub categories become an embedded <ul> as opposed to just more <li>'s? they're all list items. or headings; some people consider the website header to be the main heading because it displayes the website title. i personally don't, because i don't consider layout to have headings, but i understand the reasoning behind doing it. how do you determine which one of us is right? are we both? whether i put my image in an <h1> tag, or a <div> are we both right? can one of us be wrong? after determine what you're going to write (and html page for example) and what it will be written in (xhtml hevily controlled by css | tableless) how do tou determine standards? i think my semantic markup, using text formatting elemens on the body (like <h1>, <hr>, <blockquotes>, <ul> and <span>) and using divs (or <ul> for menus) to control the visual layout is considered standards comlient; my code is very clean, it's organized and i optimize it all that i can. i'm not making my header image an background, so whether i go <div><img src="" alt="" /></div> or wrap it in <h1></h1> won't make a difference. am i wrong though? once you break the broad definition, the issue because too specific to really determine a right and wrong way. the standard way might be to use semantic mark up, but to me, unless it's a list of images, only the <div> applies to image layout, but to someone else, using <h1> for headers and <h2> for image titles might be the only way to be semantic (in their mind). how do you determine which way is right? if they're both right, then i can abuse putting my header inside 9 divs (but that's not standards, standards want a little cltter as possible).

personally, i think if you can come up with a reasonable justification for why you do what you do, then it's fine and shouldn't be discussed.

03-07-2005, 02:31 PM
#26
Salathe is offline Salathe
Salathe's Avatar
Status: Community Archaeologist
Join date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland
Expertise: Software Development
Software: vim, PHP
 
Posts: 3,820
iTrader: 25 / 100%
 

Salathe will become famous soon enough

Send a message via MSN to Salathe

  Old

Just to bring out a single point in derek's last reply. You shouldn't actually be using images, whether surrounded by divs or other elements, as layout images within the XHTML document... if you're aiming for separation of content from design.

If you're wanting a specific hook to apply CSS styles to display an image for the layout, then that's fine but use an empty div with an id attribute, rather than embed the image in the document.

Also, you're confusing (or at least blurring) the divide between standards and best practices. Nowhere does it say that anyone must use heading (or div) elements to display the website's name, just that it is a logical (practical) thing to do.

03-07-2005, 02:58 PM
#27
derek lapp is offline derek lapp
Status: design rockstar
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: guelph, ontario
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

derek lapp is on a distinguished road

  Old

Originally Posted by Salathe
Also, you're confusing (or at least blurring) the divide between standards and best practices. Nowhere does it say that anyone must use heading (or div) elements to display the website's name, just that it is a logical (practical) thing to do.
yeah, i wasn't sure where the line is drawn, i do things certain ways because it seems like the bext practice to me (like smenantics) so i never bothered to check how the standards dealt with it because it wasn't an interest to me - i'd end up doing it my way because it just seems right.

i wasn't sure how the w3 goes about recommend doing stuff like that and i thought it was a good example to illustrate how <h1> or <div> don't make a difference in that case.

i think standards are devided a lot by what 'seems right'. some thing making a #header div w/ the image cached as the bg is the best way, some think using a blank div w/ the <img> tag is the best route. technically i think they're both correct.

03-07-2005, 03:16 PM
#28
DateinaDash is offline DateinaDash
Status: The BidMaster
Join date: Nov 2004
Location: England
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 10,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

DateinaDash is on a distinguished road

  Old

Derek has officially taken the title of "the longest post in tf history" with a whopping 1,724 words

03-07-2005, 07:07 PM
#29
Lord Kalthorn is offline Lord Kalthorn
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
Status: I love this place
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Greathanc
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Lord Kalthorn is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn

  Old

Hey My two were one! :P

I've never used <H1> or anything like that... I don't know why. Just good old <A> and <P> for me, with the design points in CSS (purely because this is the only way to make site wide style changes as and when they are desired by the end-user, especially in my new Forum project it is essential).

But yeah; projects like my Forum need stuff like that; standards and such. Whether they be W3 or not I need to make sure everybody will do it the same if ever more than I work on it. That is why standards; whichever are essential for the Internet - so many people work on the Internet as Designers. If W3 Guidelines are the only ones everybody will conform with - then it must be them we work on.

03-07-2005, 10:53 PM
#30
sunspark is offline sunspark
sunspark's Avatar
Status: I'm new around here
Join date: Mar 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

sunspark is on a distinguished road

  Old

The idea behind creating a standard is that we all agree on guidelines to follow, for both developers and browser-makers.

Of late, slapping an xhtml standard sticker on something has become popular. Not bad in and of itself. What makes it "evil" is the attitudes behind it.

Many pick xhtml transitional, and still put the same crap in their source: nasty nested tables/divs, fonts/spans/classes everywhere. Complete lack of anything remotely semantic or usable. A big mess. None of it following the spirit of standards. And forget browsing in anything other than IE. Its too much of a pain in the @ss.

Then we try and get it to look the same no matter what browser you use.

Again, we're back at creating standards. How frustrating it is when browser-makers won't co-operate.

For example. IE has the CSS properties, overflow-x and overflow-y. Mozilla (and now the reborn Netscape) browsers only have overflow.

But you know what? Others agreed: its nice to have separate x and y capability. So it was added to the CSS3 draft.

But it has yet to work the other way. IE claimed that 6 would add new special CSS "enhancements". However, they are only available to you if you trigger standards mode by using a correct doctype. I've seen people refuse to use standards because they want the scrollbar to be purple (in IE-only. I should add you can do this is standards mode as well, if you know your stuff or as someone who does).

The IE makers have dragged their feet (before and since), refusing to support current standards in the name of "not breaking current websites", which is only an excuse. In the past they have added "enhancements", upgraded the html support, and guess what: nothing "broke".

Don't forget: we've had to whine at them to get security fixes, which sometimes aren't enough of a fix. They are seemingly only interested in adding new "features" when its their idea first. Its not wrong to be frustrated by this.

I always aim to create standard and clean design, creating it as semantic as possible, aiming for real-world usability. Does that mean I will refuse to use a non-standard property? No. It means I will carefully balance it out on a case-by-case basis.

I don't worship the god of standards. But standards are a very important tool, which should not be overlooked or mocked. If we can all get to using standard markup, style, and scripting, it makes our jobs easier, and so could very well make our clients happier. Which, is what good business is about.

I personally used to use IE. I don't anymore because I get more crap on my computer with it than without it. But I still have a copy of it, and I still make sure it renders my designs well. If it could be made more secure, supported more of standards again, I would be glad to use it. I simply think its way overdue for a real upgrade.

Closed Thread  
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

  Posting Rules  
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump:
 
  Contains New Posts Forum Contains New Posts   Contains No New Posts Forum Contains No New Posts   A Closed Forum Forum is Closed