Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

WAI To Go

Rated 3.5 (Ratings: 6) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(9 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of mynameismonkey

Jaz-Michael King

Member info | Full bio

User since: May 16, 2002

Last login: July 12, 2011

Articles written: 4

Standards? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Standards

Many of us have been producing web sites since the dawn of time, and as such it's easy to forget that some very promising and well-intentioned producers are only getting started this year. Now, speaking for myself, I've learned the hard way what happens to a site that is written poorly, deviates widely from established standards, full of hacks and browser-specific nonsense. It works fine for about two years then whammo! The client suddenly realizes their site sucks, doesn't work in half the current browsers and wants to know how we're going to fix it. For free no less! Which is of course understandable... no reason the client should pay for us fixing our shoddy work. So we've gotten to learn from our (copious) mistakes, why shouldn't fresh meat designers and developers?

Vee Vill Validate

Some people believe non-standard code/pages simply shouldn't be rendered. This would achieve several things: it would inflate our value as capable HTML writers thereby increasing our pay checks, it would make all the available information re-purposable, re-usable and forwards-compliant, and it would of course knock 99 percent of all content currently available off the Web.

Now maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. We would finally get rid of Little Johnny's Home Page and Cat Pictures, and all the <marquee>'s would miraculously disappear. Woohoo. But this would be a Bad Thing. In a world where only valid code is readable, the web reverts to an audience of elitists and egomaniacs, denying access to the general population. Little Johnny wants his home page, the very essence of the web is his low barrier to entry. Little Johhny will also grow up to be a paying client one day, let's not sour him.

Browser vendors need more people to use their browsers, so they are as forgiving as they can be. They'll render your unclosed paragraphs, your messy lists and your undeclared document types. So why should you care?

My Dad

A few things my dad told me have stuck with me. He had a great work ethic, and always told me to respect my employer, which in my case means my clients. Another of his mantras was if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. He also told me to get out of the house by Saturday once, but we'll gloss over that one.

The W3C leads the Web, they define it, they shape it, and they produce the standards for it. By standards, I mean that they actually take responsibility for protocols and code. They say what HTML is, and what it isn't. The most important example of how this should affect your thought processes is in their definition of the Web as a whole:

"(The) World Wide Web... is the universe of network-accessible information, the embodiment of human knowledge. The Web has a body of software, and a set of protocols and conventions. Through the use hypertext and multimedia techniques, the web is easy for anyone to roam, browse, and contribute to."

w3.org/WWW/

W3C further defines the Web as

"the universe of network-accessible information (available through your computer, phone, television, or networked refrigerator...). Today this universe benefits society by enabling new forms of human communication and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability."

w3.org/Consortium/Points/

Sniff Glue, not Browsers

The crux here is that accessibility aside, the Web is intended, by definition, to reach as many people as possible. Strip away the cloak of accessibility and look at the underlying concepts. The Web is information. Information wants to be free. So why neglect the millions of Opera users, or the people with monochrome displays, or the visually-impaired? When we code sites and sniff for Internet Explorer or Netscape, not only are we denying access and features to users of arcane "weird" browsers, we also kick Opera users in the proverbial crown jewels. Is your site covered in low contrast text on colour? Forget the colour blind, laptop users probably can't read your site.

My larger point is that while trying to make your site Section 508 compliant may sound daunting and even overkillingly pointless, simply coding with a good nod to the standards already put in place for you, you're more than half way there and acting like a responsible netizen.

Sometimes you will need to step away from the standards. You may want advice on this. You may want the input of your peers. You may, god forbid, ask for input on Usenet. Now you're in trouble. There are, as with anything in life, fanatics. Usenet is full of them, I'm probably one, and you will probably at some point be one for a while too.

Don't let this get to you. Set up your personal site and experiment like a loon. Go ahead and try some browser sniffing. Then try fooling it. Write your bad tables, ignore CSS. This is how you learn. Niels Bohr once said an expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field and this is vital. A lot of people seem to forget how they acquired so much expertise themselves.

The thing is, a whole lotta people on the net now believe that the Web Accessibility Initiative, and the Section 508 guidelines, are law. Real law. As in break them and we can tell you you're wrong. Which is, of course, baloney. Smelly baloney. Don't get me wrong, I want every site to be readable in Opera simply due to the fact it's my browser of choice. And by the way, every time you actually get paid for making crap you do all of us, and yourself, a disservice. The web industry is struggling to forge a good name for itself, so bear that in mind when you're producing commercial sites. Tim Berners-Lee (the guy who came up with the first web server and client) said the power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect. I couldn't agree more. This is what we aspire to.

The Moral

The moral of this story is make your mistakes on your own time. When you're writing for someone else's money do them and yourself a big favour and write good quality code. HTML that validates comes first, accessibility follows. Remember, every mistake you leave in there is something you'll be supporting years from now. Don't let bad code haunt you. Spend some time at the HTML Writers Guild, validate your code, help keep the Web useful. You'll love yourself for it.

Jaz is currently the senior director of eservices and health care transparency for IPRO. He is also Welsh, something he is not likely to let you forget. His favourite things are beer, cheese and monkeys (in that order). Jaz co-chairs Medicare's SDPS Web Strategies Workgroup, and serves as judge for the WWW Health Awards. His portfolio of recent work is available at eservices.ipro.org.

Accessibility is not law?

Submitted by MartinB on July 20, 2002 - 16:17.

As you're from the UK, you should look at Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - Part III for external sites and Part II for Intranets.

Also of interest:

  • Code of Practise for Part III which explicitly covers accessible web sites. Services to the Public absolutely include web sites
  • Written answer from the government's Disability Rights Commission about how the DDA applies to web sites. In particular, note:
    A Web Site is a Service to the general public and as such is subject to Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) inasmuch as it is "access to and use of Communication and information services" - 19(3)(b) and (c). Part III makes It unlawful for a Service provider to discriminate against a disabled person by deliberately not providing a service to the disabled person which he provides generally to members of the public. It should also be noted that the Act states expressly that it is irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without payment.

login or register to post comments

Sumbitch...

Submitted by chozsun on July 21, 2002 - 18:38.

... having standards and not enforcing them is what crippling the Internet now. If this disables 99% of all websites out there, that will free up the bandwidth for what is really important while real websites actual invest time and money into making their site compliant. It is a win-win situation.

If Little Johnny gets frustrated, then he should ask his parents to get him a real HTML book so he can do it right the first place.

Perl, C and even Visual Basic have standards, why can't HTML?

login or register to post comments

Standards Compliance

Submitted by mark_bolton on July 21, 2002 - 21:49.

The only problem with forcing standard compliant code would be that we the developers would lose work as all those Frontpage sites that we regularly end up recoding so that they will display correctly, might actually work correctly!! I am in favor of standard compliance, and to deal with the next generation of browsers for Digital television, they have already stated in their specification that non-standard code should be rejected.

login or register to post comments

Losing work?

Submitted by MartinB on July 22, 2002 - 02:54.

The only problem with forcing standard compliant code would be that we the developers would lose work as all those Frontpage sites that we regularly end up recoding so that they will display correctly, might actually work correctly!!

Not unless you're recoding them badly - each site will still only need recoding once. And there'll be a rush of much more work as all the site owners with broken sites who are currently thinking Works for me, what's the problem will be beating down our collective door wanting them fixed.

Not unlike Y2k...

login or register to post comments

in reply to Chozsun

Submitted by branko on July 22, 2002 - 05:07.

Perl, C and even Visual Basic have standards, why can't HTML?

HTML does have standards. I fear you may be mistaken as to what these standards are about.

HTML is a document mark-up language. It helps us to indicate what a part of document is, not how it should be displayed. As such it is a fairly loose standard: people have different ideas of what a heading is, or a byline, or a citation.

The C, Visual Basic etc. standards however, describe a programming language. They must be rigorously strict, or you would get code that simply would not work, or worse, that would crash the machine.

The CSS specification is an example of a web related standard that is more like a programming language's standard and that should be rigorously adhered to by browser manufacturers.

login or register to post comments

Standards...WoooHoo!

Submitted by Corsair on July 22, 2002 - 18:07.

I'm all for standards. I'm sick of having to put up with different browsers supporting different HTML tags, attributes, etc. Same goes for CSS, and for JavaScript! Recently I've been doing a lot of client-side scripting with JavaScript and I'm sick of having to have three different versions of the code to do one simple thing. I have to have one for IE 4-5, one for NS4, and one for the 6.x browsers. I'd really LOVE a standard accepted by all browsers for the DOM.

Also, down with all WYSIWYG editors. I mean, seriously, it doesn't take that much time to actually code an HTML page, template or otherwise, by hand. That would eliminate all the slim that programs like Frontpage, and those other editors, put in a page. Then all it takes is some basic server-side scripting to have a page call two functions, a beginning and ending html function, to prefill the page with a template and you don't have to create each individual page over and over again with the HTML template. Just pop the content in! And then if you are hand coding the page you'll know that you're providing excellent HTML by closing all tags, and every other "standard complaint practice."

login or register to post comments

Bad URLs

Submitted by notabene on July 23, 2002 - 01:35.

Hey Jaz

I like your article because it puts things back into perspective.

But your URLs are wrong: for instance w3c.org/WWW should point to w3c.org/WWW and not to w3c.org, which is interpreted by the browser as evolt.org/w3c/

Could you please change it?

login or register to post comments

Bad URLs

Submitted by MartinB on July 23, 2002 - 04:03.

Stef - blame the editor (me), not the author. All corrected now.

login or register to post comments

Bad URLs

Submitted by notabene on July 23, 2002 - 11:57.

Boooo on Martin! Boooo!
;-)

Actually I was not blaming, I was congratulating with a slight precision ;-)

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.