Web Standards. Should my Business Website be Compliant?

Posted on February 07, 2006

in Site Development

by Thomas Ashworth (NuBlue)

Rated 3.83 (Ratings: 4) (Add your rating)

Want more?

More articles in Site Development
More articles by NuBlue

Thomas Ashworth

Member info | Full bio

User since: February 06, 2006

Last login: February 06, 2006

Articles written: 1

Web standards is the new buzz phrase on the web. What are web standards? Web standards are basically the use of correct web coding standards as laid out by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The web standards which are of most concern to modern business are XHTML and CSS coding practices. In the words of the W3C, “The XHTML family is the next step in the evolution of the internet.”

In order to achieve appealing presentation it used to be the case that various HTML hacks would have to be utilised by web designers to make a page look appealing. The most commonly know 'hack' (which is still in use today) is the use of tables to layout page structure. Thankfully these days are coming to an end, as web browsers have evolved and XHTML and CSS are now commonly supported standards. It is now possible to make sites which not only look great but are also constructed to the correct web standards.

This is all well and good, but should your business switch to a web standards based design? What are the business benefits of getting standards based re-designs?

One of the disadvantages of getting a web standards based design is that it can be difficult to find a designer who will make an attractive site which is also web standards compliant. A lot of very talented web designers do not create sites which are web standards compliant due to the time involved and the lack of appreciation received from the client for doing so.

The slow conversion to standards based designs is in part due to the ease in which a non-standards based site can be created. With the boom in 'what you see is what you get' (WYSIWYG) site creation tools like Dreamweaver it is now relatively straightforward for talented graphic artists to create professional looking sites with little code knowledge. Although the sites look great, the construction can leave a lot to be desired. Poor page coding, although not always visually apparent, can result in your business losing money as well as make your site inaccessible to a large audience, difficult to navigate and difficult to maintain.

A quality web standards based web site separates the look of your web pages from the written content of your site. This addresses the negative points about a non-standards based site mentioned above. By separating style from content, standards based sites allow people using screen readers, mobiles, PDA's and other web browsing methods to be able to navigate your site. These devices have trouble displaying table based layouts and big images so non-standards based sites are largely unusable. In the second generation of the web there is a wider range of platforms than ever before. Using web standards is the only way to ensure a high degree of uniformity across multiple platforms with your site. If your site isn't accessible then your message is restricted to certain customers, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this isn't good in business.

A potential downside to a standards compliant website is some site add-ins such as certain bulletin boards, calendars and other dynamic content may not be written in a standards compliant manner. This becomes a problem when the add-in content is the only one that exactly fits your functional requirements. Sometimes in this scenario it may be necessary to forgo full standards compliance on pages where your non-standards compliant dynamic content is needed and migrate the page once the developers adopt standards.

A plus side of web-standards based sites is that maintenance is made easier, meaning your site can be more easily altered. As style is handled by an external (CSS) Style Sheet it is possible to change a sites whole colour scheme by changing a few key values. Also, as no styling information is in the HTML it is much tidier and greatly reduced in size making it easier to read and alter. Smaller file sizes mean that pages load quickly (providing a better experience for customers on slow connections), consume less bandwidth (reducing hosting costs to your business).

The final benefit of well constructed standards based websites is that as well as being accessible to your customers, often it will also be more accessible to search engines. Poorly structured inaccessible websites can often mean that some of the relevance of your text is misinterpreted by search engines. This means you could be losing out in search engine listings. By having a cleanly structured web standards website you are helping to ensure that your site (and its keywords) are correctly represented in search engines and is considered more relevant than non-standards based sites in your industry.

The obvious conclusion to this article is that web standards bring real tangible benefits to business. Although finding a design company that will construct a standards compliant site is more difficult than just finding a web designer, the benefits speak for themselves. By moving to a standards based web site businesses can ensure they have accessible sites which are maintainable and future proofed. Increased customer exposure and search engine prominence can all improve the level of business that comes to you via your website. Web standards are the future of the internet and to ignore it could leave your business trailing behind the online competition.

Thomas Ashworth www.nublue.co.uk

Thomas Ashworth is a lead developer for NuBlue Web Solutions based in Lancashire, UK. www.nublue.co.uk

51 comments on this article. Log in to add your comment | Rate this article:

HTML, not XHTML

Submitted by r937 on February 9, 2006 - 20:14.

good basic article, but the mention of XHTML instead of HTML is unfortunate

if you're going to serve XHTML properly, IE will barf all over the floor, and if you don't serve XHTML properly, why bother using it? (see the famous hixie article for full details)

far better would be to suggest HTML strict instead

The Case Against Web Standards

Submitted by UnitedScripters on February 20, 2006 - 20:26.

There ought to be a villain in every decent comedy, so I am going to play that role, and provide you with an article that opposes the conclusions of this.

Of course, within an intellectually developed environment, the presence of two conflicting viewpoints is no reason to wage crusades but to integrate them via a synthesis.
However, maybe this isn't such an environment, who knows - so maybe I am going to be addressed with every possible insult and abuse simply because I stated a different point of view, and I defended it with some brilliance.

I don't know. At any rate, the case against web standards is exposed in a long file, which however is suited to be read also skipping paragraphes:

============
INTERNET EXPLORER IS DEAD, LONG LIVE INTERNET EXPLORER: ABOUT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE AS A LICENSE TO KILL.

http://www.unitedscripters.com/spellbinder/internetexplorer.html (should open new window)
============

It also lists a few hundreds of sites that fail validation - see yourself WHICH names fail it!

In a Nutshell:

QUOTE
When you need a standard so badly that you are ready to swallow whatever as long as it can be called a standard, you're setting the level of your standards at the height of the beggar.

(...)

If you look at how things appear, you may also be induced into believing that you succor the W3C better when you succor it more. But then, if we look at how things appear, also the sun spins around the earth rather than viceversa.
We don't want the w3c to be The Castle of Kafka: a mysterious impersonal entity busy uttering incomprehensible orders that no one understands, but that all must obey.
You don't want this. I don't want this. And to be sure we won't have this, we must get committed not to spread and to teach, wittingly or unwittingly, exactly this.
UNQUOTE

Actually, the article is not really against web standards: it is against its... supporters and their lunacy. Oh yes. Indeed.

Enjoy a different conclusion. After all, isn't this the era of the Hypertext?
Alberto

ummm..... ok

Submitted by bafilius on February 25, 2006 - 22:08.

I would love to see a solid case against web standards. Do you have one that refers to a site without blinking text. And maybe by someone who can speak english and doesn't wax religious when it comes to the technical matters? For instance he says his site is non compliant and then he asks...

"YET YOU VIEW IT IDENTICAL IN ALL GENERATION 5 BROWSERS. WHY? HERE IS WHY:"

Oh, this sounds good. Why is that? Have you found a method that doesn't involve tweaking table settings for hours on end?

"OVER A DUBIOUS PERCH AND IN DUBIOUS BATTLE Where should we stand and belong: with the conformists or with the anti conformists? Who's who?"

Um... I'm confused. I think the W3C makes more sense and they confuse the hell out of me.

Ok, maybe I'm not giving it enough of a chance, let's read on.

"Not to us, Adonai, not to us, but to Your name give glory, because of Your grace and truth. Why should the nations ask, Where is their God? Our God is in heaven; He can everything."

WTF does this have to do with web design? If this is the kind of nutcase that is against compliance then I say compliance all the way.

GREAT Article! Thanks.

The case against standards (supporters)

Submitted by UnitedScripters on February 28, 2006 - 15:26.

Far away from being beyond critics, but honestly it is rather difficult to draw a conclusion about an article when all one has read are its first 10 lines - or at any rate it sounds unfair to be dismissed when all one has read are just the first lines of whatever.
The case against standards can not be made if one's attention span cannot be retained for more than a fistful of minutes.

I agree my article is long, but I gave to Thomas' article the benefit of reading it all first.
True, his article is shorter than mine. Yet it is several dozens of lines at least. One would expect a reader to read a few dozens of lines of mine too, before dismissing it. And I think a case against the standards is still interesting for whoever (me included, believe it or not) cares about the standards.

You seem to have stopped at the first lines.
Now, there is a point that ought to be clarified: the way my file that opposes standard compliance is made (though as I said it doesn't really oppose standards: it opposes the fanaticism about standards) follows a format that isn't the format of the web, but that of print.

Yet, if all one has been used to read are online articles, one would be forever at odds with mine. I am used to read books, because I came from Mc Luhan's Gutenberg age before arriving to the hypertext age. And what I accuse standards supporters is exactly that of being cognizant of standards only. They seem to be born with the internet. They seem completely unaccustomed to the print code.

Now, when you read books, you will find it is extremely common to put at its beginning a quotation (in my case from the bible): the article does not rest on the quotation, it is not the quotation, but you seem to have taken the introductory quotation as the article itself.

I can clarify the quotation: its role stands on the highlighted line of it (which wasn't highlighted by chance):

Their idols are mere silver and gold, made by human hands
(...) The people who make them will become like them

That means: we have made of standards an idol in the same fashion human beings have been used to make golden idols since ever. Too many in the web developement community are taking the W3C and standard making as a god whose utterances must be considered as inherently a godsend.
Then follows the actual article.

I understand that one would be eager to read "a solid case against standards" as you rightly ask, but you are going to find no solid case about standards when whenever you find a solid case against them (or against the way our developers support them with fanaticism), you're in a hurry to say it isn't after the first 5 lines lol.
Because, honestly, I don't know of a more solid case against standard compliance as a must than the list of over 200 sites I mention there (with links to their W£C validator's validation) that FAIL VALIDATION by HUNDREDS of errors and that include names like:

Yahoo
Google
Lycos
Altavista
Excite
Tiscali
Tucows
Nonags
Logitech
Intel
plus 200 other names of the same prestige.

We say we want to hear also a case against standards, when we hear one pro them. Great. That was the intention of my post.
But, are we positive we want to hear them indeed?

The fact we aren't ready to give to them any significant span of attention, already proves my case exactly as I put it: standard compliance support has grown into a matter of faith and ideology, and does not tolerate any objection.

Internet Explorer Is Dead, Long Live Internet Explorer: About Standards Compliance As A License To Kill

The formula that standard supporters adopt is: Microsoft is evil because it's an embodiement of capitalism. Thence let's support the standards as a way to fight an ideological struggle.
Maybe it isn't yours, but the point of my article is that it is precisely the underlying drive of many who allege to be supporting standards.
Standard compliance then becomes just, to paraphrase the famous Von Clausewitz's remark,

another way to wage war by other means

The Best Reason I've Found for Using XHTML

Submitted by m23 on March 8, 2006 - 07:31.

You should not use a standard just to use it. The standard should add value. If using XHTML does not add value to your project, and if it actually reduces value, then don't use it. I fully support using XHTML and I use it as much as possible. But sometimes, for various cutomer reasons, it's not possible to use XHTML.

The best reason I've found, oddly enough, is to use XHTML for source XML code rather than for published Web pages. In other words, I often opt for using XHTML instead of custom XML rather than opting for XHTML over HTML.

Check out this article, The Best Reason to Use XHTML.

Standards? What standards?

Submitted by eli on March 22, 2006 - 21:12.

There are no standards, only recommendations. This has been the discussion for eons, just ask anyone who has remotely touched the WaSP or been on thelist for more than a few days. The reasons that the W3 only recommends practices with regards to mark-up are numbered and varied, not the least of which is getting various mark-up delivery applications (browsers) makers to buy into the recommendations as standards. The push for standards isn't an anti-Microsoft stance, rather it is a stance for not having to hack to get a page looking as you intended in several different browsers. It isn't a stance against 'attractive' sites, it is a stance for everone being able to have a set of rules that they can start with (and what of backwards compataibility?). After all, if we all played Twister with a different set of rules it would be strange, no? What makes this all the more weird is that complex programming languages have standards. Mark-up? No way. Anyhow, don't delude yourself...there are no standards. The W3 makes recommendations and would have no teeth in enforcing standards if it set them forth.

re: list of sites failing validation

Submitted by adaptive on March 28, 2006 - 06:11.

just because a site does not validate does not mean it is not supporting standards. Tucows for instance spits back only 14 errors and most of which are a result of its CMS/URL formatting. intel has also moved towards a standards based layout. Tiscali.com has one error, .co.uk has only 8 errors. Apache.org has only 4 errors and they are just missing alt attributes on images. the only problem on epson.com is a few line breaks that are missing a closing slash which are mostly caused by their cms. Also FYI ADOBE.com passes validation though you have it listed as invalidated. If you look yahoo is also much cleaner than it used to be. google and altavista are basic search sites. the home pages are rarely updated and there isn't much there so the benefit for them is not there as much. another thing you fail to take into account is most businesses aren't as large as googe and yahoo and do not have a large tech group to maintain there web presences. seo is not a concern for them. They are the search engines. They advertise through more conventional means. Further you fail to mention the sites that have moved or are beginning to move to standards based design. Hell msn only spits back 2 validation errors. Hell, microsoft.com even validates! Why just pick out sites that fail when they are just as many that have begun the move? For most business there is a great benefit. As stated before, pages with cleaner code are much easier to deal with. While many of the sites you listed may have a handful of validation errors I can make a large list of them that have moved towards standards based layouts. That isn't even the main point, occasionally an error here or there will slip through whether it be by human error or because of an adscript or cms, however, a large number of large companies are moving towards standards based code and design and moving away from nested tables and the link. They see that there are benefits to cleaning up code, even if the end result isn't perfect.

UK govt sites best validation and accessibility ratings

Submitted by dogstar27 on March 29, 2006 - 14:08.

Dear m23, Eli, Adaptive et al, Validation also gives you: Error free log files for easy viewing Robots love your webpages Browsers usually display the page as you intended, except Microsoft with debugging turned on shows errors that exist only in the Microsoft mind, not the valid W3C code. With validated HTMl and stylesheets, you can do a lot with swapping stylesheets, I have seven different ways to view each page on http://www.hereticpress.com, impossible with HTML errors on any page. Another reason for validation is legal responsibility, eg Target being sued in America, as well as kind consideration for others I was working on a study to show an Australian government Agency AGIMO that Australia was not likely to be a world leader in e-government. I took a month to get these few pages together. They show that UK government sites validate more often with fewer errors and have more accessibility features than USA or Australian sites. Study design: http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/WebSurvey.html#skipnav UK tests http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/UKweb.html#skipnav Australian tests http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#skipnav USA tests http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html#skipnav Results http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/Results.html#skipnav Thanks for the discussions Tim Melbourne

Explaining to the customer is hard

Submitted by Harvey Kane on June 18, 2006 - 07:41.

I have never successfully been able to explain to an end user why standards are important, so I just take the line "It's just how we do it these days".

I generally use semantically corrent code for me, not for the customer - it's easier to maintain, and I have some dreams that MS might actually make IE standards compliant in the next 5 years. Why would you start a new project today and use yesterday's technology? (tables)

I edit my code using a text editor, so 2 pages is easier to manage than 10. Ultimately, this makes editing code faster, and this saves the client money, one of the most important business reasons why web standards are good.

Having said that, I don't bend over backwards to make a page validate - my SEO articles site usually has a few minor validation problems, but it's still what you would call "standard" code - I'm interested in semantically correct code, good search engine visibility and easier management without all those font tags.

Standards all the way

Submitted by ashleybowers on October 13, 2006 - 10:38.

One thing I tell everyone that asks me to consider making them a website or a page is to make it standards compliant and the Dreamwaeaver program I use to create pages makes it so they always are.With all the tools and validators out there no one should have an excuse not to make a standards compliant website.

Ashley

Times are a changing

Submitted by cianuro on November 19, 2006 - 13:34.

Since this article was written, there has been a massive shift in both usage of standards and awareness of standards and their benefits to an online business. Standards goes hand in hand with accessibility and more and more businesses are realizing the importance of reaching more and more people. As a result of this realization, many designers are coding their designs to these standards as businesses are paying more for it. The more web designers educate their clients about it, the more businesses are demanding it. It's great to see. Tim Berners-Lee however is concerned about the direction this is going. His blog is an interesting read on the topic. Redfystudios LTD Web Design

Slowly but surely

Submitted by selena on December 16, 2006 - 08:23.

I think when search engines start to place Web Standards Compliant websites at the top of the results, we will see more and more industries embracing Web Standards compliant websites. Selena

Not any time soon

Submitted by cianuro on December 17, 2006 - 13:56.

With all due respect Selena, I don't think that's going to happen. Search engines have no reason to give any weight to a site designed to standards. Search engines are about searching for content relevant to the search query. We at Web Design Ireland design all our websites tableless and standards compliant. The only benefit SEO wise is crawlability and the fact that many sites will link to you because of your attention to standards.

Not complying with those

Submitted by Andy James on February 26, 2007 - 12:26.

Not complying with those standards may not affect how your pages are viewed in browsers in many cases, and you may not notice a negative effect at all on any aspect. However, some search engines are taking a straight attitude with web pages that aren't W3 valid. Just keep that in mind.

---
Andy

we must complying with the Standarts

Submitted by dimid on February 28, 2007 - 11:10.

As i thing we must complying with the standards. There is many reasons for that and the latest are the rules regarding seo optimisations. But i think that the browsers also must complying some standards an it is not normally on page to be viewed differently on every browser. Because we from Web design BGPages must complete many workaround to get the same view of our pages on every Browser ( when we already have and Apple , Linux OS and etc.) and this is not very easy.

Semantics

Submitted by factor on March 3, 2007 - 15:17.

Writing semantically correct code is very important in aspects of accessibility and search engine marketing. Screen readers can better interpret the pages, earch engines also can better understand the content of the page, this means better ranking.

Also for people understanding semantic code is easier, so they can change the content of a page easily even without any coding knowledge.

So beside writing valid markup describing what the content is with the markup is very important.

BUISNESS websites should definitely comply

Submitted by stevenjones on March 11, 2007 - 09:38.

Some of the people who commented here went in a slightly different direction than the direction of this topic. We seem to forget that we are not talking just about ANY site, we are talking about business websites as it is stated in the title: "should my BUSINESS website be compliant?".
I will allow myself to quote a part of a similar article that I liked: "Simply put, standards compliance is about making a Website accessible to the largest range of people possible. For the majority of Website owners, this is simply good business sense."
That should say it all but I will add a few lines more for those who still doubt of the importance of web standards. A business cannot become successful if it makes compromises especially when it comes to winning or losing customers. The goal here is having more and more customers; for business websites - more and more users of your website. And if standard incompliance costs you losing customers because your site is not accessible for everyone - that's a bad thing for your business.
I would also add a benefit that the author missed to mention: Generally, not only that your standards compliant website will be compatible with all different technologies and all browsers will be able to understand its code but also your website will be faster to download and cheaper to host which is important for sites with a lot of traffic and high bandwidth charges.
---
Steve Jones

Spot on Steven. In fact, I

Submitted by cianuro on March 12, 2007 - 18:03.

Spot on Steven. In fact, I think the author left out a lot more but he did cover the main benefits. Just on the point you made, standards compliance does NOT mean the site will be smaller. Look at google.com. That is non compliant for the EXACT opposite of what you mentioned.

To clear out...

Submitted by stevenjones on March 30, 2007 - 16:19.

Just wanted to point out that when I said "faster to download and cheaper to host" I had in mind that the "design" of the site will be downloaded only once in the style sheet, not built into every page individually.

Spot on Steven. Proper CSS

Submitted by cianuro on March 31, 2007 - 08:24.

Spot on Steven. Proper CSS should be external and should effect the entire site. Downloaded once on whatever landing page and used for the rest of the sites page loads. Dave

Great and excellent article

Submitted by gry on April 6, 2007 - 21:26.

Great and excellent article t’s realy helpful. Thanks again.

Very helpful and great web

Submitted by Marmelade on April 7, 2007 - 08:11.

Very helpful and great web standart article. Thanks.

standard adds value to the site.

Submitted by EngrTun on April 10, 2007 - 17:36.

Standard is not a must-have but it surely adds value to the website. Nice read.

Pitfalls of Standards Compliance

Submitted by intellitex on April 19, 2007 - 21:43.

I would like to add my two-sense to those people stating that web standards hinders our ability to accomplish client goals. An example of this is having a page load in a new window. While the target="_blank" attribute is no longer acceptable, you can achieve this goal through some simple Javascript. Just by reading this article, we learn the importance of standards, and this is why you will notice software (such as Wordpress) generate compliant pages.
Intellitex Solutions Web Designer (http://intellitexsolutions.com)

Great article...but I wonder

Submitted by Heironymous on April 20, 2007 - 22:47.

It would be great to have a site which is totally compliant, but what about sites that depend on large images? My photography website uses relatively lage images to attract buyers and they won't buy what they can't see. Is there any way to keep the large images and still have your site be compliant? New York City Photos

Since this article was

Submitted by mikers on April 21, 2007 - 08:06.

I have never successfully

Submitted by zbigniew on April 21, 2007 - 21:06.

I have never successfully been able to explain to an end user why standards are important, so I just take the line "It's just how we do it these days". I generally use semantically corrent code for me, not for the customer - it's easier to maintain, and I have some dreams that MS might actually make IE standards compliant in the next 5 years. Why would you start a new project today and use yesterday's technology? I edit my code using a text editor, so 2 pages is easier to manage than 10. Ultimately, this makes editing code faster, and this saves the client money, one of the most important business reasons why web standards are good.

Is there any way to keep the

Submitted by crazykat on May 3, 2007 - 03:24.

Is there any way to keep the large images and still have your site be compliant? Yes - there is really no reason why a high-image/graphics site could not be accessible/standards compliant. You just need to know your stuff. IMHO, Kat

Compliants of Webpages

Submitted by InsideBlog on May 4, 2007 - 09:24.

i have heard of websites that are compliant to the webstandards and rank in searchengines better than sites that do not. but its not proofed at time, the guys from google don´t agree with that they just say it doesn´t really matter but its important that the sites could be read and with to many errors that could be a little bit difficult. so when its no big problem to make a compliant site then just do it but don´t spend to much extra time just to make it compliant to the webstandards, that my thought. my site is 100% compliant but i don´t see any special effect that show me that the site rank better than other ones.

btw nice article, well written. keep on the good work

------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Larkin

Nice article, but I have to

Submitted by kahuki on May 4, 2007 - 21:30.

Nice article, but I have to admit, that none of the credit card websites that I have built yet, passed the W3C test. I think it is good enough, if a website looks correct in the browser!

Excellent article!I do

Submitted by qrs on May 6, 2007 - 08:50.

Excellent article!

I do agree with most of the comments above that its always not necessary to be in compliant with W3 standards, but I am now trying to make all my webpages W3 compliant to the maximum is for 2 reasons mainly, one is 'uniform and consistent cross platform browser rendering' and secondly 'its easy locate and fix bugs, if any while using valid markup codes'

Some additional thoughts

Submitted by Marcel Feenstra on May 7, 2007 - 23:16.

Creating a site with XHTML and CSS certainly offers advantages; the ability to access a site using "non-standard browsers" (e.g., mobile phones) is an excellent example! The article states that a well-structured site may rank better in the search engines. This is true in my opinion, not just because a site using tables for layout may be "misinterpreted", but also because using XHTML and CSS makes it easy to keep the "real" (i.e., important) content near the top of the source code, while moving other elements (e.g., menus) towards the bottom. Since search engines seem to put more emphasis on content near the start of the file, a relatively small change to the page template may result in significantly improved rankings... While it is true that "XHTML and CSS are now commonly supported standards", it is worth keeping in mind that different browsers support these standards in subtly different ways. As a result, you may have to use tricks and workarounds like the "Box Model Hack" that was first described in an article by Tantek Çelik (also available in Dutch and other languages). A final comment that I would like to make is that XHTML and CSS are important web standards --but obviously not the only ones. In particular, the Web Accessibility Initiative with the associated Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are increasingly important, IMO. By following these standards, web designers ensure that the sites they create not only comply with (existing or future) legal requirements (cf. the comment by dogstar27), but can also be accessed by a larger percentage of the target audience --a clear business benefit!

Sudden Problems w/Login on site

Submitted by Artevolt on May 8, 2007 - 08:01.

Several months ago I implemented the login system for a Website. Everything was working fine. Then recently we noticed it stopped working. The webhost upgraded to php v5.2.2 a few days ago, and php 5.2.1 a couple months ago. The login stopped working between that time. Could there be an issue with this php version the Webhost upgraded too? Initially I downloaded the zip file, added fields, changed timestamps to show as real dates for when the Admin logs in to view all entries. Nothing has been changed since the beginning. Another 2 people were given administrative privileges, but nothing really has happened. So why did it suddenly stop working. No error messages either, the login and sign up procedure just takes the user to the site's home page, rather than to their account info page(userinfo.php) or login after sign up. Thanks so much, the client is getting rather upset, as they are losing money. I really appreciate any help suggestions.

Some thoughts on standards

Submitted by t4tw on June 28, 2007 - 01:45.

The care about web pages compliance could have in some cases developed into something that can be referred to as fanaticism. Nevertheless, whatever bad can be said about people anxious to improve the functioning of Internet it can be rightly said that ignoring standards can literally leave your business trailing behind the online competition. In a couple of years when everything gets even more technologically advanced you will have no other choice but to stick to standards because every single page will be built on the basis of them. So, in my humble opinion it is just a matter of time. By the way, if you happen to be a Polish reader and take interest in web compliance and accessibility I recommend having a look at my site where you will find the translated documents concerning the forementioned questions, as well as pieces of information related to the matter of education.

Web standards

Submitted by eltt on July 30, 2007 - 17:59.

I don't think it's too difficult to create pages that are accessible to people, meeting the standards set by the organizations such as W3C or webstandard project. My website may not be the prettiest but it meets a lot of requirements and surely it didn't cost me a lot of pain to achieve that. It took me longer to translate both WCAG1 and WCAG2 (available in Polish here along with a number of w3c-related documents) than to create a standard complaint site. I'm just an amatuer designer, but professionals can do it without any sweat.

website standards

Submitted by bpeh on July 31, 2007 - 08:26.

we do Website reviews and have seen alot of websites... many professionally designed but does not comply with web standards. Most simple websites do comply with standards (as it is easier as lesser things to code). There are many theories and different browsers are rendering things differently. It is believed that some day, they will parse javascript and html the same way but I don't know when that will happen. unless the code is really straight for ms word or excel, or tonnes of nested tables, it seems to be alright for seo.

interest articles!

Submitted by design site on August 15, 2007 - 23:27.

Thanks for very interesting article. Can I translate your article into ukrainian and publish at my webblog? I will back here and check your answer. Keep up the good work. Greetings i will put it here: Web design

Hi,Can you please help me

Submitted by gfunk on August 17, 2007 - 19:14.

Hi, Can you please help me with Login System. Can you please provide for me step by step instruction relating to implementing the Login System? What files do i upload to the server and where etc. I am a newbie to php. Thanks G

Hi

Submitted by ALS1 on August 18, 2007 - 23:04.

Is there a way to keep people from registering me or an Admin has to approve them first for anyone to login? Also how do I add a link to the page it gives after a person finally logs in?

web standards

Submitted by Guido Marc on September 2, 2007 - 19:13.

Especially für business websites it is a must to care about web standards, but also for many private websites this is important, i have translated this interesting article to make it accessible also for german users under (Webstandards. Sollte meine Business Webseite standardkonform sein?) on www.100ct.de, a language accessibility and standardisation site.

Great Article

Submitted by Audio on September 14, 2007 - 18:23.

The more web designers educate their clients about it, the more businesses are demanding it. It's great to see..

I agree, wonderful article

Submitted by Evan Hanahoe on September 14, 2007 - 20:20.

Thanks for the great article - very helpful information

I agree with Marcel

Submitted by rider85 on September 22, 2007 - 16:51.

I completely agree with Marcel! CSS Have many advantages before using HTML attributes! The code with CSS is much lower, so that code looks better and easer for understanding! I use CSS in my phone cards shop. CSS offers many more benefits beyond that of streamlined web pages with table-less layouts and precise positioning.

Check list for Web Standard compliant Web sites

Submitted by Mio on September 23, 2007 - 18:30.

Ashwinee made this checklist to ensure that whenever he designes some site(static or dynamic)it follows web standards. Anyone interested to make sure their sites are standard compliant may follow these rules without asking formy permission. If you have got your own rules (dictated by the organisation where you work or by the client for whom you work), follow them. http://ashwineedash.com/template_permalink.asp?id=98

w3c check

Submitted by Marc Dellas on September 27, 2007 - 05:51.

hey , thax for the great work. In my opinion the w3c check isnt very important

Re W3C

Submitted by JimBean on October 6, 2007 - 23:52.

My yellowpages site has also a lot of Errors in the W3C Test, i personally think its better to have a clean conform Site which passes the Test, but the normal User who visits your Site doesnt care about standarts if you designed it attractive and easy to read.,

Re..

Submitted by Mateusz 13 on November 12, 2007 - 00:17.

As a result of this realization, many designers are coding their designs to these standards as businesses are paying more for it.

thanks

Submitted by pron1cks on November 25, 2007 - 21:02.

As a result of this realization, many designers are coding their designs to these standards as businesses are paying more for it.

The best reason I've found,

Submitted by oyun27 on January 2, 2008 - 21:25.

The best reason I've found, oddly enough, is to use XHTML for source XML code rather than for published Web pages.

Comliance problems

Submitted by DwayneADAC on April 22, 2008 - 01:44.

The largest problem I have with being complaint is the tools available. If I write a web page in notepad, no problem, It's easy to be complaint. However when writing complex data driven sites using C# like Nor Cal Cars compliance is not so easy. I am rewriting this site from it's current asp to using asp.net with Visual Studio. Microsoft not only make it difficult but at times impossible to be completely complaint. Even when I go into the source mode and write compliant code changes VS will change it back to the way they like it (and often then mark it as being non-compliant) It would really help if the software manufacturers would care a little more about making the code compliant.

Start of page header

Article Categories

Highest rated articles

Submit

Recent comments

Web Standards. Should my Business Website be Compliant?

Want more?

Thomas Ashworth