Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Web Standards -- do you use 'm?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Web Standards -- do you use 'm?

    Most if not all of you build websites in some way or another. Whether you handcode or use Dreamweaver (or any other such application), you're working with web standards by definition. After all, no matter how crappy your HTML might be, it's still HTML and thus a web standard*.

    However, the real question is: how many of you use modern techniques to create their sites?

    Modern techniques include, but are not limited to:
    • using rich, semantic markup
    • not using tables for layout
    • using CSS for all layout/presentational purposes
    • using Javascript for good, not evil
    And how many of you test in all main browsers?
    • IE 5.x and above
    • Mozilla / Firefox
    • Opera 7.x / 8
    • Safari
    How many of you test in the more obscure browsers?
    • IE 5.2/Mac
    • Camino
    • Omniweb
    • Galeon
    • Konqueror
    How many of you aim to create accessible websites?

    How many of you even know how to create accessible websites?

    How many of you think you know how to create accessible websites, but should really admit that you don't quite know for sure if you have as much clue on the subject as you believe you do?

    This is just a survey out of my own interests, as I'm wondering about the web-savvyness of the vB-scene (or, forum scene in general). I would greatly appreciate if you answer all these questions, and answer them as truthfully as you can. I won't go whine or yell at you if you're not using modern techniques at all -- I'm offering my help if you want it, but that's it. Again, I'm only doing this out of my own interests... curiosity, basically. But, it should be interesting to see the results.

  • #2
    I tend not to stick to the standards. If it works in all the major browsers than it works for WiBu. Of course I try not to code sloppilty though.

    I test all of the major browsers myself (IE 5.x and above,Mozilla / Firefox,Opera 7.x / 8) but since I do not have access to Safari I ask a friend to check it out with his mac.

    Before I have not intended to make accessible websites but I'm looking into it now. I can see a point to it.

    Comment


    • #3
      I've firmly made the switch now, and I don't intend on going back. I test in every browser I have access too and make sure that I try and make my sites as user-friendly and accessible as possible No excuse for lagging behind anymore IMO...
      Dean Clatworthy - Web Developer/Designer

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Faruk
        Most if not all of you build websites in some way or another. Whether you handcode or use Dreamweaver (or any other such application), you're working with web standards by definition. After all, no matter how crappy your HTML might be, it's still HTML and thus a web standard*.

        However, the real question is: how many of you use modern techniques to create their sites?

        Modern techniques include, but are not limited to:
        • using rich, semantic markup
        • not using tables for layout
        • using CSS for all layout/presentational purposes
        • using Javascript for good, not evil
        And how many of you test in all main browsers?
        • IE 5.x and above
        • Mozilla / Firefox
        • Opera 7.x / 8
        • Safari
        How many of you test in the more obscure browsers?
        • IE 5.2/Mac
        • Camino
        • Omniweb
        • Galeon
        • Konqueror
        How many of you aim to create accessible websites?

        How many of you even know how to create accessible websites?

        How many of you think you know how to create accessible websites, but should really admit that you don't quite know for sure if you have as much clue on the subject as you believe you do?

        This is just a survey out of my own interests, as I'm wondering about the web-savvyness of the vB-scene (or, forum scene in general). I would greatly appreciate if you answer all these questions, and answer them as truthfully as you can. I won't go whine or yell at you if you're not using modern techniques at all -- I'm offering my help if you want it, but that's it. Again, I'm only doing this out of my own interests... curiosity, basically. But, it should be interesting to see the results.
        I try my best to follow web standards all the time, except when developing for vBulletin (for obvious reasons).

        I do everything listed, although I sometimes disregard CSS bugs in Opera, since not a lot of people who visit my sites use them.

        I'm subscribed to all the major CSS galleries, and regularily visit all the big-name players in the web (such as Dan Cederholm's SimpleBits, Dave Shea's Mezzoblue, Douglas Bowman's StopDesign, ALA, etc.)



        ...and of course, I prefer MovableType over WordPress/all the others.

        EDIT: I also strive for validation for XHTML, CSS, and 508
        Last edited by DirectPixel; Fri 17 Jun '05, 6:38am.
        :)

        Comment


        • #5
          I make sure that the HTML validates at least as XHTML 1.0 Transitional, but I strive for XHTML 1.1. The reason is because I have found that when it does validate, the page will render in older and less-compatible browsers. I test on the following:
          • MSIE 5.5/6.0
          • FireFox/Mozilla (latest stable)
          • Camino (they forked Gecko so I check independently here)
          • Safari 1.3/2.0 (same engine; no reason to test OmniWeb as it uses WebKit which is the same as Safari)
          • Konqueror
          There is no point in testing IE 5.2 for the Mac as it supports virtually no modern standards and on the off chance that somebody is using it to browse my site, they can live with the off-looking page. I do not feel I should degrade my entire site or create an alternate layout for such a small percentage.
          Bugdar: PHP bug tracking software that is beautiful, fast, and robust.

          Comment


          • #6
            I strive to validate my site with XHTML and CSS (which versions depends on how big the site is ).

            However, I completely disagree against using non-table layouts. CSS-based layouts look good and work good in some cases, but imho, they are not "advanced" enough or supported enough to be used properly for the entire page. I prefer tables (with CSS, of course) over non-tables.

            Also, user accesibility is a must in my book. If the user finds it hard to navigate, then you've failed (no matter how good the coding or design is)

            MGM out

            Comment


            • #7
              I wouldn't call putting together images using squares an advanced method of implementing layouts. It just leads to excess markup which isn't needed.
              Dean Clatworthy - Web Developer/Designer

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MGM
                I strive to validate my site with XHTML and CSS (which versions depends on how big the site is ).

                However, I completely disagree against using non-table layouts. CSS-based layouts look good and work good in some cases, but imho, they are not "advanced" enough or supported enough to be used properly for the entire page. I prefer tables (with CSS, of course) over non-tables.

                Also, user accesibility is a must in my book. If the user finds it hard to navigate, then you've failed (no matter how good the coding or design is)

                MGM out
                On the contrary! Using CSS for layouts allows you to do many things that cannot be possible without complex nested tables and tons of sliced images. The most obvious example? Using floats with images and <div>'s.

                CSS1 is very widely supports by all the modern browsers, and many old and obscure browsers as well. Granted, you may need to make a few CSS tweaks/hacks to make your pages render correctly in everything, but there's only a small handful of techniques you need to know for doing that.
                :)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by daemon
                  I make sure that the HTML validates at least as XHTML 1.0 Transitional, but I strive for XHTML 1.1. The reason is because I have found that when it does validate, the page will render in older and less-compatible browsers. I test on the following:
                  Don't do XHTML 1.1 -- go for 1.0 Strict.

                  1.1 must be sent with the mime-type application/xhtml+xml and that means not a single Internet Explorer user will ever see the page. They'll just get a download file as ... pop-up.

                  XHTML 1.1 is of no use whatsoever right now, not even if you want to include MathML in your pages. 1.0 Strict is as strict and as forward-compatible as you can get right now, 1.1 is overdoing it (and often, not knowing what exactly you're doing -- no offense).


                  Originally posted by MGM
                  However, I completely disagree against using non-table layouts. CSS-based layouts look good and work good in some cases, but imho, they are not "advanced" enough or supported enough to be used properly for the entire page. I prefer tables (with CSS, of course) over non-tables.

                  Also, user accesibility is a must in my book. If the user finds it hard to navigate, then you've failed (no matter how good the coding or design is)
                  Funny you should say that bit about user accessibility being "a must in my book" -- table layouts are by definition not usable and not accessible.

                  Additionally, CSS layouts are far more advanced and powerful than tables will ever get, as they don't depend on a gridline structure, which tables do. CSS layouts can go anywhere, anytime, and in any way you could imagine. Whether browsers support everything is a different issue, but right now, all mainstream browsers do support sufficient CSS to allow for far more advanced pages than you could accomplish with tables.

                  And really, table-based layouts are inaccessible. I've just seen live examples of that last week. They really don't work for things like screenreaders, and oftentimes they don't work for visually impaired people either.


                  Originally posted by DirectPixel
                  I'm subscribed to all the major CSS galleries, and regularily visit all the big-name players in the web (such as Dan Cederholm's SimpleBits, Dave Shea's Mezzoblue, Douglas Bowman's StopDesign, ALA, etc.)
                  I just had lunch with Douglas last week. :-) He's also been plugging my site twice already, once during @media and now on his site as well:
                  http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2005/06/14/atmedia.html

                  (oh, and Jeffrey Zeldman of ALA (or really, WaSP first and then the rest) is a hilarious guy!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Faruk
                    I just had lunch with Douglas last week. :-) He's also been plugging my site twice already, once during @media and now on his site as well:
                    http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2005/06/14/atmedia.html

                    (oh, and Jeffrey Zeldman of ALA (or really, WaSP first and then the rest) is a hilarious guy!)
                    Wanna introduce me to them?
                    :)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DirectPixel
                      Wanna introduce me to them?
                      Want to? sure. Can? No, not really.

                      I had lunch with Douglas during @media in London, but he is back in San Francisco now and I'm back in the Netherlands again...

                      *is sad*

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I do my best to learn and apply what I learned to my designs. I probably fail each time, but that is the great thing of learning

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Faruk
                          Don't do XHTML 1.1 -- go for 1.0 Strict.

                          1.1 must be sent with the mime-type application/xhtml+xml and that means not a single Internet Explorer user will ever see the page. They'll just get a download file as ... pop-up.

                          XHTML 1.1 is of no use whatsoever right now, not even if you want to include MathML in your pages. 1.0 Strict is as strict and as forward-compatible as you can get right now, 1.1 is overdoing it (and often, not knowing what exactly you're doing -- no offense).
                          According to the W3C, XHTML 1.1 doesn't have to be sent with application/xhtml+xml for it to be compliant with the specification:

                          http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

                          In summary, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents. 'application/xml' and 'text/xml' MAY also be used, but whenever appropriate, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used rather than those generic XML media types.
                          I would have sent application/xhtml+xml with my pages a long time ago if it wasn't for IE which refuses to make any attempt at rendering a page sent with it. It will be a great way to lock out IE users using anything less than IE7 when it becomes mainstream and I decide to depreciate support for IE6.

                          Anyway, I use the modern techniques you mentioned and I test with IE6 (Windows XP SP2), Firefox, Opera and the W3C validators. I also started using the Cynthia Says portal tester recently. I'd test in more but Safari, Konquerer and IE for Macintosh don't run on Windows XP to my knowledge. As for the others, I am not aware of versions of them that run on Windows and none of my visitors use Camino, Omniweb or Galeon so I don't have much of a reason to go nuts over that. I've started using the Cynthia Says portal tester recently so I'm aiming to have an accessible website and I know how to have one.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Shining Arcanine
                            According to the W3C, XHTML 1.1 doesn't have to be sent with application/xhtml+xml for it to be compliant with the specification:

                            http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
                            I'm sure it was said somewhere else that XHTML 1.1 MUST be sent as application/xhtml+xml - but I can't find it anymore.

                            Either way, though, the W3C itself discourages the use of XHTML 1.1 entirely. XHTML 1.1 is only meant to be the XHTML which fully drops support for HTML in all ways (hence the MUST for the correct mimetype), but since it's still a reformulation of HTML they silently deprecated it themselves.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I just recently reformatted my last Windows test box with Linux. Didn't do so on purpose... so now I have to figure out how I'm going to test IE without costing me much. When the time comes I might dig out another desktop and put XP on it, we'll see.
                              TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X