Do you validate your web pages?

I validate my pages.

But I let a lot of things slide if everything shows up reasonably well in the browsers I test with (O6, NS4.77, NS6, IE4+).

Whenever possible, I fix them until they are perfect. However I frequently have no control over the content and the markup for that content.

Additionally, if I code for HTML 4.01 strict, I can't use XHTML code. I usually code for XHTML being valid, then accept that as soon as I add marginheight to the body tag my life as a valid coder is over.

*sigh*

I would like to make my pages 100% compliant, but I'm not there yet. Or rather, my userbase isn't there yet.

I find since I use Netscape to make my sites I usually only get one or two small things to fix to validate, but since getting Opera6 I find I check while making it instead of just when finished.
And only use W3C.org, a few of the other sistes and some downloadable programs arent correct in there standards.

No way. Why should I go through the trouble. As long as the site is cross-browser compliant, works, and accepted by the client and/or community, I'm happy. Are we building some skyscraper here that has to be within lawful specs? Is there a lawful body out there that will take down the site if it doesn't validate? And does the general public know or even care what it means to have valid code?

Most of the time it comes close to impossible to create a site per what was planned on paper because of the restraints of what's right and what's wrong. To me it's like saying that all 2-story buildings must have 8 48" quiet light floresent bulbs per 25sqft. sunk into panel only frosty white cielings consisting of 4x4 squares...... Do I make my point? As long as the structure is safe, ventilated, and has emergency doors, the rest is up to the owner. I could go on, and I will...

Validation keeps you compliant with all browsers that comply to a certain standard and keeps your code compliant with other coded environments. If you do not need this then don't go through the waste of time. And as far as putting up some logo saying that your valid, it's nothing more than some geek way of saying to other geeks, "Hey, look! My code is perfect. Man, am I good!". Even as a web design site, I don't believe you need this crap. Do your potential clients really know or care, or are your sites so weak you need fluff to make a sale? When you buy bread at the store do you look for something on the package that says the machinery use to make this product is in compliance with IEEE standards?

Ok, I'm finished. No comments please. I'm stone set on this issue. Validation will soon vanish IMO. And for those of you who go through the trouble, I hope I didn't offend you. It's great what you do and I respect you as a great coder. As a side note: I do only the major valid points of code, not the nit picky stuff.

I think most people who validate don't put little banners advertisizing that fact to sell their site -- they do it so it functions correctly. To use your building analogogy... builders who ignore building codes all too often end up with collapsed buildings.

Validating isn't a selling point, it is a way of trying to avoid browser problems. You do know that new versions of browsers get released, right?

I think you're completely out of sync with the modern, accessible world wide web. Sorry to tell you, but you could be landed in hot water with your sites if you don't wake up to some new legistations.

Web sites these days (at least in the US) do have to be designed within lawful specs . Why do you think AOL got sued a considerable amount last year by the US Government for failing to comply to accessible standards for the visually impaired?

I strongly advise you do a lot more homework before you set your views in stone.

It is a fine balancing act between browser compatibility and validation. You can make your site 100% validated and have it not work in NS. The things that always get me are % in 's, marginwidth, and forms. So I validate and test cross browser and come up with the best of each.

Well, I haven't been doing much coding lately but when I do I try to keep it as accurate as possible. I don't mind letting a few things slide (such as the marginheight tag Suzanne mentioned) as long as most of it validates.

The thing about validation that I think most people mistake is the concept that validation equals identical looking sites. That's a crock of ****.

Validation helps you anticipate future browsers, protecting the integrity of the data, makes you a more efficient coder, teaches you more about the languages you are using, and improves standardization.

Anyone who does programming above the hobby/beginner level knows that well commented, standardized, well-proofed code is a blessing when you inherit it. Less bugs, easier to integrate, easier to understand (and therefore adapt), et cetera. Conventions are hotly debated in programming circles for this very reason. Not whether to use them, but which ones are best.

But you know, if you're making a site you know won't last more than a season, does validation matter? Maybe not as much -- as long as it works where it needs to work.

Personally, I think it's unethical to work on sites knowing you are forcing your clients to be in a position where they will have to pay for an upgrade and redesign in the near future. Unethical and unprofessional.

You can't necessarily know where the trends in this media will go, but the point of standardization (of the code, not the interior decorating for pete's sake) and validation is to help eliminate or at least greatly reduce the crap work of repeatedly marking up the data.

Why is it whenever I read a post by Clint I get annoyed!!

What you have said there I would have to 110% dissagree with. IMHO, if your code is damn near perfect, it will help cross-browser compatibility as well as ensuring that the viewer doesn't get a page that "breaks"

I always think on the users side when I code, how will it look to them? K, it works for me but will it for them? etc... I think its not only good practice but ethical to produce code that is correct and complies with standards. Wht the hell was W3C set up for in the first place!!! To lay down the law, that's why. I'm not saying I'm perfect, far from it, but I make damn sure my site is as good as I can make it. If I didn't then I might as well not bother and go and sit down with a nice cup of tea and take up knitting instead!

Its almost like learning to drive, passing your test and tearing up thoses L plates. What would be the point in then tearing around at 70 MPH trying to run people over?? Strange analogy I know!

Clint, I do not design my sites for a living, I do it as a hobby. You do it for clients and so you should do 110% of the job they expect. If I went to a client, sold them a site design, hosting, advertising, etc and then forgot all about them I would be sacked!

The customer is king and the least we can do is treat them as such...

*Rant ends*

I try to make my code compliant with standards, but my most important goal is compatability. If it looks good to 99% of my users, I am ultimately satisfied.

I do validate.
Especially in the beginning templateing time...
then test cross browser and make the tweaks we all know need to be done to help the browsers display it the way i had imagined it.
I also learn a lot that way..it helps me write better code, and because i hand code this is way important to me.
Do i wish everyone used the same browser? or that the browsers displayed everything the way i want..you bet..
but it isn't a perfect world. Standards will make it better down the road..that's one of the reasons i do it.

dragonsjaw

What is the W3C here for? Well, someone has to over see this huge stringy web that we're weaving. Some standards need to be set in order that the Internet as a whole can prosper and survive. Without the W3C the Internet might be broken down into chunks of proprietary real estate. Microsoft would own half and AOL the rest. At least the W3C can ref the match to allow others access to the technologies that foster our browsers, software, and etc... They are not here to make sure that your website can be viewed in every compliant browser, they make sure that browsers follow some simularity to make it as easy on us as possible. Valitity test for websites were created as a tool for browser makers to know what is valid. We are not governed by the W3C and never will be. Webmasters have taken this testing under their wings to try and make websites that are cross-browser compliant as possible. Like I said, I have nothing against useing validators, but why would I slow down my progess with more rules. There are about 2 dozen browsers on the market and guess how many and which ones comprise the use of 95% of the surfers. You can answer that one.

And flipper, what does this have to do with how I do business and handle my clients in the first place. They are all satisfied and well taken care of. They have no idea what valid code is and don't care. You want to see a clients eyes glaze over, talk about "I will design valid code for your site". They do know that there are different browsers that display websites differently, and what they want to know is that 99% of 500million potential customers will be able to view there site in an acceptable manner and utilize it for its purpose.

Don't get so wrapped up in the details that you loose site of the big picture. Paralysis by analysis, its a killer in this industry.

Quote: Originally posted by theprofessional
...what does this have to do with how I do business and handle my clients in the first place. They are all satisfied and well taken care of. They have no idea what valid code is and don't care.

What you are saying is not unlike a shoddy electrician saying "my clients don't care how substandard the wiring is as long as the lights go on when they flick the switch.

My own coding is less than perfect but at least I recognize it for the shortcoming it is, not wear it like a badge of honour.

edited for harshness.
- taff

Takes more to be a professional then just repeating the claim a zillion times. Nearly everyone of us has dealt with the residue of know-it-all cottage industry web designers.

Who hasn't talked to a prospective client wary about even dealing with another web designer? The horror story is always pretty much the same... they hired somebody who went great guns for a time, but then lost interest, or got overwhelmed, by the details of maintaining and expanding an existing website. The client is now stuck with a website they can't upgrade because their designer disappeared.

Who hasn't mucked through screwed up code, goofy designs, overly flat directory structures, hassling with hosting companies to get the tech contact changed, domain names registered to departed designers, etc, etc?

No, validating isn't and end-all and be-all, but IMHO not doing it is unprofessional. Geez... wouldn't you like to hire a mechanic who said, "my clients have no idea what crappy work I do, so what's the problem?"

Clint,

The very reason I raised that point about your clients has been validated by the other designers who DO this for a living and have posted above. Its not menat as a slight on how you treat your clients but there is nothing wrong with giving EVERY client 110% of YOUR time & effort to give them 110% customer service. If I did design sites for a living, which I don't (I just sell the darn things!), I would definately tell them that the time and effort put into the coding is reflective of the attention given to their site.

When I go to see a client with their site, I make damn sure that the designers have tested and validated the product to the n'th degree. It's only then that I know that the client will be 110% happy and I will be paid! Not to mention referrals, word of mouth introductions and free viral marketing that doing a good job will bring.

110% means just that, go the extra mile and you will reap the rewards...

Quote: Don't get so wrapped up in the details that you loose site of the big picture.

Clint, I think you are the one NOT seeing the big picture here. IMO, as long as there are people--designers especially, that share your opinions there will never be a set standard that we can all follow (which will make my job and yours a heck of a lot easier) No, W3C cannot make you do anything (now) but this might be a possibility in the future.

I try and explain validity and accessability to my clients, should the need arise. Some could care less but there are some who think it is pretty cool that their site has zero errors in it and that it is accessible and that I have put forth the effort to write valid code for them instead of crap. And speaking of the valid code button...i stick them on sites that I am working on so that I can check my work and changes as I go. I have had two clients inquire about them while I was building their site, I explained and they elected to leave them on their site after I was finished. Sure, some people might say, "Look at that web desinger showing off with that stupid little button on their site" but I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that they can't validate a site if they do say that.

Now I realize, like suzanne said, that validation does not equal identical looking sites but it sure helps in getting you to that point. I am not a perfect coder but W3C has made me a better one that what I was before I started validating. And validating shows that you are serious about you work and that you care to deliver the best that you possibily can to your clients. Hopefully, your clients will realize this as well as pass on the word to others.

I think validation is all about education and I elect to use the W3C Validators to check my work. It is beyond me why a web designer would not want to a least try and be as compliant as possible.

I just think that if you continue with the attitude(s) that you currently have, you will only be let down in the future and in more ways than one.

I encourage you to read THIS LINK HERE.

**Wild applause for DM**

I rest my case...

The "waste of time" arguement is a moot point once you've learned to write valid code the first time. It may take you a while to learn it at first, but you'll get it over time.

I'm a bad designer, so I'll relate this to programming. First you teach someone logic. Then you teach them how to code. Then you teach them how to optimize. Back to the web thingy... You've already learned how to design. You've learned HTML. Now learn to validate it.

There are enforcable laws regarding web design. One that comes to mind is the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Try a google search for more info.

About identical sites -- I should have clarified I meant two things. One, valid doesn't mean it looks the same in every browser, yes. But I also meant that using valid code doesn't result in cookie cutter websites so that the web will look uniform and you won't be able to tell where one site ends and another begins.

Validity in the code is more to do with the underlying structure, as many have pointed out, not the look of the site.

As with anything in life there is more than one way to skin a cat (code a site), for now we are all working in the past with HTML, its weird, everyone is so up and down when the latest version of a graphics program or editor comes out but doesnt givea damn about the source of their work, xHTML has been out for a year or two now, it is the latest version of HTML.
Bottom line, if you code badly in HTML, then your work probably wont display at all let alone validate. If you validate or not, the key is to have good tidy code, (open tag, close tag, order tags, quotes around values ....) so if you can write tidy code you shouldnt have any problem validating your code.

I found an article that I think will be an excellent way to wrap up this thread.

Good reading!!

Raise Your Standards

I tried to validate my code against the likes of walmart.com, and guess who's is more valid (mine). Surely as "professional" site as walmart.com is (should be), they would be setting standards for the rest of us to follow, right? And some of the stuff that the validator say's you can't do are down right mean. "Geeze, 95% of the browsers out there can view this tag exactly the same, why can't it be valid?", I'm thinking.

Food for thought

I don't think I want to get into why Wal Mart does or doesn't validate. (would hate to pay for that lawsuit..hehe) But the point I would like to stress is, WalMart doesn't set the standards so don't follow them in that respect.

May I ask what exactly are you referring to when you say, "some of the stuff that the validator say's you can't do are down right mean"? And what "tag" are you referring to here? --> "Geeze, 95% of the browsers out there can view this tag exactly the same"

Geez, and I never knew that W3C stood for the World-Wide Walmart Corporation. Learn something new every day.

Quote: Originally posted by doublehelix
Geez, and I never knew that W3C stood for the World-Wide Walmart Corporation. Learn something new every day.

Apparently, WalMart, Ebay, and Barnes&Noble are setting the standards for web design these days. Who knew?

You know theprofessional if you don't want to validate then don't. The Wal-Mart website is by no means the standard that most of us are trying to achieve.

Just because one large corporation wishes to turn a blind eye to valid code doesn't mean they are right! I would also venture to guess that the Wal-Mart site doesn't validate well because of the complexity of the programming and database that generates the site.

I don't believe your feeble attempts to discredit the importance of validating ones code is going to change the minds of the folks here that believe that validation is a responsible and ethical thing to do if you wish to charge people your services.

Hoche mama! I wouldn't follow Walmart's standards. Their code is very bad. I think that it is an example of problems caused by server-side languages. Since your code is in pieces not whole html pages, it is harder to validate it. The popular thing to do is to go with what works not good code.

What is gsp anyway?

Personally I think that code not being valid because of server side languages is bull. Normally you should have an idea of what kind of data is going to be written by server-side languages and if anything, validating your code will help to understand how server-side content should be set up. Its not that it is wrong to use unvalidated code but why not use the W3C standards as a guideline. Overall they are trying to HELP webdesigners so that there will not be such a huge complication with handhelds and other devices. It pay seem like a pain in the *** right now but I'd rather change now than wait until later and regret it. Just my view on the sub!
-dk

Quote: Originally posted by dk01
Personally I think that code not being valid because of server side languages is bull. Normally you should have an idea of what kind of data is going to be written by server-side languages and if anything, validating your code will help to understand how server-side content should be set up.

I have just seen more and more crummy code because of server-side. I personally think that it comes because there are quite a few developers that are pretty good at coding but not good (or care) about the html part. What I really despise seeing is html all on one line, i.e. content.

mairving,

The line you quoted effects readability, but not how well the code is written. If the stuff is just being pulled in from template files, those files may look considerably different than what gets output to the browser. Done properly, the interface should be seperated from the content. Designer works on the look-and-feel, developer works on the logic.

Quote: Originally posted by doublehelix
mairving,

The line you quoted effects readability, but not how well the code is written. If the stuff is just being pulled in from template files, those files may look considerably different than what gets output to the browser. Done properly, the interface should be seperated from the content. Designer works on the look-and-feel, developer works on the logic.

If you can't easily read what someone else has written, then it is poor coding. It has nothing to do with validation but nevertheless, it is poorly formed code. To me it is just a bit of laziness to write PHP like this:

I have to pop in here and mention that I customize third party applications like bulletin boards and shopping carts fairly frequently. And image galleries...

The people who develop the logic often use dreamweaver poorly to construct the initial template, then plug that code into their logic by embedding the HTML into the programming. Infuriating! I have, of course, learned oodles about Perl and PHP by having to edit the actual server side scripting to fix client side errors.

I would dearly love to see programmers learn how to write xhtml, or better yet, get someone how does know it to make the template, then they can program around it.

I think Mark and doublehelix et al are all right. It shouldn't matter whether you hard code the html or generate it through server side scripting. But unfortunately, it frequently does. Poor and improper use of OOP, or not using it, and poor use of templating can result in a godawful mess.

Also, though, Walmart, the initial target here, has legacy programming and code. Attacking their code for not being valid is as logical as attacking a Model T for not having airbags. A little bit of sense is called for here.

Quote: Originally posted by taff

Apparently, WalMart, Ebay, and Barnes&Noble are setting the standards for web design these days. Who knew?

Where did u get that from! It's MicroYahoo that lays down the law. You know the one...

The hybrid child of the worlds largest pain in the arse and its mamma!!

You decide which ones which!!

I write perl templates from time to time and I generally don't put the \n's in just to pretty up the code when somebody does a view source. After all, if I need to fix something I fix the template file, not the code output from the calling script.

Just to clarify, I guess I shoud have said templates used by perl instead of perl templates (whatever they would be). The templates are just text files with the html in them, the perl script reads them in a line at a time -- usually parses them for any variables I may be using -- and outputs it. Because I don't paste a \n in then you get the long string when you view code.

'Course, we all know not sticking in the \n's is laziness on my part, but I'll claim I'm saving file size to increase download speed. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

So I guess we've come to the conclusion that.... hmm nothing really but mairving I think I agree with what you are saying. Since I am originally an html programmer I always take care of my code and even code xhtml and xml properly and it validates. I forgot about people who fail to learn the basics of html, standards, code structure, and browser compatibility and just dive straight into server-side code. Possibly this is the problem. That there is not a process by which people tend to learn about making websites. I have spoken with people who are trying to learn javascript, php, and using databases but could not type a full page of html if i asked them. its shocking and i am not sure how it can be stopped.
-dk

Quote: Originally posted by doublehelix
'Course, we all know not sticking in the \n's is laziness on my part, but I'll claim I'm saving file size to increase download speed. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

haha! Saving space.. I love it!! Trying to pinch every byte, eh?