is validating your code important?

[ted_chou12]

is validating your codes really that important? ???

[redbullmarky]

is validating your codes really that important? ???

no. it'll probably still work - however:

1, it's unprofessional and shows lack of real effort.

2, people who use screen readers, etc rely on valid HTML to operate. invalid code = certain people with disabilities (notably the blind/partially sighted but not limited to) can't access your site properly. that DOES include search engines to an extent.

3, less chance of it looking consistent across browsers/platforms.

[ted_chou12]

1, it's unprofessional and shows lack of real effort.

Thats definitely not true, no validation does not mean that the web master shown a lack of effort towards the construction of a site, because I dont validate my side is due to the fact that I am not literate to the html errors that display when you validate. I dont understand any of what they are saying, so I cant modify, and there are some advertisement codes that tells you do not change their codes, but those also have errors in them, what do you do then?

[Daniel0]

As for the errors descriptions: I think W3C's validator does a good job in telling what the errors are. If you don't understand them, then perhaps you should read up (X)HTML's correct syntax.

There really isn't much you can do about advertisement programs' codes if it violate its TOS. You'd have to convince them that it is ok you change the code to follow correct syntax.

 

1, it's unprofessional and shows lack of real effort.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phpfreaks.com

[AndyB]

there are some advertisement codes that tells you do not change their codes, but those also have errors in them, what do you do then

 

Almost all of those types of error are caused by the use of &.  Replace each one with & and the errors will probably all disappear.  No advertiser with more than a single grey cell would complain.

[redbullmarky]

1, it's unprofessional and shows lack of real effort.

Thats definitely not true, no validation does not mean that the web master shown a lack of effort towards the construction of a site, because I dont validate my side is due to the fact that I am not literate to the html errors that display when you validate. I dont understand any of what they are saying, so I cant modify, and there are some advertisement codes that tells you do not change their codes, but those also have errors in them, what do you do then?

 

well, there i will disagree: yes it IS true. it's a prime example of a "professional" starting a job and not finishing it properly. a prime example of a workman doing work on your house, leaving sawdust and paint all over your carpet. ok, so they dont HAVE to vacuum up the sawdust after - but 1,000,000 extra ninja points (thanks, C_V ) if they do.

no disrespect - but if you are not literate to the HTML errors, then you need to spend more time doing your homework and getting to grips with Google, not doing websites - unless it's gonna remain just a hobby. Like Andy suggests, many errors are down to the pesky ampersand symbol. others are by using outdated tags (eg, <br> instead of <br /> when using XHTML. Sometimes you'll see a list of a few hundred errors/warnings, yet many are knock on effects of others - clear up one, and you might be clearing up ten or twenty or a hundred.

As for advertisement codes - I dunno, I only really use google adsense and I don't have any validation problems with it.

 

I'm not perfect, and there are occasions where I do get a bit lazy (on my OWN projects) - but I'll try my damned best to make sure that (by the time I'm finished) not only does a client get the site they wanted, but also one that's tidy and accessible to all. I do believe that, dependent on the nature of the site and what country you're in, you could be breaking the law under the Discrimination/Disability acts - just by cutting a few corners or being that little bit sloppy.

 

Cheers

[AndyB]

@ Ted - don't confuse a lack of effort with a lack of ability.  The critique section here is littered with total rubbish that took hours or even weeks of effort (supposedly).

 

A little effort in learning repays itself manyfold.  Nobody was born understanding html.

[TecBrat]

My $.02

 

I suspect that there are many people in a similar situation as myself. I was / am a general computer geek. I programmed in BASIC as a kid, took Pascal in HS, supported win9x on the phone for a while (1996 - 2000), and have generally messed around with computers one way or another most of my life.

I had a friend who was into art, and became a graphics designer, started selling websites, and needed a coder. I found myself beginning to learn a little PHP and soon enough, I quit my job and started working for my friend full time. We put together nice looking sites that run smoothly, but I am almost certain they wouldn't pass anyone's validation tests.  I'm not lazy, I'm just still in the learning process. Our customers get good SERP and PR, and their customers love their sites. (If you don't know about SERP and PR, you need to.)  As long as our customers are happy, and their customers are happy, I could care less about the rest of the world. (Same thing goes for browsers other than IE, I mean, I could try to accomdate them, but at something in the range > 80% of all visitors to our sites, why bother. I'd be better of spending that time making the next site, or improving that site's SEO.)

 

I do not intend to say there is no place for building sites that validate, but to say that failing to do so is laziness is incorrect.

[redbullmarky]

from past experience, making tweaks to get my sites to validate has been at worst an hour job. not because there were only a few errors - some pages would literally have hundreds of errors/warnings, but as many were the result of others, it really doesnt take long.

 

1, open up a page in the W3C Validator.

2, Starting from the top, and one by one, tweak the code based on the result. The descriptions are really strong clues, with examples, as to why your code is invalid. Otherwise - Google is your friend.

3, Revalidate. After fixing an error/warning in step 2, watch how many errors disappear from your list of errors.

 

I really don't mean to sound patronising with the above, so apologies if it comes across that way. But you mention just purely dismissing the 20% who DONT use IE, when validating your code correctly by a few simple tweaks might be the difference in not having to do that. Remember, not too long ago, IE had 95% of the share. Other browsers, notably FF, are chipping away at the share day in day out. Consider this, as well as validation - are you clients gonna be happy when say 40 or 50% of their customers cant view the site properly?

 

So yeah - for dismissing users because of their choice of browser and for making your site inaccessible to the disabled just because of a few HTML markup errors, that's lazy in my book - but like I said before, it does depend on whether you're doing it professionally or as a personal hobby. Obviously everyone has to start somewhere - and at one point, i was asking these "what's the point?" questions myself. But if you're gonna take the time out to learn HTML/CSS/PHP and all the bits and pieces that go with it, may as well learn to do it properly if you're gonna be taking people's money off them.

[steviewdr]

Valid xhtml and css helps your website to work better across browsers IMO.

Also - google much much prefers valid xhtml. So for better search indexing - validate!

 

-steve

[AndyB]

Same thing goes for browsers other than IE, I mean, I could try to accomdate them, but at something in the range > 80% of all visitors to our sites, why bother

 

So if you were running a store, you would be content to turn away every fifth customer?

 

An 'argument' I read elsewhere ...

 

In short, this person's argument boiled down to "if I create an HTML page that is not interoperable, not platform-independent, not accessible -- I can do it less time than a correctly done web page." Well, duh; if I'm writing a book and I don't bother with trivialities such as grammar, spell-checking, or proofreading, I could probably get it done quicker too.

[michaellunsford]

Fact: Using IE as your standard is like playing Russian Roulette. Why? As Microsoft creeps closer and closer to web standards, their browser becomes less and less backward compatible.

 

Real world example:

A large, national non-profit had a web solution written that only works in Internet Explorer. It absolutely does not validate or run on any other browser -- period. They spent big bucks to get it done, and they were completely satisfied. Isn't that all that matters?

 

 

A year or two later....

 

IE7 is released. Kaboom -- it won't display their site.

[Daniel0]

A large, national non-profit had a web solution written that only works in Internet Explorer. It absolutely does not validate or run on any other browser -- period. They spent big bucks to get it done, and they were completely satisfied. Isn't that all that matters?

 

 

A year or two later....

 

IE7 is released. Kaboom -- it won't display their site.

 

You sort of answered your own question there. If they had bothered to code accordingly to standards, then this problem wouldn't have occurred at all. Either they should fire their development team or teach them how to code properly.

[rcorlew]

I would have to throw in my $.02 here and say that what is valid doesn't always validate. With the new evolution of CSS and sandbagging <div>'s to align text over and around a background image, many vaildators will fail when confronted with so many things to check. If you view the source code and pour it over you can tell that it is valid when the validator says it is not.

 

Personally I make every attempt to write valid code, however making platform independent code is harder when "styling" your site since different OS's and browers handle sizing differently.

 

If 90% of your users use IE and 10% use mozilla/gecko, you have to make sure that the site is displayed properly for all, IE is more forgiving but lacks most of the CSS support that the others have.

 

If you are building sites on a local intranet, then all users will have the same browser and validation is not necessary, only making sure the display behavour remains intact.

 

I also prefer to make a template, validate that, then strip off the header/footer and include those while generating the middle content per page. Makes validation a no-brainer when you can't break it since it was right from the get go.

[TheFilmGod]

Real world example:

A large, national non-profit had a web solution written that only works in Internet Explorer. It absolutely does not validate or run on any other browser -- period. They spent big bucks to get it done, and they were completely satisfied. Isn't that all that matters?

 

 

A year or two later....

 

IE7 is released. Kaboom -- it won't display their site.

 

My 2 cents. This is not true, why wouldn't a browser be back compatible? Take FF for example, its the new generation browser that make crappy code shine! I.E. will bound to do the some.

 

I agree with everyone to some limits. Yes validating code is a good way of coding, but sometimes can waste your time. Whenever I see a site with a picture at the bottom, "validate html" or "validate css" I can care less. Its great you wanted to validate, but you spend that time working on making the website better. So yes, this topic could go both ways.

 

About google ranking validate websites better - Changes everything....

[michaellunsford]

IE7 is released. Kaboom -- it won't display their site.

 

My 2 cents. This is not true, why wouldn't a browser be back compatible?

 

The story is absolutely true. IE7 thinks the site's buttons are downloads -- which dumps html files in your downloads folder. The site was written specifically for IE6; Period. Every other browser I personally tested (IE5, IE7, FF, Opera, Camino, Flock, Mozilla, and SeaMonkey) fire javascript errors all over the place.

 

The tech people's solution is to not upgrade to IE7. Can you even get IE6 for Vista?

 

 

But, if you are an IE person and don't validate, the least you should do is check your stuff in FireFox.

[dustinnoe]

people who use screen readers, etc rely on valid HTML to operate. invalid code = certain people with disabilities (notably the blind/partially sighted but not limited to) can't access your site properly. that DOES include search engines to an extent.

 

You can have valid HTML and still screw over users with disabilities.  Semantic HTML is just as important as valid HTML.  It should be set up so that a machine can understand your document well.  Use CSS to achieve a more human readable page.  If you start using HTML the right way it is super simple when validating. The same thing applies to SEO.

[Liquid Fire]

i guess phpfreaks should get to getting there site XHTML validating, i mena they have 121 error on there home page alone.

[tomfmason]

i guess phpfreaks should get to getting there site XHTML validating, i mena they have 121 error on there home page alone.

 

BURN! LoL

 

I am getting to the point where I can write html/css that almost always validates the first time around and when it don't it is normally do to me using & in links. As others have said, it is not really that hard and most of the time when you fix one error five or six more are also fixed at the same time.

 

<rant>

As other people have mentioned, there are many people that have disabilities that depend on proper code to view your content. I personally think that if you are not going to take the time to validate then you should just stick with blogspot or something. Because there are many people, with disabilities,  that have a "RIGHT" to view your content. To exclude them is irresponsible and could potentially cause a lawsuit to be brought against you, like Target. In the end it is a small amount of work and will save alot of headaches.

</rant>

[Liquid Fire]

Personally i don't worry to much about validation of my code.  it is something that i just can't do at work as i have to get code done by X time so usually there is no time for validation.  On my personal project i do expect to look at validation after everything is coded and working, it will be the last thing i do.

[tomfmason]

Sorry to say it but that don't say much for were you work. I have a hard time seeing how any reputable design company would allow anything to come out of them that is not valid. Sure you have dead lines, as well all do, but it is a waste of time and money to write code that don't validate. I would compare that to taking your car into get a window replaced and they bring it back with a plastic bag and ducktape covering the whole instead of a window. Sure it will keep the rain out but that isn't the right way..

[Liquid Fire]

We are not a design company, thats why.  I work for studentcity maintaining there few websites(studentcity.com, gradcity.com, and others).  I mean anything major that we need designing we hire outside contract to build the initial site and then we take over.  If you are planning to run a web design company then all your pages should be validated, look a www.imarc.com for example.

[redbullmarky]

sorry to put the boot in dude, but that's an excuse and a half if i ever heard one. personally i would never employ someone that didn't produce top notch work, even if that meant paying more wages. Personally I am a perfectionist, but I'm also someone that likes to appreciate every potential market to a website of mine, irrespective of browser, browser settings, disability or anything else for that matter. If making a few tweaks gets me 5 extra members that are happy, that's my job done well.

 

Sure - I'm pretty positive that there are small areas of my own work that need addressing, but the point is, I DO try my absolute best to make sure that my work is not only presentable on the main browsers (IE, FF, Opera, Safari, Camino, etc) but is also accessible enough for those that aren't as fortunate as you and I to be able to actually SEE the screen. I'm not trying to be a Mother Teresa or activist here - just pointing out the facts that so many people are naive enough to churn out sites that may look good not realising that somewhere someone isn't able to actually see it anyway. In some ways also, these coders that churn out turd without a second thought for the users are taking away jobs from those that actually want to produce quality work and not rip people off. My personal work comes from word of mouth - but delving into the freelance world and seeing how many people will churn out utter crap for stupid amounts of £££, it's no wonder clients are thinking negatively about the whole web design/development industry as a bunch of cowboys.

 

And yeah - burn phpfreaks.com's main site all you like - but the point is, I don't live by other people's standards, be it myspace or youtube or ebay or phpfreaks or whatever - it's not a case of jumping on bandwagons or saying "well this and that site do it and they're multi-billionaires, so it's ok for me not to validate anything or show any pride"

 

It's about pulling your finger out of your arse and saying "Right - this guy wants to pay me £2000 to do a site, which will put bread on the family table and pay the mortgage. Let's rock and roll and give him/her some quality in return."

 

Sorry for sounding hotheaded about a seemingly trivial matter, but it really does grind me that so many people just miss the whole point - it's the little things that REALLY count when it comes down to it. I can't make everyone happy with my work - but I can bloody well try.

[Liquid Fire]

WOW man, I dont miss the point, your missing mine.

 

Do I write sloppy code alot the time? NO. Do I try to write the best code I can? YES. There are just some cases where i get told we need to have this done in 15 mins and well at that point I need to get it done so I write the code as fast as I can and not worry about how the code looks or if it will passed validation, all it need to do it look good when displayed in FireFox and IE and do whatever it needs to do.  I can write code a bit faster when i don't care and comments, code formatting, checking validation, and all the other stuff that does not effect wether or not the page with display properly in IE and Firefox.  Now if it was just freelance work I would bid for the project with the amoutn of time i needed to create a very well looking, cross-browser site with everything he needs to be able to look at the code, or anyone else, and know right away what i was think when i wrote that code.

 

It i just were i work i don't always have the time to do things 100$ right, soem times i have to cut concers and break validation or have crappy looking code to get what they want in the amount of time they want it.  I mean the current code structure they have right now is just plain crapy and being redone anyways, then i will finally be able to write good code and it will make a difference.

 

(you sound like the programmer I replaced here, he just left because the code is really not that great right now)

[tomfmason]

the current code structure they have right now is just plain crapy and being redone anyways

 

That proves the point made here

 

Sure you have dead lines, as well all do, but it is a waste of time and money to write code that don't validate.