redbullmarky Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 this is my point though. you mention the fact that they're gonna eventually write good code - that takes time - so cutting corners might save time now, but always creates more work in the long term.(edit: as Tom points out) So fair do, the problem lies with your company and not you, as you're trying to keep your job. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the morals of it. The best and worst part of PHP/HTML is the same thing - both are easy to use but both encourage people that don't entirely know what they're doing to jump in and churn out crap. LiquidFire - that's not an implication on you, but more of a general point. I do kinda feel quite strongly about this sort of thing, mainly because I've seen how the web has evolved over the past years since I got involved, and moreso since the "Introduction" of Web2.0 and AJAX to the mainsteams and since I started properly freelancing. Feedback from clients generally involves some sort of mention about how they've been shafted in the past by paying regular money for substandard results, be it from a company or a freelancer. Every man and his dog wants to use AJAX for everything without knowing why or what its implications will be. Everyone wants big text, over-the-top gradients and rounded Web2.0 logos. Just like yesterday, everyone wanted Flash. Sure, we all need to learn - I just sometimes wish the learners who have yet to appreciate the further implications of what they're doing (beyond money) ie, quality, usability, accessibility, etc - before they start taking money off people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Fire Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I understand that and I would never take money from freelancing unless my code output was 100% standard passing all validations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFilmGod Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 "Introduction" of Web2.0 There are soo many sites that say they want to be "web2.0" but exactly what are they? And do they strictly have to be validate code? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbullmarky Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 doesnt matter whether they're "Web2.0" or not. valid code is valid code. My point bringing up that, along with ajax etc, was that so many people jump into a fairly technical arena, throw all sorts of various scripts and rubbish together to make a "site" and charge for it. On one hand I say "fair play, if you can get the work". On the other, I say you're taking away from the reputation of an industry already littered with crap and bad reputations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecBrat Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I openly admit to being rather unskilled. I haven't even attempted to validate my code, or my boss's code. Neither of us has taken an actual course in web development. His gift is as a graphic artist, and mine is in computer science. (Mostly non-web based programming like Pascal, BASIC, QBASIC or even DOS .bat files{I once saw a poker game written in noting but DOS batch commands} ) Our clients love thier sites. The search engines love our sites. No-one leaves our company thinking they got burned by thier developer. Again, I am not saying that validation is evil, but to say that I am somehow stealing from you and ruining your reputation is simply wrong. What I think is worse is some "web developer" charging who knows what to slap some content into a template (see templatemonster.com) and calling it a website. I've even seen a web-design firm put thier own site in a template. This, to me, is far worse than a functioning site that doesn't pass validation. Some poor consumer doesn't even realize that there are umpteen other sites out there that look exactly like his/hers. This devalues the custom designs that web designers offer along with the custom coding that we developers bring. <rant/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellunsford Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 If you're not validating, then ask yourself, "why not?" If the best answer you can come up with is, "because it looks good in one browser, and the client loves it," then you're only fooling yourself. Quality is a commitment. If the first line of markup on your page is <html> or the validator says you have 137 errors, you aren't committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbullmarky Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 What I think is worse is some "web developer" charging who knows what to slap some content into a template (see templatemonster.com) and calling it a website. I've even seen a web-design firm put thier own site in a template. y'know, as far as templating goes - i kinda agree. but that's kinda batting the responsibility away onto others. I'm probably less skilled than you. My only training has been the internet. I am 100% self-taught. as for validation, i'll restate something i said earlier in the topic: 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. Andy's earlier post quoting something else summed it up even better: 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. validating your code is often a case (depending on doctypes) of using <br /> instead of <br>. Or making sure you've got & instead of & as well as other html entities. And nesting the HTML correctly. and making sure IMG tags all have 'alt' attributes and are closed with " />" not just a >. Not rocket science stuff, but they are the HTML industry equivalent of spelling mistakes. As long as you've not gone down the 'echo '<tr><td>hello</td></tr>'; style of coding, getting stuck in to your site to validate it is a TINY job - even 200 errors can be dwindled right down just by fixing a few of them, as many are the result of others. I think the problem is that many people take the whole internet industry lightly, just because of how easy it is to get stuck in and write code that works even though it's wrong. Sure, everyone needs to start somewhere, and more often than not, your first sites will look like a bucket of sick. The difference is that your first sites are generally personal sites - not for selling to a client. My first mini-sites were awful. But you do need to remember that when you cross the line from hobbyist to developer, you're entering a technical arena that combines many technical and artisitic professions together. The least you can do if you're gonna work in the industry full time is to make sure your stuff is as good as it can be - not just for the "average" viewer, but also for the disabled amongst us that want to be able to use the site properly, or for those who choose different browsers altogether. *and one final point* how many of you "I don't see why validating my code is important" people are fans of Microsoft? Cos it's very funny how many other times i've seen this argument come up, most of the people who can't be arsed to tidy up their code are the first to slag off Microsoft and tell everyone else how crap a browser Internet Explorer is. So ... why IS Internet Explorer a bucket of sick? Why IS Windows full of issues constantly? Because someone didn't clean up their buggy code, and someone didn't really care whether their browser didnt follow standards. "Oh well never mind, at least we've got billions of £ for it." says Mr Gates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcorlew Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 One of the reasons that IE doesn't work like other browsers is because Microsoft saw the internet as more or less an extension to thier Office adn Explorer. IE was just an interface to send and receive data to servers. Microsoft was working under the impression that most internet users used it more for informational purposes than display/interactivity purposes. I did hear however that MS is dropping Frontpage altogether and is instead going to use Dreamweaver in it's future versions of Office. I do beleive that MS has seen the light in regards to the whole e-world and is adapting, although be it slowly. MS intended IE to be used by people who want to send receive data, which it does. It will remain in use for many years to come since most companies are Microsoft-Centric in their data systems that they cannot afford to do anything else. I know that my company uses all MS products, Frontpage, Exchange Server Access along with WOrd and Excel. The all communicate to the servers to get theif information through IE and that is more or less what IE was intended to do. It would not be wise at all to write code that only works in 60-70% of the browsers. So you have to ensure that at least it works well in Firefox and Opera. Since the later two are based on gecko and mozilla they would ensure a fairly reasable likeness to all the other browsers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Fire Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 One of the reasons that IE doesn't work like other browsers is because Microsoft saw the internet as more or less an extension to thier Office adn Explorer. IE was just an interface to send and receive data to servers. Microsoft was working under the impression that most internet users used it more for informational purposes than display/interactivity purposes. I did hear however that MS is dropping Frontpage altogether and is instead going to use Dreamweaver in it's future versions of Office. I do beleive that MS has seen the light in regards to the whole e-world and is adapting, although be it slowly. MS intended IE to be used by people who want to send receive data, which it does. It will remain in use for many years to come since most companies are Microsoft-Centric in their data systems that they cannot afford to do anything else. I know that my company uses all MS products, Frontpage, Exchange Server Access along with WOrd and Excel. The all communicate to the servers to get theif information through IE and that is more or less what IE was intended to do. It would not be wise at all to write code that only works in 60-70% of the browsers. So you have to ensure that at least it works well in Firefox and Opera. Since the later two are based on gecko and mozilla they would ensure a fairly reasable likeness to all the other browsers. umm what the hell do Frontpage have todo with IE? maybe i am wrong but frontpage is just a web programming tool(and a crappy one at best). there is no reason anyone needs to use frontpage with create webpages to work in IE(hell all you really need a a text editor like notepad. if your company uses frontpage just because microsoft created it then there morons when if they wanted to send the money they could get dreamweaver or the endless number of programming IDEs(PHPeD(i use this), Zend studio, PHP Designer, PHPEdit, and the list goes on). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neylitalo Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Frontpage uses the IE rendering engine, so what you see in Frontpage, you'll see in IE. I think that's what Frontpage has to do with IE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcorlew Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Sorry I got sidetracked in my post. The reason most websites don't validate is because designers tend to use wysiwyg editors that skew the code and do not indent and tab all the code to make it flow and therefore easier to validate. My point with Frontpage was just that, it renders pages for IE, and since most large sites are driven by datasystems that are MicroSoft-centrc, it only makes cense that is why people use Frontpage. My company is on an Intranet, no other choice but Microsft-Centric applications, so I know the code is no where near valid. Personally I use notepad for html and css, and it validates everytime(except for those long url's and links) while I am working outside of my job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.