ardyandkari Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 ok, i was reading one of my OLD posts...i criticise the idea of validating code... i am no longer critical, just indifferent....but i did search for "why validate css or xhtml"...went to the W3C page, looked around... found a refrence to this page --->http://www.section508.gov/ run a validator on it...i dare you...I DARE YOU!!! total validator comes back with Total errors found: 52(Parsing: 25, HTML: 27) there are more on other pages too.... now, let me ask you... Who r3ally Cares??? not the feds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Don't confuse accessibility with w3c validation - they're two different things. That said, that page and plenty of others on the site have managed to completely ignore many of the fundamentals of accessibility. It if were my government, I'd complain long and loud about it. I'd even suggest they visit http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=614 and get themselves a great free tool to help in their web development exercise. Alternatively, I'd apply for the (obviously) vacant job of web accessibility wizard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardyandkari Posted June 23, 2007 Author Share Posted June 23, 2007 Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (1194.22) The criteria for web-based technology and information are based on access guidelines developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium. Many of these provisions ensure access for people with vision impairments who rely on various assistive products to access computer-based information, such as screen readers, which translate what's on a computer screen into automated audible output, and refreshable Braille displays. Certain conventions, such as verbal tags or identification of graphics and format devices, like frames, are necessary so that these devices can "read" them for the user in a sensible way. The standards do not prohibit the use of web site graphics or animation. Instead, the standards aim to ensure that such information is also available in an accessible format. Generally, this means use of text labels or descriptors for graphics and certain format elements. (HTML code already provides an "Alt Text" tag for graphics which can serve as a verbal descriptor for graphics). This section also addresses the usability of multimedia presentations, image maps, style sheets, scripting languages, applets and plug-ins, and electronic forms. The standards apply to Federal web sites but not to private sector web sites (unless a site is provided under contract to a Federal agency, in which case only that web site or portion covered by the contract would have to comply). Accessible sites offer significant advantages that go beyond access. For example, those with "text-only" options provide a faster downloading alternative and can facilitate transmission of web-based data to cell phones and personal digital assistants. i just found it ironic that a site that gives information about this law (and is a .gov site, just to make it more confusing) isn't following its own ideas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbullmarky Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 well - the rules are there, they're proven to help, they impose good "awareness" skills on you when designing a site, so they're good enough for me - regardless of whether the powers that be are hypocritical about it. these days, simple things like access keys help ME out, as well as their intended audience. i'm more a fan of keyboard shortcuts etc than mouseclicks, so any obvious signs that i can use the keyboard to easily navigate around a site is good for me. in addition, it's not as if it's that hard to get a site to validate or to make it accessible either - so as i've said before, there's really no excuse to not do it. if i was a client, then given the choice between a two companies - one that's keen on standards and accessibility and one that isnt, that could be the swinging factor. the web is still a relatively new technology, so doesnt yet have many strict laws to govern it. i like to think i'm trying to do my bit by making sure that every potential visitor can use my site. i'm not perfect by any means and still have a long way to go to get my old sites properly up to speed with 508, etc - but the fact that i'm aware of it is a good start, simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salis Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I never really understood the W3C validation. I personally think that in some cases it causes more problems then fixes for an example: W3C Dev.Vx-Fx.com Ok Given there are only 3 errors and 2 warnings some of this is just BS at times... I mean Error: required attribute "alt" not specified Warning: reference to non-existent ID "inputtext3". I also get an error for using the same ID twice... I kinda need the same id because it controls the layout. I don't want to have to add a good 50+ lines of css! But I suppose this isn't bad for the information being pulled from a database. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildteen88 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 All img tags must contain an alt attribute. This is one of the many requirements of XHTML. Also id's can only be used once there cannot be any more than one of the same id used on a page. Either revert duplicated id's to classes or give each id a unique name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
designationlocutus Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I use the little rule - id if there is only one of the type on the page - class if its going to be repeated on the page. Hehe I try to keep to the W3C and WAI if there is time at the end of a work project (which is rare). I suggest it, but its always down to my company and the time they want to spend on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbullmarky Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 All img tags must contain an alt attribute. This is one of the many requirements of XHTML. absolutely. but providing an ALT tag is far more than just conforming to XHTML. To some people who turn off styles/images or use special types of screen reader, the ALT tag is the difference between someone using your site or not at all. They didnt just sit round a table saying "right then, what shall we do to make the life of developers harder. i know, LETS ADD SOME ALT TAGS! that'll fk them up!". probably more along the lines of "what attributes can we add to HTML that will enable those who may have limited/no eyesight to browse the web, as they perfectly have a right to. What can help make a screen reader "see" images ?" So in actual fact, statements like this are BS: Ok Given there are only 3 errors and 2 warnings some of this is just BS at times... I mean Error: required attribute "alt" not specified not the error itself.... Think about everyone, simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salis Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 The "BS.. at times" I was referring to was the Error vs Warnings (Why not both be errors?)... Besides that missing ALT tag was for an affiliate image which ironically take you to a site that sells compliant web templates (which is where I got mine from). In any event my site (currently in development) is functional and I'm working on making it compliant to W3C. It shouldn't too big of a head ache as there are only 3 errors. All in all I think for never taking a web, programming, multimedia class in my life, being self thought, I'm doing fairly good. And now I know that ALL IMGs must include and ALT tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiamProductions Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I don't really use w3c because it picks up every little error and that annoys me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbullmarky Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I don't really use w3c because it picks up every little error and that annoys me i might be getting a little to worked up over nothing, but comments like this one annoy me - mainly because you're missing the point of why it's important. 1, it just looks more professional to have your code 100% validating (or at least as much as possible) 2, it has reasons to do with accessibility - ie, allowing people with special needs (notably visual) to get around your site easier. it's easy for many developers to forget about other users. 3, layouts support more browsers 4, promotes forward thinking and to an extent forces the browsers to get inline and follow the rules. 5, many errors are to do with missing alt tags. considering Google/MSN et al cannot "see" your images, why would you leave these out when it provides more content for engines to read??? why would you throw search engines and screen readers off the trail by not closing tags properly? etc etc the list goes on. personally, if i was to source in help for any projects, i wouldnt touch a developer with a bargepole if they had the whole attitude of "stuff the standards and the rules". they might as well go carry on with geocities or myspace as far as i'm concerned. i'm not perfect, as i've said before, but those with the whole "stuff the standards" and those that make no effort to try should really do something else other than web design and leave the art of making sites and pages to people who DO care. maybe then the net as a whole can move forward and everyone can equally and fairly access it, just like its original intention. *steps off soapbox* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiamProductions Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I mean like it validates if there is a missing tag what does it matter to be honested if the site works perfect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I mean like it validates if there is a missing tag what does it matter to be honested if the site works perfect? Punctuation, capitalization, and spelling are often as important as clarity of expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azu Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 ok, i was reading one of my OLD posts...i criticise the idea of validating code... i am no longer critical, just indifferent....but i did search for "why validate css or xhtml"...went to the W3C page, looked around... found a refrence to this page --->http://www.section508.gov/ run a validator on it...i dare you...I DARE YOU!!! total validator comes back with Total errors found: 52(Parsing: 25, HTML: 27) there are more on other pages too.... now, let me ask you... Who r3ally Cares??? not the feds... If you want to have errors in your code which force people to add automatically error checking and correction for every possible error you could make, thus significantly bloating and slowing down and decreasing the stability of all popular browsers, then by all means, continue to put up invalid code. If not, then make sure that your code is standards compliant. The W3C validator makes this extremely easy to do. Judging by your "grammar" (or extreme lack there-of) I'm guessing that you are one of those people that simply does not care whatsoever how horrible what they say and write is, as long as it is possible to decipher, so my wisdom is probably falling on death ears. But at least I tried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salis Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm not going to say that W3C is bad. Personally I like to have clean code. Both on the web and for Windows applications. But if I have to spend an additional hour just to correct one little thing I'll probably just ignore it. Like that missing ALT tag.. It's for an affiliate banner.. I don't see any point for an ALT tag for that; however, for a screen shot, then yes I'll include is as that would be part of my site.. Off the record... does W3C work for all browsers? I've noticed that IE like to display my page differently than FF. Is this something to take in account? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 It takes you an hour to find one little thing like a missing alt tag (using a validator)????? Cripes. alt is part of the html specification and that's not rocket science. The whole point of an alt tag is ... just what it says it is in the specification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azu Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 W3C validates websites, not browsers. And if the web page is valid, then any valid browser will display it perfectly, and the same as all of them do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salis Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 It takes you an hour to find one little thing like a missing alt tag (using a validator)????? Cripes. alt is part of the html specification and that's not rocket science. The whole point of an alt tag is ... just what it says it is in the specification. I mean to fix. When I first stared html and using the validator. I'd attempt to fix a tag and it through off my entire lay out. Ended up building from scratch. But now, not so much. May be 5-10 to correct a tag/format. But if I can't get it perfect I can live with a few warnings or 1-2 errors. After all it's not like I'm programming an OS application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbullmarky Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 first time i ever checked a big page of mine (before I'd even heard of validation and how important it was), i got over 200 errors/warnings on a single page. after thinking "oh bugger, this is gonna take all day to fix!" i thought i'd clean a few up, and do a few every day. only i realised that when i cleaned up a few of the reported issues, about 40 or 50 errors dropped of the list - so i got over 200 errors sorted in about 30 mins. moral of the story? it's bloody lazy not to validate your code considering the overall benefits to all users viewing your site. it doesnt take long. if you can't be arsed to dot your i's and cross your t's, then you're in the wrong industry. @Salis - no, you might not be programming an OS app. but what about people who visit your site that cant see it, that rely on a perfectly validating site to be able to use it like you and I? I'm a little tired of hammering this point home, but it gets overlooked each time, mostly by those that either aren't or don't know anyone with accessibility issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I understand redbullmarky I do keep the general public in mind. I had 3 errors, one missing ALT tag and the DIV ID tag using the same ID this is no biggie, 5 minute fix. Very simple just have to add a new class "#box15" I suppose. But I'm not going to work myself up. This is just a hobby and I'm learning. Now if I'm working on a site for a few extra bucks then you can bet that site would be compliant. But on on a "dink-around" hobby web site i'm not going to worry if i get an error because of a missing ALT tag in an advertisement. Any who those 3 errors are corrected and the development sub domain is valid. That leaves me with the 2 css files... I wonder if those are even compliant.... Edit== Yeah just check the CSS and I'm actually surprised. It's valid. Both of them are valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azu Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Yay. Welcome to the valid website club! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Yay. Welcome to the valid website club! haha Thanks. I often come up with random tasks. I think my random task this time is to create a web site that is full W3C compliant. Everything from the blogs to the Admin CP. I'm wondering though. How many site do you think really follow these standards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I'm wondering though. How many site do you think really follow these standards? Mine and several million others. CSS has been around for many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ok so... what, are the width and height tags not required for an image?! I ran a test.. I'm working on my own BB Code function and couldn't get the height and width to display, but I ran the Validator any way and it was successful? Is that right? or would it be a good idea to include these two tags? Don't shot me for this question. Like I said I'm learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Ok so... what, are the width and height tags not required for an image?! I ran a test.. I'm working on my own BB Code function and couldn't get the height and width to display, but I ran the Validator any way and it was successful? Is that right? or would it be a good idea to include these two tags? Don't shot me for this question. Like I said I'm learning. No, only the src and alt tag is required. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.2 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.