Why doesn't anyone care about the current web standards for web page markup?

[FlashKid105]

I recently talked with a friend of mine via e-mail regarding web standards support. What really disgusts me is that coders are so insistent on coding their web pages to that they will satisfy Internet Explorer and no other web browser. Is it because they're stubborn? Most likely. I really agree with what he said to me about IE vs. other browsers.

The only reason a website will display badly in Firefox or another standards-compliant browser is because people code for IE because people use IE. If people would stop coding for IE, people would stop using IE, and coders' lives would be so much easier because they don't have to hack to make their websites work!

If you take a look at my Flash site, you will see that it will display the same way regardless of browser usage. I took Beginning FrontPage a while ago and even now, I still can't believe what a moron I was to not code for all browsers so my page would display the same way. Since then, I have stopped using FrontPage and have resorted to using Dreamweaver.

BTW, let me ask you this: When is Flash Kit ever going to adhere to the current web standards? I looked at the page source and this site is adhering to the HTML 4.01 Transitional.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by FlashKid105
BTW, let me ask you this: When is Flash Kit ever going to adhere to the current web standards? I looked at the page source and this site is adhering to the HTML 4.01 Transitional.

HOOK 'EM! How dare you talk bad about Flash Kit!

[aversion]

Flash sites are rarely bothered by browsers, it's html based sites that suffer from inconsistencies between browsers.

The reason most designers ddon't seem to care about standarda? In my opinion it's because it requires effort, it's because you have to learn something new and, even though the rewards are there, people like to avoid things that require effort.

[FlashKid105]

If only people would actually agree to adhere more to the current web standards, things would be all good. Come to think of it, if more people used Dreamweaver, they'd be creating standards-compliant web pages without even knowing it (Dreamweaver allows you to convert your existing HTML code to XHTML).

Flash sites are rarely bothered by browsers, it's html based sites that suffer from inconsistencies between browsers.

Ummm......I have to respectfully disagree with you on that, aversion. I had a Flash intro on my FrontPage website project that I did for my Beginning FrontPage class. When I previewed the site in Netscape, the Flash intro looked crappy (It was squished).

Ultima Designs:

I ain't talkin' crap about Flash Kit, man. What's up with that? I love Flash Kit with all my heart.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by FlashKid105
I ain't talkin' crap about Flash Kit, man. What's up with that? I love Flash Kit with all my heart.

Just playing.

[aversion]

Originally posted by FlashKid105
Ummm......I have to respectfully disagree with you on that, aversion. I had a Flash intro on my FrontPage website project that I did for my Beginning FrontPage class. When I previewed the site in Netscape, the Flash intro looked crappy (It was squished).

those issues are to do with the embed on the page, which is HTML, and the fact that you're using frontpage, which is a piece of crap designed to produce code specific to IE.

Use an established, professional design program to create your HTML, like dreamweaver or ummm, notepad....

The only flash-related browser issues i have ever come across have to do with passing data into or out of the flash to other flash instances or to the html.

[PAlexC]

I got news for you, whether it's 3.0, 4.0, or XHTML, few people were strict with standards. It's only going to get more lax. Browsers are built to account for it, and standards are getting more and more complex.

It's not the end of the world.

As far as your Flash issues, Frontpage just spit out garbage. The beauty of Flash for client-side processing is it behaves the same everywhere.

The only time I've seen browser issues is with browsers that don't support FSCommands.

[FlashKid105]

That's a shame. I guess that in the future, nobody's going to be able to view any web page because future browsers are going to be like "Sorry, I can't show this page to you because it doesn't comply with current web standards."

I don't use Frontpage anymore, FYI. I moved on to using Dreamweaver and I've been happy with my decision to switch over ever since.


I totally believe that Frontpage adds crap to your pages that make them display badly in browsers other than IE and makes loading them a bear.

[PAlexC]

Originally posted by FlashKid105
That's a shame. I guess that in the future, nobody's going to be able to view any web page because future browsers are going to be like "Sorry, I can't show this page to you because it doesn't comply with current web standards."

1.) View this page in Firefox

2.) Get page info

3.) Look at render mode

[aliensynergy]

Did you design your layout in css? In my opinion this is the biggest problem. You need so many hacks to get a decent layout with css that works on all browsers.

Most designers don't have time to spend hours debugging a css layout [ I know I don't] when they can do the same layout with tables in 5 minutes.

Now don't get me wrong, I think web standards are great [alistapart.com is one of my favorite sites] and here to stay, and I follow them for everything, but layout. It saves me a ****load of time for everything else. However until Microsoft updates IE to be standard compliant, I think the majority of developers will [at the most] use transitional xhtml.

[aliensynergy]

Originally posted by PAlexC
Browsers are built to account for it, and standards are getting more and more complex.

They aren't getting more and more complex. It is just correct coding. If you really think about it, it was probably the "backyard" web designer which caused the whole browser incompatability problem. Browser makers let crappy code render somewhat correctly and it made everyone lazy.

You can push web standards pretty far, and it will get complex, but they aren't that complex for every day design. Hell take a look at csszengarden.com all xhtml is the same, the only thing that changes from desgin to design is the style sheet, and most of these designers are just graphics artists!

A transitional xhtml site is simple to make, infact dreamweaver mx will do it all for you.
Although it's next to impossible to get flash to be w3.org compliant but this guy almost got there http://alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

[ViRGo_RK]

On a day to day basis, our wonderful sans-mullet Admin has more to deal with than we can imagine. Like, um.... Well, I'm sure he does something.

But he's too busy to adhere to standards.

[FlashKid105]

Originally posted by aliensynergy
this guy almost got there http://alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

I totally remember reading that article. It made me think a lot about getting my Flash code to be ok'd with the w3.org standards.

[yasunobu13]

Your friend has a large flaw in his logic. "If people would stop coding for IE, people would stop using IE" People won't stop using IE because of this, they'll stop visiting your web page because it doesn't display nicely, and the designer is the who will be blamed, not the browser. Regular internet users have no idea what html is other than an extension, and even fewer know that there are standards.

In order to see a flash page, you need to download a plugin from macromedia. Macromedia makes the plugin behave the same on all systems (for the most part), so you can't compare this to why HTML displays differently in different browsers. If there were 3 other companies producing flash plugins, then I bet you would notice differences in execution of you files.

"BTW, let me ask you this: When is Flash Kit ever going to adhere to the current web standards? I looked at the page source and this site is adhering to the HTML 4.01 Transitional." I've heard it mentioned more than once, it's just that this site is kind of, you know, big. And a complete overhaul to XHTML would mean lots and lots of hours.

"Did you design your layout in css? In my opinion this is the biggest problem. You need so many hacks to get a decent layout with css that works on all browsers."

Actually, it's IE that needs the most hacks, all other browsers' problems are negligible, in my opinion. Hence my title, that came after quite a painful week of converting a table based layout into CSS. I learned a lot of lessons, and they all had to do with IE. Sure there are minor differences between Mozilla on mac and on pc, but the differences between IE 5 on mac, IE 5 on pc, and IE 6 on pc are so huge that it frustrated me to no end. Things like absolute positioning to the right in IE 5 mac adds an invisible 15px margin for no good reason, while having 2 absolutly positioned elements in IE6 pc causes both to mysteriously vanish from the page. Those are 2 of many quirks that these browsers dusplay without any logic behind it. Now that I have that awful experience under my belt, I'm able to create websites with CSS very quickly, and a hell of a lot neater than with tables. Plus, no hacks.

[jstarkey]

Originally posted by FlashKid105

BTW, let me ask you this: When is Flash Kit ever going to adhere to the current web standards? I looked at the page source and this site is adhering to the HTML 4.01 Transitional.

I'd love for FK to be compliant. I've tried many times. There is one major issue: too many people/depts/companies contributing to the code. I've even gone as far as a tableless code and encpsulating every feed, but it just won't jive. On this page alone there are about 7 different feeds. Simply changing the doctype to XHTML transitional will throw the pages off with certain ads.

[jstarkey]

Originally posted by aversion

The reason most designers ddon't seem to care about standarda? In my opinion it's because it requires effort, it's because you have to learn something new and, even though the rewards are there, people like to avoid things that require effort.

And it's really sad. It takes a total of 5 minutes to learn the new standard. Granted, it takes a while to get used to coding things correctly -- they way it always should have been.

I got in an argument with one dev dept on a hugely popular site because they have an XHTML doctype, but I can't use their site in Mozilla (it's a paid site). Their response: we can only guarantee the site will work in IE and NN 7.

The only thing my argueing accomplished, it proved I really do need a life away from the computer

[jstarkey]

Originally posted by PAlexC
I got news for you, whether it's 3.0, 4.0, or XHTML, few people were strict with standards. It's only going to get more lax. Browsers are built to account for it, and standards are getting more and more complex.

Actually, in 2000, every browser manufacturer agreed to migrate to XML. XHTML is the first step. The main reason is the amount of code and CPU it takes to load and execute the correction libraries.

I'm not sure what the status is now. I code everything (that I can) XHTML compliant, so I haven't really been following. I don't think it's changed.

[jstarkey]

Originally posted by PAlexC

3.) Look at render mode

I've tried. IIRC you've been in many conversations I've had in the CL regarding this over the past three years.

[jstarkey]

Originally posted by ViRGo_RK
On a day to day basis, our wonderful sans-mullet Admin has more to deal with than we can imagine. Like, um.... Well, I'm sure he does something.

But he's too busy to adhere to standards.

Man, I can't wait until mullets are back in.

[jstarkey]

Originally posted by yasunobu13

"BTW, let me ask you this: When is Flash Kit ever going to adhere to the current web standards? I looked at the page source and this site is adhering to the HTML 4.01 Transitional." I've heard it mentioned more than once, it's just that this site is kind of, you know, big. And a complete overhaul to XHTML would mean lots and lots of hours.

It's not that big. I've already had most of the site converted at one point or another. I even have an XML/XLST version of the loops section sitting around here somewhere.

The featured sites section is completely rewritten in XML/XSLT, but isn't live yet. If anyone is interested in taking a look and contributing to the design of it, please feel free to PM me.

I made a big change about 6 months ago. The movies and loops sections were converted to tableless and working immaculately. Everyone I know checked it in their browsers, Mac/Linux/Windows Firefox/Mozilla/NN/Epihany/Konqueror/Safari and it passed all tests. So, I made the switch and waited. IE had a very weird issue that only happened to about 2% of the visitors. Unfortunately, 1 of them was the boss' boss. It was such a weird issue that he spent hours trying to fix his browser before he contacted me about it. He understood after I explained, but it wasn't a good thing to have happen during that particular week.

Jabez and I spent several hours trying to fix that one little quirk and finally gave up. There's really nothing I can do until every feed is guaranteed to be compliant.