Tom Doyle :: TALK

In my business, I’m constantly involved in debates on a regular basis discussing how important developing websites to the latest coding standards actually is.

In most cases, people expect me to be a huge fan of the latest W3C web coding standards. A lot of these people believe that all professional web design agencies should do nothing less than provide my clients with websites coded to the latest web standards.

However the reality is, that although I completely believe in the concept of having web coding standards and that it is for the common good and the future of the Internet, I’m not convinced that every website has to be developed to the latest coding standards right now.

Those that think it is the only way to do websites now are generally egotistical snobs who like to brag about being able to produce standards compliant websites.

I think it’s time to cut out the b*llshit.

Let’s look at the arguments most pro-standards compliant supporters use to justify their cause.

1. Sites coded to the latest coding standards perform better in the Search Engines
   This statement is simply untrue. A site can perform just as well developed in the old fashioned way as it can in the new way.

   But with all statements related to this topic, it was taken completely out of context and made a fact by those that didn’t really understand what it meant.

   The truth is simple, a properly coded CSS based, compliant standard website should have less code than your old table based website. In theory a search engine should be able to pick up the important content of your website more easily, since there is less code. However, a clean coded website in the old fashioned way can do just the same too.

2. Quicker and more flexible
   In some cases you can agree with this, but in others you can’t. There are a few things that can be done quickly in HTML that take an age in CSS, but this goes both ways. So I don’t think it’s fair to use this as an argument for the cause.

   Another argument is that CSS based sites download quicker… that too is highly debatable and comes down to how well a site is coded. Here’s a recent study : http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_02.aspx

   The fact is that in theory a CSS based site will have less code, so it should be a smaller file size. In turn this should relate to a faster download. I completely agree with that.

   However, if the site is badly coded and uses unnesseccary code, it will be the same amount of code as the old way.

3. Accessibility & Cross Browser Compatibility
   This is one that really gets to me. Most people that use this as an argument don’t really understand what accessibility actually means. So just for you, here’s WikiPedia definition of accessibility:

   “Accessibility is a general term used to describe the degree to which a product (e.g., device, service, environment) is accessible by as many people as possible. Accessibility can be viewed as the “ability to access” the functionality, and possible benefit, of some system or entity.”

   My only issue with wikipedias definition is the highlighted part. Accessibility is about access for all (http://www.sustainable-design.ie/arch/adapthouse.htm) not just a few people.

   So unless your site is nearly completely text based, your website will not work in old browsers. Have a look at a browser compatibility chart : http://vzone.virgin.net/sizzling.jalfrezi/stylebml.htm

   For me, it is more impressive for a web developer to have his website work well in all browsers than someone who can just code for the latest browsers.

   To date, most webmasters base their website accessibility test on W3C’s WCAG 1.0, which are just that, guidelines. How many web designers that claim to be 100% accessible have actually sat down with someone who has activity limitations? I would imagine very very little.

   Instead, they use a program to test how well their site is coded. Webmasters being webmasters, have spent years hacking their code to work in different browsers, so you can imagine how easy it is to trick a piece of software that just looks for dodgy code. In theory you could have an inaccessible website, that will pass this test, yet it could be claimed to be accessible. Thankfully WCAG 2.0 will focus more on the actual accessibility rather than the websites code.

   On and just to add more to this argument, you can create an accessible website no matter which route you take in terms of coding standards.

With our clients, we’ll continue to give them the pro’s and con’s of each different techniques. It must be noted that a lot more people care more now about the latest coding standards than working in older browsers.

The change is coming, so make sure you evaluate all issues before deciding on which route to take your website. Both ways have equal pro’s and con’s associated with them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New web accessibility guidelines will be ignored, says critic
• CSS Web Design Basics
• Accessibility is Accessible

Image via CrunchBase

Google have made a slight change to their webmaster guidelines that could actually be something quite major.

The following lines were removed from their guidelines:

Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.

Have other relevant sites link to yours.

For years Google has highly recommended a link in Yahoo! and DMOZ. Having links in these directories was a great benefit to your sites ranking. They also constantly recommended that you built lots of relevant links to your website.

This lead to huge abuse from search engine optimisers, who would simply spamming link farms and directories. What this means for the future is debatable. Maybe Google are going to disregard directories altogether regardless of their importance currently. I doubt they will undermine link value, but I wouldn’t be surprised anymore.

We’ll just have to keep an eye on things and see what happens.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Submitting Your Website to Dmoz- What You Need to Know
• Benefits of Getting Listed in Dmoz Revealed and Identified

In a follow up to today’s earlier post…. here

[quote=ClubMan]

Your company’s relationship(s) with Blacknight means that you have a vested interest which you did not divulge. This is a breach of the posting guidelines. End of story.

[quote=tomed]

ClubMan,

We have a relationship with LetsHost, Hosting365, Host Ireland etc etc - so that’s an equal vested interest then based on your explanation???

So what you are basically saying is that I can’t comment on any hosting discussion whatsoever because I have dealt with these companies and do business with them?

Tom

[quote=ClubMan]

No. I have clearly pointed out if you make a recommendation that involves some vested interest then you must divulge this vested interest. It’s patently clear from the posting guidelines and my comments that this is the case. Do not waste my time any further on this. If you continue to act obtusely on this matter or otherwise waste moderator time on such matters then you will be banned.

I don’t know how many times I told him that I have no vested interest in any hosting company, he continuously failed to see that point.

But if we are take his account, I am not allowed recommend anyone I have done business with because I have a vested interest…

Word of mouth is the most powerful marketing tool out there. AskAboutMoney.com is built around people making recommendations - but I’m not allowed say anything about any of them… hmmm…. sounds a bit suss to me…

I was finding it hard to find one this week. Most sites I’ve been on have been pretty good this week, until I went looking for a broadband package…

www.irishbroadband.ie - has to be one of the worst sites I’ve been on in a long time. Aesthetically it’s clean and bright, but from a functionality and UX point of view it is terrible site.

For example, when you choose “Business Users” from the homepage, you get 3 boxes. SOHO, SME’s & Corporate. When you’ve decided which one you are, there is a button that says “Find out more”. Fair enough… However when you click this, you get a little pop-up box that has a small description and two large buttons. One says “Full Story” and the other “Order Now”. “Full Story” means absolutely nothing to me and is completely out of context and I certainly don’t want to order anything yet, so eh.. I’ll just click off. I should have clicked “Full Story” as I would have got more information on the product, but that wasn’t very clear. There are plenty of examples similar to this on the website.

Poor website, which I imagine was developed in-house.

We’ve been working on a project for a couple of months now, it’s a pretty standard website with the only major piece of coding being the used car search.

The client was already a signed up member of CarZone and really had no need to ditch them because the system worked quite well for them. However, what they did want to do was integrate the search more into their website so that they make it easier to use and get more content on their website.

On approaching CarZone, they gave two ridiculous integration options that in my mind are beyond belief.

Option 1 was to template a hosted solution on CarZones server. This wasn’t a goer for us because the site also had a Content Management System. So if anything changed, like the navigation or special offer etc. we would have to provide them with a new template each time. Obviously this didn’t make sense at all for the client.

Option 2 was for the results to be provided in an iFrame. Of course in my opinion, the further away from iFrames the better. We all know about the compatibility issues surrounding them, never mind the the fact that they can be quite restrictive in terms of layout etc.

After much consultation with CarZone, I was left feeling quite disappointed and badly treated when I tried to find other integration options. They refused to take simple suggestions on board that could have made this an easy integration for both parties. Even waving money in their face didn’t make a difference!

I was told, even after insisting it wasn’t, that the iFrame was an adequate solution. I’m sorry, but from a professional developers point of view anything to do with iFrames is not a solution. Maybe it is for beginners - but certainly not for pro’s who can do other things in a similar timeframe, yet have a much better solution in the end.

What’s really sad is that in this day and age, with all the hype about Web 2.0, one of Ireland’s leading websites can’t make the simple transition to providing basic xml feeds for their clients.

Come on CarZone, be a bit more creative instead of just sitting back and taking your clients money! Start providing a value add!