Comments on: Ten Philadelphia Companies Whose Web Sites Need Web Standards

By: jhill

jhill — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:40:29 +0000

Bob, thanks for the heads up, James fixed it up quick.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:00:27 +0000

An interesting post. My business partner and I frequently have this exact debate/discussion. Funny and ironic that this page is not valid per http://validator.w3.org/

By: James Van Arsdale

James Van Arsdale — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:47:29 +0000

Jim, I agree that browser issues are still a problem with standards-based layouts, but we’ll never get to the “promise land” unless we push for standards. Making the client happy is absolutely important, but as developers, we also have a responsibility to the end user to deliver content in an accessible, standard way. We can only hope Firefox will take over the world (wide web)… Thanks for your intelligent comments, feel free to email me at jvanarsdale [at] weblinc dot com.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:16:39 +0000

And the other 99% of them are using browsers that still haven’t managed to implement “standards” in a reasonably standardized way that doesn’t require excessive effort to accomplish. In an ideal world, sure, let’s go for standards. But we’re not there yet and I’ve seen too many hours wasted on projects where a simple but deprecated table would have been done in 30 minutes but a convoluted, standards-based layout took 30 hours because somebody — Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla — wasn’t playing by the rules or just plain screwed up their browser. You can call me over to the promised land when the promises come true, but for now I’ll stick with what works and what makes the clients happy. (And I’ll continue to play devil’s advocate even though I agree with most of what you’re saying.)

By: James Van Arsdale

James Van Arsdale — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:59:54 +0000

Jim, I understand your point – To answer your question: “standards-based” web sites allow the content to be delivered on multiple platforms by separating the presentation layer from the content, among many other reasons. This allows the content to be delivered and presented based on your medium, i.e. print stylesheets, browser stylesheets, mobile browser stylesheets, etc. By using a table-based layout it limits your delivery of the content. By using CSS/XHTML you can deliver the content and present it appropriately. For older browsers, the content is delivered, just without the presentation layer, enabling older browser users to see the same content. But as of today (4/27/07) less than 1% of web users are using these incompatible browsers. Thank you for your comment Jim.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:33:37 +0000

How does making a site standards-based open it up to a larger market? So-called “standards-based” sites are a compatibility mess in so many ways, don’t actually work better for most people, and don’t work at all on older browsers. I wish people would focus on what WORKS, not what’s CORRECT. Sure, standards are fine, but only if they actually accomplish something, but most of the time they’re just a huge time suck. (Sorry James!)

By: James Van Arsdale

James Van Arsdale — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:19:52 +0000

As would I Bill. Septa really needs to take some hints from other mass transit web sites. WMATA in Washington D.C. is a good example (not of standards, but content and design). Also, there's an ecommerce site called CommuterDirect that does a great job at selling tickets for mass transit in the D.C. area, not standards-based, but great site. If only Septa could get their site together...

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:52:53 +0000

I would love to have a go at Septa.org. I think so many great things can be done for that site and its users.