Celebrity Quotes

[Tristan Perry]

I'm glad to hear you don't care about:
  - my friend who largely uses a PDA.
  - my other friend who is blind.
  - my brother who often uses Links while recompiling his kernel to a new burning-edge version.

Web standards are also about just plum being correct.  If I see a website which isn't correct, it leads me to believe the person maintaining it isn't trustworthy; if they don't care to be correct with HTML, who knows what else they just "do what works" for?

For example, I'd never hire a lawyer with bad HTML in his or her website.  This means he or she either doesn't care enough to hire knowledgable people to get the job done RIGHT, doesn't do it right HIMSELF (or herself), or doesn't even KNOW there's a problem.  Any of those three are sure to reflect on his or her legal practices.

I see you don't talk lik u dnt now how 2 spel
y do u typ rite xcpt wit htm? I can stil red it! every1 can

-[Unknown]

You're right about the examples you given I guess.. Although I can actually view my website fine with all the PDAs I've tried. I can see what you're saying, although in some ways it still proves my point. People who are web designers, or simply people who are good with coding, care about the HTML coding behind a website, but many others don't.

I've never said that because I don't use valid XHTML strict 1.1 I hate all blind people, I have just simply said that in my experiences I haven't found the effort to pay off. I'm re-designing my website in about a month, I'll look into user disabilites to see whether the effort would be worth it... Saying that though, how do I go about making my website usable for WAP/PDA/Blind users?

[Mexican_Pirate]

I'm glad to hear you don't care about:
  - my other friend who is blind.

-[Unknown]

Pardon my asking, but how would a blind person be able to use a forum web site?

[Ben_S]

Via a programme that reads the source and turns it into audio.

If the html isn't valid, the reader will struggle to work out what's what.

[Mexican_Pirate]

Ah, I see. Well, not a lot of people want to go to my web site anyways, so I guess it's fine for now.

[[Unknown]]

In her case, while she is blind she can see a little bit with a very strong magnifying glass (the sort you have to purchase from disability places.)  Color is out for her completely, but she can read if she goes in close.  You'd be surprised how often she uses the internet, because she doesn't want to hate her life.

-[Unknown]

[Mexican_Pirate]

Great, now I feel like a horrible person...

[rudoka]

Here is my opinion on standards.
They are surely made as a guide lines. And usually the purpose of the standards was/is to make a webpage look the same in EVERY browser. At least one of the purposes.

Now, since some time I use one browser and I end up to sites that are usually broken, looking like hell. I turn over to IE and find it that it looks just fine.

I looked at the html and css and whatever, did some research (I ain't an expert) and found out that those pages are broken in Firefox only because they are NOT standard compliant. Because Firefox didn't "understood" them. Which I found perfectly correct and acceptable.
  Some "standards" are also made for security issues, I suppose. Therefore I wouldn't want my browser interpretating something that is written bad (accidentally or planned) => therefore doing something that is not supposed to do.

   And yes. If I find a site that doesn't opens correct in the browser that I trust (talking generally here) then I don't open it. I won't turn to another browser that proved a failure (to me).
   People forget this., I hear saying: Oh but the majority of folks are using IE so we should write the pages for IE. Well, that's quite a bad attitude.
   We should write the pages for the PEOPLE, considering what is good and correct. For example, IE is NOT "good and correct" and I had the chance to prove this to myself over and over again. Other browsers I don't know, but the standard issue applies to them too.

So let's just follow the standards. Rules and laws are made to be broken, but not this time. 

Rudolf

[Mexican_Pirate]

Yeah... but it works cross-browser...

[Tristan Perry]

Here is my opinion on standards.
They are surely made as a guide lines. And usually the purpose of the standards was/is to make a webpage look the same in EVERY browser. At least one of the purposes.

Now, since some time I use one browser and I end up to sites that are usually broken, looking like hell. I turn over to IE and find it that it looks just fine.

I looked at the html and css and whatever, did some research (I ain't an expert) and found out that those pages are broken in Firefox only because they are NOT standard compliant. Because Firefox didn't "understood" them. Which I found perfectly correct and acceptable.
  Some "standards" are also made for security issues, I suppose. Therefore I wouldn't want my browser interpretating something that is written bad (accidentally or planned) => therefore doing something that is not supposed to do.

   And yes. If I find a site that doesn't opens correct in the browser that I trust (talking generally here) then I don't open it. I won't turn to another browser that proved a failure (to me).
   People forget this., I hear saying: Oh but the majority of folks are using IE so we should write the pages for IE. Well, that's quite a bad attitude.
   We should write the pages for the PEOPLE, considering what is good and correct. For example, IE is NOT "good and correct" and I had the chance to prove this to myself over and over again. Other browsers I don't know, but the standard issue applies to them too.

So let's just follow the standards. Rules and laws are made to be broken, but not this time. 

Rudolf

In some ways I agree. Although take my website as an example. It's not XHTML, nor HTML valid. However, I look at it using the different browsers/machines I have:

Internet Explorer: Fine
Firefox: Fine
Netscape: Fine
Opera: Fine
My PDA: Fine

My website looks fine in most browsers I have tested and it's not even.. XHTML valid. Now I know that my website doesn't work for blind people, although I haven't the time at the moment to convert my website to XHTML valid for less than .5% of my audience. However, if someone shows me how blind people would use my website, and the answer being they can't, I will change my site over to valid XHTML 1.1 when I have the time.

[rudoka]

Hi Tau.

I congratulate you.
Your site looks good (in Firefox), and I like the look too. 
What I said wasn't that EVERYTHING that is not conforming the standards is broken.
   As a quick glimpse at your html it seems that it's quite clear and beautifully arranged. I can't verify it's validity, however a clean and well-thought job will end up in a good work. Now, of course, nothing is 100% standard compliant. Specially if it's acomplex website.
Yet, everyone creating/designing websites should try to make them so. Xhtml or html doesn't matter. I don't know much the difference anyway. But the goal should be to write pages viewable by everyone.
  And the browser developers should work in that direction too. Not to create their own "standards".  Obviously there are some who do not care about the "industry" standards (W3C). They include new "features" to lure people to their side. It's abattle for the market and for MONEY!!!
Ack!! And what about us??


    It seems that it is not your case. As I said, it seems that you are not one of those freaks, who include every stupid extra "feature"  IE and other browser has to offer to them.

Rudolf

[Tristan Perry]

Hi Tau.

I congratulate you.
Your site looks good (in Firefox), and I like the look too. 
What I said wasn't that EVERYTHING that is not conforming the standards is broken.
   As a quick glimpse at your html it seems that it's quite clear and beautifully arranged. I can't verify it's validity, however a clean and well-thought job will end up in a good work. Now, of course, nothing is 100% standard compliant. Specially if it's acomplex website.
Yet, everyone creating/designing websites should try to make them so. Xhtml or html doesn't matter. I don't know much the difference anyway. But the goal should be to write pages viewable by everyone.
  And the browser developers should work in that direction too. Not to create their own "standards".  Obviously there are some who do not care about the "industry" standards (W3C). They include new "features" to lure people to their side. It's abattle for the market and for MONEY!!!
Ack!! And what about us??


    It seems that it is not your case. As I said, it seems that you are not one of those freaks, who include every stupid extra "feature"  IE and other browser has to offer to them.

Rudolf

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. Also thanks for the compliments    So well formed HTML pages can be as cross-browser/compliant as XHTML pages?

[rudoka]

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. Also thanks for the compliments    So well formed HTML pages can be as cross-browser/compliant as XHTML pages?

A well baked cookie can be liked by everyone even if you don't put the exact miligramms of flour, sugar, the exact number of eggs, and whatnot. It takes only a little "common sense".
You know what I mean?

   And then XHTML and HTML are the same, or not? Well, the X is for eXtra or eXtended. So, I think the HTML was before. Why shouldn't the browsers understand it?
When I say standard compliant I don't mean it to be XHTML. Only that if you state that your code is XHMTL then it should be.
   Instead if you instruct the browsers that your script is (just) HTML and should be interpreted that way, then obviously you should stick with what's correct in HTML and don't use new features from XHTML.  The same with Javascript 1.1/1.2/1.3 and everything else in general.
    A script written as Javascript 1.1 will be parsed correctly by every (good) browser until it IS based on the Javascript 1.1 "standard" (and not 1.2+).
    This is my logic on the subject.

So the question is. Do you want XHTML or HTML? Do you need something you can do only using XHTML? Then you should try to make the whole page so, and not only the part you want, keeping in mind the rules.
By the way. I think i saw in your page some XHTML style scripting. But that's just a wild guess.

Rudolf

[Tristan Perry]

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. Also thanks for the compliments    So well formed HTML pages can be as cross-browser/compliant as XHTML pages?

A well baked cookie can be liked by everyone even if you don't put the exact miligramms of flour, sugar, the exact number of eggs, and whatnot. It takes only a little "common sense".
You know what I mean?

   And then XHTML and HTML are the same, or not? Well, the X is for eXtra or eXtended. So, I think the HTML was before. Why shouldn't the browsers understand it?
When I say standard compliant I don't mean it to be XHTML. Only that if you state that your code is XHMTL then it should be.
   Instead if you instruct the browsers that your script is (just) HTML and should be interpreted that way, then obviously you should stick with what's correct in HTML and don't use new features from XHTML.  The same with Javascript 1.1/1.2/1.3 and everything else in general.
    A script written as Javascript 1.1 will be parsed correctly by every (good) browser until it IS based on the Javascript 1.1 "standard" (and not 1.2+).
    This is my logic on the subject.

So the question is. Do you want XHTML or HTML? Do you need something you can do only using XHTML? Then you should try to make the whole page so, and not only the part you want, keeping in mind the rules.
By the way. I think i saw in your page some XHTML style scripting. But that's just a wild guess.

Rudolf

Good points, thanks  Also I have put XHTML in the page, although only instead of <br> and <hr> I'm using <br /> and <hr /> respectively. I'm not really sticking to XHTML much on my website at the moment.

[Mexican_Pirate]

Me neither, I only learned basic HTML a few months ago.

[rudoka]

Good. Now, what was the topic of this discussion?

Rudolf

[Tristan Perry]

Good. Now, what was the topic of this discussion?

Rudolf

Erm.. good point  This topic has gone slightly off-topic! 

[Mexican_Pirate]

Oh yeah, it was about the Celebrity Quotes drop-down box that I made. Any comments on what it does rather than its HTML structure?