[Sir Grand Funk]

I am sick and tired of crappy websites that use tables for layouts, use incorrect code, unvalid document types, large file types, compiled files (.js, .php [generall cached files]) embedded in .htm or .html documents, javascript ruled sites, annoying images everywhere (this includes clipart!), typos and finally useless websites.

Please, make it all stop..
W3c -- that little glimmer of hope.

My site maybe ugly, but my blind uncle, my technodumb aunt, my friends who use Opera and all of my friends with dialup appreciate it! There are so many other benifits...

I got so many submissions I have to edit all of the pages. SO the only pages that have been uploaded are the index, the "about us/website information page" and the "Anthony Lemmer link.

http://epigram.atspace.com

I am still reading up on "W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" so the website isn't fully grand for that.

Edited by Sir Grand Funk, 13 August 2006 - 05:22 AM.

[Advertisements]

Most people don't code web pages by hand, they use site builders or other programs. These don't comply to W3C standards. Frontpage makes pages tailored to Internet Explorer, but functional in other browsers. Office makes pages that won't work in anything but Internet Explorer. Many online site builders are designed around Internet Explorer.

[Neil Jones]

Most people don't code web pages by hand, they use site builders or other programs. These don't comply to W3C standards. Frontpage makes pages tailored to Internet Explorer, but functional in other browsers. Office makes pages that won't work in anything but Internet Explorer. Many online site builders are designed around Internet Explorer.

[Sir Grand Funk]

I know this, and it is sad.

[TaNkZ101]

i have seen many wonderful websites coded with tables. what is wrong with javascript? w3c standards are still interpereted by different browsers differently. tables are the easiest way to ensure your website will look the same in all web-browsers. what is wrong with images? try to find a company website without them

edit****: and their logos are ugly, and are not allowed to be changed. w3c wants browsers to follow their guidelines, yet they don't seem to care about their public image

Edited by TaNkZ101, 15 August 2006 - 02:09 PM.

[Allsortgroup]

I have heard that the w3c css validator and html validator lets bits of code that is wrong pass through ok. So that in internet explorer it displays fine, but in other browsers like firefox etc it displays rubbish.

Also my site http://www.allsortshop.com has html in php documents and visa versa and look how neat and tidy it is! Works in all browsers too!

Edited by Allsortshop, 18 August 2006 - 04:14 AM.

[thenotch]

i have seen many wonderful websites coded with tables. what is wrong with javascript? w3c standards are still interpereted by different browsers differently. tables are the easiest way to ensure your website will look the same in all web-browsers. what is wrong with images? try to find a company website without them

edit****: and their logos are ugly, and are not allowed to be changed. w3c wants browsers to follow their guidelines, yet they don't seem to care about their public image

Tables work... BUT, they add a ton of extra code that not only uses up webspace but makes documents load slower if they are very detailed. Also, tables are just that, areas used for tabulature data, not layout.

Javascript is not SEO friendly and can cause your website to potentially be overlooked. Also, not everyone has the JRE installed and end up with nothing in their browsers. Also it doesn't comply will with accessability standards.

The W3C standards are not at fault. If all the browsers would work together a bit more on a set of standards across the board websites coded via a standard would look the same regardless of waht browser you viewed it in. So again, the issue is not with the standards group, they are trying, it's with the browser developers.

There is nothing wrong with images but images HAVE to be defined and contain ALT tags. ALT tags are good for SEO as well as accessibility and text only browsers.

As for their "image" that has nothing to do with what they are trying to accomplish. They are non-profit and are more concerned with tidy, efficient and standardized code other than how fancy their logo is. They get very few donations. Maybe if they had more donations they could hire a graphic designer or business analyst to design them a fancy-schmancy logo, but like I said, they have other fish to fry at the moment.

People fight standards and will always opt for the "easy way out". Learning have to layout a site with div tags is tougher as opposed to letting Frontpage design a table for you, but is much more efficient and is one step closer to standards being met. Standards are tougher to follow. But if EVERYONE sucked it up and did just that you would see it isn't very hard and that all these problems with browser views and the like would disappear.

Just like anything in life, if you take the easy way out, while it may be the greatest thing since sliced bread at the moment, eventually it causes problems. The way browsers view things is a prime example of this. Web page designers got lazy and the browsers followed suit. W3C is trying to fix what got broken from the get go.

[Sir Grand Funk]

i have seen many wonderful websites coded with tables. what is wrong with javascript? w3c standards are still interpereted by different browsers differently. tables are the easiest way to ensure your website will look the same in all web-browsers. what is wrong with images? try to find a company website without them

edit****: and their logos are ugly, and are not allowed to be changed. w3c wants browsers to follow their guidelines, yet they don't seem to care about their public image

Dude, W3c isn't about the average user. It is about the people who don't have everything you have. An example: person with dialup whom can't load images swiftly, disablity functions and generic accesablility.

Oh, and Tables is a 'no-no' because the content jumps around and it can cause stuck pixels in old browsers.

Edited by Sir Grand Funk, 20 August 2006 - 03:56 AM.

[Sir Grand Funk]

i have seen many wonderful websites coded with tables. what is wrong with javascript? w3c standards are still interpereted by different browsers differently. tables are the easiest way to ensure your website will look the same in all web-browsers. what is wrong with images? try to find a company website without them

edit****: and their logos are ugly, and are not allowed to be changed. w3c wants browsers to follow their guidelines, yet they don't seem to care about their public image

Tables work... BUT, they add a ton of extra code that not only uses up webspace but makes documents load slower if they are very detailed. Also, tables are just that, areas used for tabulature data, not layout.

Javascript is not SEO friendly and can cause your website to potentially be overlooked. Also, not everyone has the JRE installed and end up with nothing in their browsers. Also it doesn't comply will with accessability standards.

The W3C standards are not at fault. If all the browsers would work together a bit more on a set of standards across the board websites coded via a standard would look the same regardless of waht browser you viewed it in. So again, the issue is not with the standards group, they are trying, it's with the browser developers.

There is nothing wrong with images but images HAVE to be defined and contain ALT tags. ALT tags are good for SEO as well as accessibility and text only browsers.

As for their "image" that has nothing to do with what they are trying to accomplish. They are non-profit and are more concerned with tidy, efficient and standardized code other than how fancy their logo is. They get very few donations. Maybe if they had more donations they could hire a graphic designer or business analyst to design them a fancy-schmancy logo, but like I said, they have other fish to fry at the moment.

People fight standards and will always opt for the "easy way out". Learning have to layout a site with div tags is tougher as opposed to letting Frontpage design a table for you, but is much more efficient and is one step closer to standards being met. Standards are tougher to follow. But if EVERYONE sucked it up and did just that you would see it isn't very hard and that all these problems with browser views and the like would disappear.

Just like anything in life, if you take the easy way out, while it may be the greatest thing since sliced bread at the moment, eventually it causes problems. The way browsers view things is a prime example of this. Web page designers got lazy and the browsers followed suit. W3C is trying to fix what got broken from the get go.

Thank you!

I have heard that the w3c css validator and html validator lets bits of code that is wrong pass through ok. So that in internet explorer it displays fine, but in other browsers like firefox etc it displays rubbish.

Also my site http://www.allsortshop.com has html in php documents and visa versa and look how neat and tidy it is! Works in all browsers too!

YAY! You might wanna save your banner in a different format or downgrade quality. It took 1:00 to load on my work computer. Otherwise, it is perfect.

[DKasler]

Standards are KEY. I personally most of the Sites I work on by hand and always for for standards compliance. However sometimes its not always possible, so I ALWAYS test my sites in IE, Firefox, and Opera to make sure it works in all 3. If it doesnt... I dont stop working on it untill it does.

I hate going to a website in Firefox (my default browser) and having it not work. I never return to sites I can't view in Firefox (except MS Update sites).