trollll wrote:I have to add my two cents in on this one...
Having not only worked for the EPA and IBM Research doing web development (meaning I know section 508 inside out and wrongside...whatever), I've also had the pleasuse of having friends and family see just how many different browsers they can use to check out my (and my wife's) websites. Until I used XHTML and CSS2 I heard a lot of "why doesn't this work?" and "your site looks like crap!" from people who just don't even know what the word "upgrade" means. Casual users don't know or care what browsers do. And until their tech support does it for them (meaning until they get a new computer in some cases) they will not upgrade their browser because it has worked just fine for them for the last four years.
If you have a personal site, people you know will try to view it using Netscape 4.01 from MacOS 8 (seriously, this happens). If you have a site for use by developers, they will use lynx! If you code to standards, it really won't matter what people use. I just got the PS2 linux kit and went to my wife's site without even loading KDE and I could read her diary and even see what photos she uploaded just fine because we code to standards! Some people prefer to browse with images and plug-ins turned off because they have a dial-up. Some people like to browse using their phone. How lame do people see your site as when you say "I code professionally, but you need IE 5.0 or above or Netscape 7 to actually see anything I do." and they run IE 4.5?
It really doesn't take a lot of effort and it really helps development down the road when you want to edit/add functionality to your site. Not to mention I'd give you props if you can say you've beaten everyone else on your block to blogging in XHTML 2.0.
This doesn't mean that you have to exclude all of your home videos from streaming from your webserver. It just means that you have to take into account the people who may get to that page without the means to see or hear it. If someone has images turned off, include the alt attribute to let them know what they've missed. If you have a killer javascript game, include the noscript tag to tell them they've losers for not having a javascript browser. If someone doesn't have the latest flash plugin, tell them where to get it. It just may motivate them to update their machine and actually see what you can do.
And just in case they have a disability and can't upgrade to check out the cool effects, give them a description! Even if they don't care, they may recommend it. Blind users have friends.
You have made some very good points and I'm finding it difficult to argue against any of it
However (here we go again) I do feel that a website that uses some non-standard javascript such as .getElementById() .getElementsTagName() .innerHTML .parentElement .childNodes (I believe these aren't standards yet) to name a few shouldn't be called unprofessional just because it does use those commands. They
are part of IE5.5+ and the Gecko powered NS so if they're there why not use them?
I'm not saying all of my websites don't comply to standards because a lot of my ealier ones do. Some of my latest sites however use the new JS commands to give the site a bit of creativity and originality, and allows me to pull off some nice content cross-over dynamically and in real-time, as well as changing various object events, including and removing new parts of the html page when it's needed, plus a load of other stuff not possible when sticking to the 'standards'.
Programming to standards is good don't get me wrong, but it does restrict your creativity if you want to do something more spetacular and original with your website(s).
Both methods (standard and non-standard) have their up-sides and down-sides, it's down to the type of site you are creating and who you're creating it for that dictates which method you may use. But if you are an experienced website designer/developer you can't say that either method is wrong... they are simply two different sides of the internet coin.