revenge of the crappy web designers.

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
Daisy Cutter
Forum Commoner
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:51 am

revenge of the crappy web designers.

Post by Daisy Cutter »

I'm mad. :evil:

my parents are having some people do their webpage, and I had a vew gripes with the page they provided, so I emailed them:

Hi, the web page looks fine, but I checked it to
make sure it was valid (it will display properly in
every web browser), and it is not. You can check it
for validity at validator.w3.org. As you can see,
stylesheets are poorly implemented, nor is the alt
attribute used on any images. The pages use tables
instead of the more up-to-date and dynamic div tag,
and you attempted to write it in HTML 4.01, a 5 year
old version, rather than the newest XHTML 1.1. It
would take less than two hours to correct these
problems and ensure the pages would render properly in
100% of web browsers. We think the design is great,
but these problems under the hood should be fixed
prior to the page's launch. Give us a call if these
problems seem insurmountable. Thank you.

They emailed back, 2 weeks later. I have included my responses in red. Tell me what you think.
Seldom do I work with clients that are so in tune with
online resources in general, let alone the different
validators and code-checking systems that are
available on the web. I appreciate the interest and
encourage my clients and especially a younger
generation to get involved with learning about
everything out there, however I caution that there can
be too many “resources” available. I bring this up
only because as a professional in the industry for
several years there are certain things that I have
come to recognize as dangerous to the individual
rather than helpful, this “tool” being one of them.
It is undisputed that The World Wide Web Consortium’s
(WC3 as it is commonly known) website can provide
excellent information for users and programmers alike.
However, not all of the information is as useful as
many people believe.

I have a problem believing this, as the W3C is
responsible for defining HTML and introducing new
versions. Their information is considered the
standard.


It has been my experience that their validator, for
example, is not commonly used among designers or
professionals in the web development field for several
reasons. With the all of the different development
programs out there it is almost impossible for any
validator to truly be accurate, spanning all of the
differing programming languages.

WYSIWYG editors are commonly known to provide invalid
code, hence the reason that hand-coding pages is
reccommended.


In addition, with every “new and updated” encoding
language that gets released, the validator would have
to imply that unless you update to the latest and
greatest, your site will most likely get left behind
in the vast technology that exists.

not true, the validator will validate all versions
from HTML 1.0 to XHTML 1.1.


This is untrue. Most of the technology that is
released today is designed to envelop commonly used
languages from the past few years and cater to their
code. In reality designers and developers simply test
their products “the old fashioned way,” by actually
viewing them on screen with different browsers,
operating systems, and screen resolutions to ensure
that the site visitor will be able to view and the
information accurately and have it load swiftly. This
has been time-tested and proved to be the most
accurate method rather than checking code.

Again, I disagree, the most accurate way to check your
code for validity is using the official validator,
from the group that maintains the actual language. A valid page will naturally display correctly accross browsers. Just because a page LOOKS nice, doesn't mean it's code is good, nor does it make it accessible.


Most developers use programs that generate accurate,
up-to date pages, only checking the code when advanced
programming is directly involved. The program I use to
develop all of my sites is one of the industry’s
standards and one of the more highly regarded
Macromedia programs.

Using an expensive program (I assume dreamweaver?) is
no reason to think that your code is somehow better. I
write mine in various plain text editors, including
notepad, gnu/nano, and kate.


I am using the most recent version of the software
and can assure you that you that the code it produces
is current, accurate and compatible with browsers and
cross-platform usage. It does have the capabilities
of creating XML, DHTML, ASP, JSP and other common
client and server side code pages; however it is
unnecessary to implement and generate such a format
with a basic site such as your own. I understand that
by using the validator you now have questions
regarding the accuracy of the code. With this in mind
I invite you to check the validity of commonly used,
high traffic sites I’ve listed below.

I'm sure you are aware that each of those sites uses
different "hacks" to ensure that each browser renders
the page properly. In fact, each major browser
receives a different page, not the same one. I'm sure
this won't be happening with our website.


You will find, as I did, that they too prompt the
tool to question their code and correct what the tool
considers “errors”, when in fact they are not. The
validator is just not equipped to accept what it is
not programmed to, not making the site code incorrect,
but rather making the validator tool rigid and dare I
say even invalid.

Actually, the tool is very, very accurate. These pages are not so concerned with the validity of their code, because they can easily write different versions for every browser. For instance, if the validator finds a block level element inside an inline one, and returns an error, like it or not, YOU are wrong. If it says you didn't include the ALT attribute, no longer a reccomendation, but a necessity for no matter the reason the image can not display, YOU ARE WRONG.

As for the intentional absence of the alt tags, I will
tell you that I rarely ever include them.

That is terrible practice. They are there for a reason. Many dial-up users disable images because of speed. Like it or not, many people use text-browsers which default to the alt text. Like it or not, you need it.

The alt tags
are meant to only be displayed if the images do not
load correctly or if you happen to place your mouse
curser over an image to reveal hidden text or the name
of the photo. I feel it is more important to have the
images load correctly than worry about if they did not
load at all. With today’s browsers being very
“forgiving” (the affectionate term that many industry
people use for displaying information even if there
are inconsistencies in the code or the browser
detection automatically fixes an issue before
displaying the page on screen), it is uncommon that
images load incorrectly if the page was developed
properly and transferred to the web correctly, outside
of an occasional server issue or client side
preference setting. However, if you would like the Alt
tags to be completed for some of the images, I can
certainly go back into the pages and name them
accordingly.

And I'm sure you will do so, if you want to be paid for this project.

If you still have concerns about the site due to the
WC3 Validator please call me so we may discuss them
further. I have been developing in these programs for
a long time and have never come across an issue with
any of my sites that the validator may consider a
hindrance. Let me assure you, your site - when
launched - will be designed and optimized to handle
the needs of the browsers and the different operating
systems as well as being viewed in the common screen
resolutions. I realize I've given you a LOT of
technical information here, so if you need me to
clarify anything please feel free to give me a call.



Please feel free to check these sites with the WC3
Validator:
http://www.Boston.com

http://www.walmart.com/

http://www.yahoo.com/

http://www.holiday-inn.com/

http://www.microsoft.com/

I have addressed your fallacy in providing these examples above.

And you forgot to address my concern about use of tables, rather than the DIV tag. Do you test your pages with a screen reader? Braile browser? While they are a minority, blind and deaf web users do exist, and may want to find out about our business, and it is not our job to force them to look elsewhere. I suggest you read up on something called "accessibility", it's a nice thing to design with in mind.
I design with simplicity and accessibility in mind. If your browser doesnt work with stylesheets, my page works. If it doesnt load images, my page works. I tested the page they made in opera, with bugs mode off, images set not to load, and CSS turned off. You know what it looks like? Pure crap. Because this designer couldnt take the 90 minutes or so to fix the problems with the webpage he made. Because he's lazy and can't code, just use Dreamweaver in designer mode.
Slacker
Forum Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:19 pm

Post by Slacker »

I choose for the viewers of my page to take the extra time to insure they can properly view it. I simply don't have the time to add 90 minutes here, 60 minutes there, etc to insure that minorities can view my page. If they want to view it, they can get a browser and a connection that can view it. Plain and simple.
AngusL
Forum Contributor
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:28 am
Location: Falkirk, Scotland

Post by AngusL »

I'll test for most browsers, but I'm not testing for text only browsers. I'll do low res and low connection speed, but I'm sorry, the world has moved on from 3360 bps Linx browsers viewing scientific paper websites viewing only text.... I'll only W3C validate under some circumstances.
redmonkey
Forum Regular
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:58 pm

Post by redmonkey »

Having your code validated by the W3C validator does not ensure/guarantee that it will display properly/as intended in all browsers.

The use of a table vs div based layout is a debate which I'm sure will continue for quite some time, but from my experience at present a table based layout will reliably maintain the intended layout across more browsers than a div based layout. Div based layouts require hacks/workarounds within (at least) the CSS of the site to maintain the layout across the major browsers.

I do generally run my pages through the W3C validator but more so just for a quick sanity check that tags are closed in the correct places and there are no tags left open (I hand code and I do miss the occassional closing tag). However, I place more importance on actually visually checking the pages with various different browsers and OSs rather than relying on a validator, I have seen some of my pages fail on what I would consider to be valid code.

While the use of the alt attribute has it's uses, sometimes you simply do not require to show any info if the image fails to load or the user is using a text based browser, of course you can get round this simply by using alt=''.

Having said that, if the designer/developer chooses to use the 'doctype' declaration on the page then they should probably try to adhere to the W3C's recomendations as some of the newer browsers are using a different rendering engine dependant on the existance of a doctype declaration.
User avatar
hawleyjr
BeerMod
Posts: 2170
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Jax FL & Spokane WA USA

Post by hawleyjr »

The whole DIV vs. Table arguments is pretty rudimentary. The fact of the mater is most of the time it comes down to productivity. How much can I do in the least amount of time? If you are really concerned about DIV vs. Tables then most likely, your going to pay in other ways. (Look and feel, flow of the pages, etc.) The company I work for will put out pages in a matter of minutes. Our main concern is functionality and working in the top majority of browsers. It cost us more time to research and see if every page works in every browser then the profit we would ever get from the vast minority of non ie, netscape, firefox users. It’s a simple numbers game.

Think of it like building a house. If you are building your own house you are going to use the highest quality wood for your frame. It will however, cost you more $$$. Now you buy a house from a builder who builds neighborhoods (100 – 300 houses in a small area) The frame is just as strong as the expensive one but much cheaper. They use stuff like builder paint and carpet. However, the house looks and functions the same.
leenoble_uk
Forum Contributor
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri May 03, 2002 10:33 am
Location: Cheshire
Contact:

Post by leenoble_uk »

For a long time I didn't understand why there was a push away from using tables and although at the basic level you could argue that neither one is better than the other there are instances where divs and CSS are preferable.
I don't use a screen reader but then I'm not visually impaired and they cost a fortune. I'm looking forward to Mac OS 10.4 which will have one built in so I can experience what the disabled user experiences and cater accordingly, but I have read that tables make it hard work for the blind.
Even a simple horizontal or vertical navigation made up of images in a table can be a nightmare. the basic structure would be:

table - row - cell - image alt text - cell image alt text - cell image alt text - end row - end table

or for a vertical nav, even worse

table - row - cell - image alt text - end row - row - cell - image alt text - end row - row...

you get the idea.

With CSS you can just apply a display: block style to a link and generate rows, without the rows.
And you can flick between the two by just un-applying the style. This makes overhauls to new styles a damned sight easier too.

It's taken me a while to move to CSS style layout almost exclusively and I've found the hardest part is convincing the client that they don't need to have pixel perfect control over every element on the page. Some things about CSS hack me off, but generally I'm starting to prefer it. And when a client starts getting pernickety about something the screen-reader argument and the threat of possible prosecution from an over active equal rights organisation is enough to sway them away from tables.

I will resort to tables when there is absolutely no alternative.
ast3r3x
Forum Commoner
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:36 pm

Re: revenge of the crappy web designers.

Post by ast3r3x »

Daisy Cutter wrote:<snip>
While I understand many of your concerns, and actually worked through them to get my pages on my website complient, your just a dick.

It's hard and time consuming to get code working well, coded properly, and standards compliant. That alone doesn't mean pages will be displayed properly between all browsers. It's actually better to look in all different browsers and resolutions...something I'm actually impressed they do. You'd think they would just check for WinIE and FireFox or something.

Now, if you want real hard? Make you pages standards compliant while having them look decent in all browsers. For that it takes a mix of tables and <div>.

If you are so concerned, why don't you just create the site?

I'm not trying to be a dick, but it seems he has been extremely polite and nice in spite of you basically telling what he does is wrong. While I agree with many of your points, you were/are not being very cordial about it. Not a good way to win someone over.

Pehaps:

"I'm concerned about this page being accessible to the blind as well as easy for those with text only browsers. I was hoping you'd be able to use tables as little as possible, and include the necessary, but hopelessly annoying to write, ALTs for images so blind page translators will be able to communicate to the user properly."

What is the old saying? You'll catch more bees with honey then vinegar?
Daisy Cutter
Forum Commoner
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:51 am

Post by Daisy Cutter »

we sent him an email like that, ast3r3x, and two weeks later, we got this one, basically talking us down and telling why he's right... but why he never says, because he uses dreamweaver in "designer" mode, and it's so expensive? You know he promised us this page by June.

If you read the first email (much shorter), it is polite, but rather than take some time to fix a problem for his SECOND client ever, he decided to email us justifying his actions.

If it were a personal page, I could understand that it's written for friends, so you can leave out the alts, and the validity, heck even do it with the geocities builder. But this page is supposed to be for a business, and ONE customer lost equals $90. That's about 5th of the cost of the whole webpage. We have had blind customers, and if our website is pushing them away, then we lose money.

Remember the old saying "the customer is always right". I could design that page myself, with alt-text, using DIVs, as I have on my own, but since my parent's wanted a "professional" web designer, I let them go, and know they can even see that this guy is just a crappy businessman if nothing else.
User avatar
hawleyjr
BeerMod
Posts: 2170
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Jax FL & Spokane WA USA

Post by hawleyjr »

Daisy Cutter wrote:We have had blind customers, and if our website is pushing them away, then we lose money.
Did you set this as one of the requirements during the initial consultation?
qads
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 10:02 am
Location: Brisbane

Post by qads »

stop with the name calling, its not nice....

Daisy Cutter, what would you rather have?

a)
- a site which looks great in atleast 95% of browsers
- maybe loose a minor % of cusomters
- doest cost a arm and a leg...(paying by hour are you?)

b)
- a site which looks all screwed up in most of the major browsers
- it costs you 4 years worth of cash
- a site based on DIV and table useage preferences (for all you know, next year everyone might suggest tables are better....its not a rule in the wall that you should use DIV no matter what....atleast not yet)
- loose a major % of customers

You havent told us the nature of your business, if it is for blind people, then indeed he should've done all the things you said, but if it is not, then i dont see a reason for such precautions..

you do make some good points, such as ALT for images, if not for all, 80% of the images should have some text.


just remember, you CANT make everyone happy at the end of the day, it is just not possible

just my £0.02p :roll:
redmonkey
Forum Regular
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:58 pm

Post by redmonkey »

Daisy Cutter,

I would suggest you rewrite the pages using your preferred coding standards and then show your parents the results, explaining how you think it should be done and the benefits you percieve would come from your method. If they see an actual page proving that your method visually renders just as well in all the browsers then they maybe swayed to switch.
qads
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 10:02 am
Location: Brisbane

Post by qads »

redmonkey wrote:Daisy Cutter,

I would suggest you rewrite the pages using your preferred coding standards and then show your parents the results, explaining how you think it should be done and the benefits you percieve would come from your method. If they see an actual page proving that your method visually renders just as well in all the browsers then they maybe swayed to switch.
lol, yes, disccusing this with your parents over the phone would save you few weeks of hospital, cos they would beat you up in all the wonderful colors of the rainbow :P
redmonkey
Forum Regular
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:58 pm

Post by redmonkey »

qads wrote:lol, yes, disccusing this with your parents over the phone would save you few weeks of hospital, cos they would beat you up in all the wonderful colors of the rainbow :P
Perhaps I'm tired and missing something, but why would they beat him/her up?
Daisy Cutter
Forum Commoner
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:51 am

Post by Daisy Cutter »

hawleyjr wrote:
Daisy Cutter wrote:We have had blind customers, and if our website is pushing them away, then we lose money.
Did you set this as one of the requirements during the initial consultation?
There was no consultation. This was done over the phone, we met them in june when the page was supposed to be done. I know that web design isn't really a hard business to be in, there's no set standards.
qads wrote:doest cost a arm and a leg...(paying by hour are you?)
nope... $500 when we get the page.

And I HAVE made the page for them using DIVs, and it looks almost the same (a bit more compact) and it's got a smaller filesize, because I had top, left, and bottom right divs, and then one big image (rather than a split image put together by a table) that I just made a bit smaller (they were using crappy compression)...

Anyways I think we're going to end up telling this guy to take a hike, or send us a page with at least half of what we wanted (especially the ALT and DIVs) by next week, because it's taken them 4 months, countem 4, since april to make a very basic page.
Post Reply